[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Lock (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/18/2011 3:21:51 PM EDT
|
If someone else wants to repost this, feel free. There's the link. |
|
The main issue is that the Blue states have a higher level of corporate taxes. This skews the numbers in ways that are not a reflection on the residents of either state.
A lot of money earned by corps in red states are tagged blue because corporate headquarters are in CA, NY, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's the point of this? Tea Party is a bunch of hypocrites. If you're standing there handing out someone else's money to me and three other people and I say "stop giving away that guy's money, it doesn't belong to you", how am I being a hypocrite? **Not directed at you specifically** |
|
Not all money going to the state is for welfare.
Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of non-voting losers in states like Idaho and Montana (I would know, I've lived in both). In Montana, there are a ton of methheads, for example. Similar situation in Idaho. In Idaho, I lived in an area that was more blue than most of the state. Maybe not liberal, but libertarian. Many of the people there were very wealthy, and I doubt there were many welfare recipients. To be fair, there is certainly an overlap between voting conservatives and losers/methheads. Most people call them "trailer trash". I doubt they make up all that welfare money, though. |
|
Well, it's a good thing these Red States are putting their money where their mouth is and trying to end Welfare instead of trying to make a lot of rich folks pay for it instead, like the Blue states. Seriously, what's the problem here? Thanks for pointing out that a great deal of the Red States that are worst off are actually trying to not suck Uncle Sugar dry, Dude! |
|
Well, the fact that we build a fuck ton of stuff for the government, have one of the largest government science centers and a large mobilization base count against us in this report's fucked up math.....
But yeah we have a lot of people that the dems have trained to be on the government teat. Personally I would like to see them weaned and given an opportunity to develop some self respect. |
|
Holy shit people. I didn't start this as a troll thread. It's an opossing view and YOU need to know what the other side is talking about so that when you're talking to a liberal and they say "oh yeah, well I read this article about how all of the "red states" get back way more than they pay into the Fed and that makes them all welfare states...", now you have something to counter them with instead of "uhh, I didn't know that". Get your fucking head in the game. Trust me, if I was going to start a fucking troll thread it would have been way, WAY better than this.  |
|
Part of it is population based.
The fed gov spends a fixed amount per state as a baseline. The smaller the state, the more this is going to impact a ratio of expendature to income. then you have to include native populations, military installations and physical size of the state. Then you take in % of fed gov ownership of that land. of course, actually breaking all this down would completely undercut the purpose of the article. |
|
Surprised we didn't make the list. We have dozens of Indian reservations, ports (Coast Guard), the border (BP and DHS), multiple national parks, tons of national forest and national wildlife recreation areas and some refuges, miles of river and coast land (USACE), Hanford, BLM land, multiple large military bases, Interstate freeways and US highways (WSDOT).
Basically the place is crawling with feds. |
|
Quoted: Holy shit people. I didn't start this as a troll thread. It's an opossing view and YOU need to know what the other side is talking about so that when you're talking to a liberal and they say "oh yeah, well I read this article about how all of the "red states" get back way more than they pay into the Fed and that makes them all welfare states...", now you have something to counter them with instead of "uhh, I didn't know that". Get your fucking head in the game. Trust me, if I was going to start a fucking troll thread it would have been way, WAY better than this. |
|
Quoted:
Red States Are Welfare QueensAug. 18, 2011, 5:21 PM http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8 As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill. Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen. Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something. Maybe that's WHY people in red states think that government spends too much. Ever consider that? |
|
This is true.
At the bottom line, most 'red states' take in more $$$ from FedGov than the value of goods & services they create [or extract]. This Fed outlay paid back into the state includes gov't employee salaries and pensions, matching funds, crop/ag subsides, Social Security/SSI payments, Medicaid, etc. California's greater SF Bay Area alone pays for quite a few states given the large value of the goods & services it produces. It also has a younger population. And despite all our stupidity and excess gov't here and illegal aliens, we generate more than enough goods & services to way more than compensate for Fed funds coming back. In fact, CA economy could quite nicely survive some of its self-imposed idiocies if we didn't have to pay out for so much Fed overhead. Well, it's a good thing these Red States are putting their money where their mouth is and trying to end Welfare instead of
trying to make a lot of rich folks pay for it instead, like the Blue states. Welfare itself is not that much of a problem. Hell it probably cost more to administer it than the actual money distributed. Furthermore, one can argue many gov't jobs are 'welfare' too. A crackhead on the street and some third level EPA ATF or TSA, etc. administrator are about the same burden on society.... and welfare doesn't come with a pension plan. Bill Wiese San Jose CA |