ElMono

I'm just happy to know that we can now debate based only on feelings without any hard data to back it up. Finding links is kind of annoying so it will be nice to not have to back up my arguments anymore. As an example, I heard that Bob is the largest beneficiary to downstate corruption. I can't tell you where I heard it or provide any proof, but we all agree Illinois is full of corruption. If Bob tries to deny it, we all know he's just denying the corruption that clearly exists in IL. 🤣

I don't deny that Illinois has corruption so we can dispense with that strawman right now. What facts have you provided to show that political corruption in Illinois has skewed this report? I know you feel it in your heart, but surely you've got some form of evidence you can provide to back up your opinion.

The problem is I'm arguing a point based on a published report and you're arguing based on your personal feelings. You just know in your heart that the report is wrong but have nothing to back that that up but feelings.

What percentage of that corrupt money was spent in Chicago, the collar counties and downstate? A rough number will be fine. Since you've discounted the report as being flatly wrong you should have your own data to back up your position.

How does Illinois corruption invalidate the report? Do you have some evidence that suggests the report is wrong or do you just not like the conclusion?

You're right.

As stated above, it doesn't sound like downstate wants the collar counties anymore than they want Cook. But why would you think that downstate would have more rights to the collar counties than Cook in a hypothetical split? The economic success of the collar counties comes from their proximity to Chicago. Why would they want to give that up and throw their lot in with the less economically successful downstate area? If they decided to break off with the downstate counties, they would continue to have to pay a large portion of their taxes to downstate. If they stayed with Chicago, they could have a much lower tax burden since Chicago funds itself 98% of the way. What would be in it for the collar counties to join up with the downstate counties in a split where they will have to carry the financial water for the new state?

So my last reply was snark and really wasn't helpful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Read up on that and you'll understand why your brain has to reject the information in the report.

That's a lot of words to say that you don't have a single source to counter the report.

Okay, but then downstate would have to raise their taxes to pay for the budget shortfall due to the loss of revenue from Chicago and the suburbs. I guess downstate could always cut farm subsidies to offset the revenue loss, but I doubt that would be a popular move.

Found another "Source: trust me." If you think the article is incorrect, prove it.

Source: "Trust me" That's the whole point though. Downstate IL isn't funding Chicago in any way. Money moves FROM Chicago downstate, not the other way around.

It would also detach Illinois from all that Chicago revenue putting the new state further into financial ruin.

You just shattered the worldview of so many that want to kick Chicago out of IL.

This is a sad situation, but it really shows how many people here are actual conservatives and how many are just authoritarians.