Lloyd - you were busting my balls about TX, well here's the complete list. Now tell me what a dumbass I am. Look at this list.
http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-...read-664-bps-1
Printable View
Lloyd - you were busting my balls about TX, well here's the complete list. Now tell me what a dumbass I am. Look at this list.
http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-...read-664-bps-1
There is nothing necessarily informative about a state having a dem or repub for governor, or having certain programs and connecting that to their financial health. It's way more complicated than that.
California, for example, instituted regulations/laws/taxation by proposition some time ago. That is a big reason for their current condition.
Simplistic Evidence= bad.
Objective Evidence=good.
More Objective Evidence=better.
Exhaustive Objective Comprehensive Evidence=best.
When S&L channels (dumbass) John, you just know he has reached the bottom
of the barrel. Running out of ways to hide your true Republican
support huh?
Sarah Palin's true reality: 'Free' Alaska is a welfare state that enjoys generous federal subsidies
MICHAEL DALY
Sunday, November 14th 2010, 4:00 AM
After all, we helped bankroll it.
I don't mean the new reality show.
I mean the state.
Alaska gets $1.84 in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.
We in New York get just 79 cents on the dollar.
Which means we subsidize Alaska even as it enjoys a $2 billion-plus budget surplus.
Even as New York faces a huge deficit that will require ever more painful cuts.
And, on top of a budget surplus, Alaska has a special fund drawn from oil profits that doles out dough to every resident annually.
The check this year is $1,281 for each and every person who has resided in Alaska for a year. Those who die or are born in the midst of a year still get the full check.
The amount is liable to federal taxation, but that same $1.84 back for every dollar comes into play for the state as a whole.
All told, oil-rich Alaska tops the list of states that get more back than what they give.
So, how's that subsidy, welfare-y thing working out for ya, Sarah?
Apparently, pretty well, as she tells it on her new reality show.
"I love Alaska," Palin says in the online promo. "I understand the uniqueness of this land. It's about family and community."
She adds, "I'd rather be out here being free."
In real reality, Palin quit being governor because it would have required her to spend too much time in Alaska rather than in the lower 48, where she can promote herself and her agenda.
As shown in the reality show, Alaska has abundant wildlife and vast open spaces, but precious few voters.
However much or little Palin may like the great outdoors, there is no question that she loves a big crowd.
Grizzly bears don't laugh or cheer when you tell jokes about mama grizzlies, but those Tea Party crowds sure do.
Anyway, the only reason she is doing the reality show in the first place is to get paid and appear before a big viewing audience.
Maybe there will be more reality shows featuring other big names in the Tea Party who call for cuts in government spending even as their home states are subsidized by the rest of us.
There could be Sen. Jim DeMint's South Carolina, which gets $1.35 on the dollar.
There could also be Sen.-elect Rand Paul's Kentucky, which rakes in $1.51.
Compare those states to two that are in financial crisis and suffer an even worse balance of payments than we do in New York.
California receives only 78 cents on the dollar.
And New Jersey gets just 61 cents, though it does have a hit reality show.
The fans of "Jersey Shore" include the younger Daly girl, who expressed some surprise on hearing that Palin is participating in a reality show.
"You don't want Snooki in the White House," my daughter noted.
Just imagine the Situation in the Situation Room.
Only Palin is no Snooki and the Alaska show may actually further what seems to be her ultimate ambition.
In every state, class is almost as much a factor in our politics as race. The show may help convince even more white working people that Palin is one of their own. The subtext is that liberals are elitists, which is at least partly true.
Palin clearly harbors hopes that such passions will carry her into the White House.
If not, she can just go back to Sarah Palin's Alaska and enjoy that subsidy welfare-y thing.
Thank you for pointing out this out to Lloyd. After my post about what a mess CA is, he pointed out that TX was in trouble too. As you may be aware, CA is traditionally a democratic voting state, adn TX is the opposite. I accepted his assertion which was a mistake. TX is way better off than CA, NY, IL, CT, MA or NJ which are all traditionally "blue". I'm glad I found out the truth, but disappointed that he tried to mislead me by mistating the real facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atypical
"thanks for pointing this out to Lloyd"
YOU presented the simplistic evidence.
Hysterical. First you post about blue states being more prone to
deficits and i respond by saying not so fast. So you try to make
it like you were making Atypical's point, but now you are back'
to original thesis. Wow.
You didnt read my last post did you? Of course not.
I can't remember every bit of commentary you write here Lloyd. C'mon man.
At least Atypical had the good sense to call BS on the point. You bit, hence his comment applies to you as well as me.:)
Yes BS on your point about the Blue States. This is your thread isnt it? :D
Read and learn.
Sarah Palin's true reality: 'Free' Alaska is a welfare state that enjoys generous federal subsidies
MICHAEL DALY
Sunday, November 14th 2010, 4:00 AM
After all, we helped bankroll it.
I don't mean the new reality show.
I mean the state.
Alaska gets $1.84 in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.
We in New York get just 79 cents on the dollar.
Which means we subsidize Alaska even as it enjoys a $2 billion-plus budget surplus.
Even as New York faces a huge deficit that will require ever more painful cuts.
And, on top of a budget surplus, Alaska has a special fund drawn from oil profits that doles out dough to every resident annually.
The check this year is $1,281 for each and every person who has resided in Alaska for a year. Those who die or are born in the midst of a year still get the full check.
The amount is liable to federal taxation, but that same $1.84 back for every dollar comes into play for the state as a whole.
All told, oil-rich Alaska tops the list of states that get more back than what they give.
So, how's that subsidy, welfare-y thing working out for ya, Sarah?
Apparently, pretty well, as she tells it on her new reality show.
"I love Alaska," Palin says in the online promo. "I understand the uniqueness of this land. It's about family and community."
She adds, "I'd rather be out here being free."
In real reality, Palin quit being governor because it would have required her to spend too much time in Alaska rather than in the lower 48, where she can promote herself and her agenda.
As shown in the reality show, Alaska has abundant wildlife and vast open spaces, but precious few voters.
However much or little Palin may like the great outdoors, there is no question that she loves a big crowd.
Grizzly bears don't laugh or cheer when you tell jokes about mama grizzlies, but those Tea Party crowds sure do.
Anyway, the only reason she is doing the reality show in the first place is to get paid and appear before a big viewing audience.
Maybe there will be more reality shows featuring other big names in the Tea Party who call for cuts in government spending even as their home states are subsidized by the rest of us.
There could be Sen. Jim DeMint's South Carolina, which gets $1.35 on the dollar.
There could also be Sen.-elect Rand Paul's Kentucky, which rakes in $1.51.
Compare those states to two that are in financial crisis and suffer an even worse balance of payments than we do in New York.
California receives only 78 cents on the dollar.
And New Jersey gets just 61 cents, though it does have a hit reality show.
The fans of "Jersey Shore" include the younger Daly girl, who expressed some surprise on hearing that Palin is participating in a reality show.
"You don't want Snooki in the White House," my daughter noted.
Just imagine the Situation in the Situation Room.
Only Palin is no Snooki and the Alaska show may actually further what seems to be her ultimate ambition.
In every state, class is almost as much a factor in our politics as race. The show may help convince even more white working people that Palin is one of their own. The subtext is that liberals are elitists, which is at least partly true.
Palin clearly harbors hopes that such passions will carry her into the White House.
If not, she can just go back to Sarah Palin's Alaska and enjoy that subsidy welfare-y thing.
Today 05:20 PM
Oy vay - another Palin hating article. Whatever.
On another note, I would be curious to understand the math. For example, Alasaka GETS $1.84 for every tax dollar they pay in federal tax, and CA GETS only 78 cents to the dollar, BUT how many dollars total?
Here. I wish it were easier, but...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html
Alaska gets 3.8% what CA gets. THREE POINT EIGHT PERCENT! CA could sneeze and lose that much money. Comparing the two without deliving into the details is oversimplistic and can lead to dangerous conclusions. You really need to be more thorough. Please refrain from posting such articles.:)
Once again i think you missed the importance of the article. Palin isnt the important issue. Its about federal taxes. But then you were just avoiding
the issue werent you cause your fixated on blue states versus red states.
And of course you dont idenify as a Republican. LOL.
United States Federal Tax Dollars: Federal Tax Payments Per State
The federal taxes paid per capita vary widely by state. New England has some of the largest tax payments per capita while the states with the lowest per-capita payments are scattered elsewhere in the country.
The place with highest federal tax payments per capita is Washington, D.C., with $11,582. The state with the second-highest federal tax payments is Connecticut with $11,522 per capita. The state with the third-highest federal tax payments is New Jersey with $9,902 per capita. The fourth-highest federal tax payments per capita come from Massachusetts with $9,792. The state with fifth-highest federal tax payments per capita is Maryland with $8,812.
The state with the lowest federal tax payments is Mississippi with $4,281 per capita. The state with the second-lowest federal tax payments is Louisiana with $4,565 per capita. The state with the third-lowest federal tax payments per capita is West Virginia with $4,861. The state with the fourth-lowest federal tax payments per capita is Arkansas with $5,030. The state with the fifth-lowest federal tax payments per capita is New Mexico with $5,153.
Federal Tax Allotments Per State
The place with highest federal tax allotments per capita is Washington, D.C., with $65,109. The state with the second-highest federal tax allotments per capita is Alaska with $13,950. The state with the third-highest federal tax allotments per capita is Virginia $16,610. The state with the fourth-highest federal tax allotments per capita is Maryland with $11,956. The state with the fifth-highest federal tax allotments per capita is New Mexico with $10,733.
The state with the lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Nevada with $5,889. The state with the second-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Utah with $5,944. The state with the third-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Wisconsin with $6,113. The state with the fourth-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Oregon with $6,285. The state with the fifth-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Illinois with $6,334.
Federal Tax Dollars Received Per Tax Dollars Paid Per State
New Jersey receives 0.61 for each tax dollar paid. Nevada receives 0.65 per tax dollar paid. Connecticut receives 0.69 for each tax dollar paid New Hampshire receives 0.71 for each tax dollar it pays. Minnesota receives 0.72 per tax dollar paid. Illinois receives 0.75 for each tax dollar it pays. Delaware receives 0.77 per tax dollar paid. California receives 0.78 per tax dollar paid.
New York receives 0.79 per tax dollar paid. Colorado receives 0.81 per tax dollar paid. Massachusetts receives 0.82 for each tax dollar it pays. Wisconsin receives 0.86 per tax dollar paid. Washington receives 0.88 per tax dollar paid. Michigan receives 0.92 per tax dollar paid. Texas receives 0.94 per tax dollar paid. Florida receives 0.97 for each tax dollar it pays. Oregon receives 0.98 per tax dollar paid. Rhode Island receives 1.00 per tax dollar paid. Georgia receives 1.01 per tax dollar paid.
Indiana receives 1.05 for each tax dollar it pays. Ohio receives 1.05 per tax dollar paid. Pennsylvania receives 1.07 per tax dollar paid. Utah receives 1.07 per tax dollar paid. North Carolina receives 1.08 per tax dollar paid. Vermont receives 1.08 for each tax dollar it pays. Iowa receives 1.10 per tax dollar paid. Nebraska receives 1.10 per tax dollar paid. Wyoming receives 1.11 per tax dollar paid. Kansas receives 1.12 for each tax dollar it pays.
Arizona receives 1.19 per tax dollar paid. Idaho receives 1.21 per tax dollar paid. Tennessee receives 1.27 per tax dollar paid. Maryland receives 1.30 for each tax dollar it pays. Missouri receives 1.32 per tax dollar paid. South Carolina receives 1.35 per tax dollar paid. Oklahoma receives 1.36 per tax dollar paid. Arkansas receives 1.41 per tax dollar paid. Maine receives 1.41 per tax dollar paid. Hawaii receives 1.44 per tax dollar paid. Montana receives 1.47 per tax dollar paid.
Kentucky receives 1.51 per tax dollar paid. Virginia receives 1.51 per tax dollar paid. South Dakota receives 1.53 per tax dollar paid. Alabama receives 1.66 per tax dollar paid. North Dakota receives 1.68 per tax dollar paid. West Virginia receives 1.76 per tax dollar paid. Louisiana receives 1.78 per tax dollar paid. Alaska receives 1.84 per tax dollar paid. Mississippi receives 2.02 per tax dollar paid. New Mexico receives 2.03 per tax dollar paid.
Posted by: admin Tags: federal tax dollars, tax payments, united states
related visualeconomic articles
Visual Economics: United States Federal Tax Dollars - VisualEconomics.com http://www.visualeconomics.com/unite...#ixzz15SOpmVmr
http://www.visualeconomics.com/
"Once again i think you missed the importance of the article. Palin isnt the important issue. Its about federal taxes. But then you were just avoiding
the issue werent you cause your fixated on blue states versus red states.
And of course you dont idenify as a Republican. LOL"
Hmmmmm? I posted the same information you posted, but dug down a little deeper. I understand the article perfectly. It was a Palin bash piece (which I don't mind at all) citing that Alaska is heavily subsidized by the federal government. My point was that the subsidy is actually quite small in comparison to CA's subsidy.
I swear you just like to argue.
The title of your thread is BLUE states in debt. Enough said.
And i just like to argue. :D
YOU REALLY dont get it. Federal funds are redistributed from larger
states to smaller states. Arent you upset about this redistribution of
wealth? :)
Time to move on to more important matters.
United States Federal Tax Dollars: Federal Tax Payments Per State
The federal taxes paid per capita vary widely by state. New England has some of the largest tax payments per capita while the states with the lowest per-capita payments are scattered elsewhere in the country.
The place with highest federal tax payments per capita is Washington, D.C., with $11,582. The state with the second-highest federal tax payments is Connecticut with $11,522 per capita. The state with the third-highest federal tax payments is New Jersey with $9,902 per capita. The fourth-highest federal tax payments per capita come from Massachusetts with $9,792. The state with fifth-highest federal tax payments per capita is Maryland with $8,812.
The state with the lowest federal tax payments is Mississippi with $4,281 per capita. The state with the second-lowest federal tax payments is Louisiana with $4,565 per capita. The state with the third-lowest federal tax payments per capita is West Virginia with $4,861. The state with the fourth-lowest federal tax payments per capita is Arkansas with $5,030. The state with the fifth-lowest federal tax payments per capita is New Mexico with $5,153.
Federal Tax Allotments Per State
The place with highest federal tax allotments per capita is Washington, D.C., with $65,109. The state with the second-highest federal tax allotments per capita is Alaska with $13,950. The state with the third-highest federal tax allotments per capita is Virginia $16,610. The state with the fourth-highest federal tax allotments per capita is Maryland with $11,956. The state with the fifth-highest federal tax allotments per capita is New Mexico with $10,733.
The state with the lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Nevada with $5,889. The state with the second-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Utah with $5,944. The state with the third-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Wisconsin with $6,113. The state with the fourth-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Oregon with $6,285. The state with the fifth-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Illinois with $6,334.
Federal Tax Dollars Received Per Tax Dollars Paid Per State
New Jersey receives 0.61 for each tax dollar paid. Nevada receives 0.65 per tax dollar paid. Connecticut receives 0.69 for each tax dollar paid New Hampshire receives 0.71 for each tax dollar it pays. Minnesota receives 0.72 per tax dollar paid. Illinois receives 0.75 for each tax dollar it pays. Delaware receives 0.77 per tax dollar paid. California receives 0.78 per tax dollar paid.
New York receives 0.79 per tax dollar paid. Colorado receives 0.81 per tax dollar paid. Massachusetts receives 0.82 for each tax dollar it pays. Wisconsin receives 0.86 per tax dollar paid. Washington receives 0.88 per tax dollar paid. Michigan receives 0.92 per tax dollar paid. Texas receives 0.94 per tax dollar paid. Florida receives 0.97 for each tax dollar it pays. Oregon receives 0.98 per tax dollar paid. Rhode Island receives 1.00 per tax dollar paid. Georgia receives 1.01 per tax dollar paid.
Indiana receives 1.05 for each tax dollar it pays. Ohio receives 1.05 per tax dollar paid. Pennsylvania receives 1.07 per tax dollar paid. Utah receives 1.07 per tax dollar paid. North Carolina receives 1.08 per tax dollar paid. Vermont receives 1.08 for each tax dollar it pays. Iowa receives 1.10 per tax dollar paid. Nebraska receives 1.10 per tax dollar paid. Wyoming receives 1.11 per tax dollar paid. Kansas receives 1.12 for each tax dollar it pays.
Arizona receives 1.19 per tax dollar paid. Idaho receives 1.21 per tax dollar paid. Tennessee receives 1.27 per tax dollar paid. Maryland receives 1.30 for each tax dollar it pays. Missouri receives 1.32 per tax dollar paid. South Carolina receives 1.35 per tax dollar paid. Oklahoma receives 1.36 per tax dollar paid. Arkansas receives 1.41 per tax dollar paid. Maine receives 1.41 per tax dollar paid. Hawaii receives 1.44 per tax dollar paid. Montana receives 1.47 per tax dollar paid.
Kentucky receives 1.51 per tax dollar paid. Virginia receives 1.51 per tax dollar paid. South Dakota receives 1.53 per tax dollar paid. Alabama receives 1.66 per tax dollar paid. North Dakota receives 1.68 per tax dollar paid. West Virginia receives 1.76 per tax dollar paid. Louisiana receives 1.78 per tax dollar paid. Alaska receives 1.84 per tax dollar paid. Mississippi receives 2.02 per tax dollar paid. New Mexico receives 2.03 per tax dollar paid.
Posted by: admin Tags: federal tax dollars, tax payments, united states
related visualeconomic articles
Visual Economics: United States Federal Tax Dollars - VisualEconomics.com http://www.visualeconomics.com/unite...#ixzz15SOpmVmr
http://www.visualeconomics.com/
"YOU REALLY dont get it. Federal funds are redistributed from larger
states to smaller states. Arent you upset about this redistribution of
wealth?"
LOL good one. Federal Funds are distributed by the federal government to the individual states based on any number of factors. As you would say, "it's complicated". It is erronious to say that funds are redistributed from larger states to smaller states. CA does not write checks to AK, do they?
You really dont read the articles i post do you.
I said the Federal govt takes money from larger states and distributes them to smaller states.
Didnt say anything about state to state check writing. Lol.
This is an article about distribution of federal spending on a number of levels.
Red States, Blue States and the Distribution of Federal Spending
Mar 31st, 2010 by jfrankel |
April 1 is Census Day. Evidently Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann have been encouraging Americans to boycott the census — to refuse to fill out the whole form. This protest follows from their small government ideology.
I am not always sure what they, or Republicans, or Tea Party participants mean by small government. They say they want a government that intervenes less in the economic sphere. Perhaps they don’t like the idea that the census numbers are used, among other things, to determine the allocation of federal spending across states, because they don’t think it is the business of the government to redistribute income. That is “socialism.” Even “Stalinism.”
A virtue of the Tea Party movement is that many of its members are engaging in national politics for the first time. It occurred to me that they might be able to use some help figuring out the lay of the land, and so I thought I would pursue a little research on their behalf. The question is geographical redistribution: which states receive subsidies from the federal government, and which other states are taxed to provide those subsidies. One might be able to sympathize with the feeling of those living in the heartland of the country that they should not have to subsidize the northeastern states through, for example, federal housing programs. True, the cost of housing, food, and other living expenses is much higher in the coastal cities, compared to the South or Midwest; but it isn’t the job of the federal government to smooth out geographical variation in real income. Furthermore the coastal residents could always move if they don’t like their high cost of living. Given the big budget deficit problem that we will have to solve in the near future, knowing which states are receiving more than their fair share of handouts should help us know where to cut spending.
The accompanying chart contains 50 data points, one for each state. The data are from 2005, the most recent year available. One axis ranks states by the ratio of income received by that state from the federal government, per dollar of tax revenue paid to the federal government. Personally, I think the “red state / blue state” distinction is overdone. But to capture the widely felt tension between the heartland and the coastal urban centers, I have put on the other axis the ratio of votes for the Republican candidate versus the Democratic candidate in the most recent presidential election.
It will come as a surprise to some, but not to others, that there is a fairly strong statistical relationship, but that the direction is the opposite from what you would think if you were listening to rhetoric from Republican conservatives: The red states (those that vote Republican) generally receive more subsidies from the federal government than they pay in taxes; in other words they are further to the right in the graph. It is the other way around with the blue states (those that vote Democratic).
One reason is that the red states on average have lower population; thus their two Senators give them higher per capita representation in Washington than the blue states get, which translates into more federal handouts. As an example, the Pentagon has long wanted to shut down some military bases and discontinue some weapons systems that it does not regard as sufficiently useful, but is blocked by Senators or congressmen from the relevant districts; indeed defense contractors famously locate their factories in the districts of powerful congressmen for precisely this reason.
The top ten feeders at the federal trough in 2005 were: New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky and Virginia. (Sarah Palin’s home state of Alaska ranks number one if measured in terms of federal spending per capita. Alabama Senator Shelby evidently gets goodies for his state, ranked 7, by indiscriminately holding up votes on administration appointments.) The top ten milk cows were: New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado.
Perhaps in determining how the federal government redistributes income across states one should view its role more expansively than is captured in the budget numbers. In the western states there are federal water projects that subsidize water for farmers, artificially low grazing fees for ranchers, and leases for hard rock mining and oil drilling on federal lands that have historically charged artificially low prices. Perhaps the biggest federal redistribution program of all is massive agricultural subsidies. The four congressional districts that receive the most in farm subsidies are all represented by “conservative” Republicans, located in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas. (Michele Bachmann’s family farm apparently received $250,000 in such farm payments between 1995 and 2006.)
The most commonly ignored area of geographical redistribution is the federal government’s permanent policy of “universal service” in postal delivery, phone service and other utilities (electricity; perhaps now broadband…). Universal service means subsidizing those who choose to live in remote places like Alaska, where the cost of supplying these services is much higher than in the coastal cities. Perhaps they should move…
If I were cynical, I might suspect that the reason that Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, and some Republicans are not enthusiastic about getting the most accurate numbers possible, from the census and otherwise, is that they don’t want people to know who is getting federal handouts and who is paying. But, more likely, the truth is that they don’t want to know themselves.
Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
Monday, September 27, 2004
The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.
The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
September 27, 2004 in Think Tank Reports | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trac...d8341f932f53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed:
» Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed from Shaghaghi.net
Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 27, 2004 1:09:19 PM
» To the Victor Go the Spoils? from Venturpreneur by Gordon Smith
Taxing and spending. It's what Congress does. And it's no surprise that some states are winners and some are losers. Paul Caron at TaxProf Blog suggests that the pattern of spending says something about presidential elections: The report shows that... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 27, 2004 1:13:45 PM
» Which States Are Feeding Well? from Centerfield
So which states get the most federal money per tax dollar gone south? These results from the Tax Foundation may surprise you. Hat tip to FARK.... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 27, 2004 3:27:39 PM
» Red states take more, give less from X - The place where time stands still
Blue states pay for the red statest to be so ... red. I'm noticing a lot of these "coincidenses" lately. Time to bust out the calculator and see if I can find my own.... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 27, 2004 5:13:00 PM
» Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed from Dummocrats.com
Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 27, 2004 6:30:03 PM
Call your NY representative and senator. Tell them that you hate subsidizing Alaska and others with your tax dollars.
I know what you are going for, and I'm not buying . Government redistributing to Government is not the same as Government making private citizens redistribute. Nice try though.
But thanks for the info on why the states finances differ. It's complicated.
I already cited the Tax Foundation data BTW.
Seems like some are reading this thread lately.
For an update as to how a "red" state (Kansas) is doing with a libertarian religious psychopath in charge (Brownback) take a good long look at this state.
Moderate Republicans were purged by him and because the state is seriously in deficit and losing sufficient money to run the state they are supporting the Democrat running against him.
Economic myths never work. Don't be duped by propaganda.