http://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-which-states-are-the-greeces-of-america-2012-6 This article makes the conservatives look like idiots.
Map Shows Which States Are The 'Greeces' Of America
By bgamall4 Follow Tue, 26 Jun 2012, 11:55am 2,832 views 20 comments
In Reno NV 89502
Watch (2) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike Viewing Comments 1-20 of 20 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member bgamall4 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (1)
1 threads
284 comments
here comes bgamall4 with yet another lie.
Quick rehash of previous episodes: bgamall4 claimed that jews who fled nazis are anti-semites, and doctors who treat poor black people for free are racists.
Here bgamall4 does it again. Greece's problem is public debt versus GDP, so here he claims that states that receive more dollars from Feds are like Greece.
I dunno, it's like saying that because orange is color, and elephant is an animal, hence orange is elephant.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
600 comments
What do you have to add to the conversation? You don't really argue it do you.
Follow
Befriend (1)
18 threads
29 comments
San Francisco, CA
bgamall4,
I am not a conservative, but I also don't understand your conclusion. How does the article make conservatives look like idiots?
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
47 comments
This analysis is often used in an attempt to demonstrate that so called "red" states are effectivly being subsidized by "blue" states. That may be true. Indeed, I think it probably is true. But no well designed study has every demonstrated that to be the case. Every study (that I have seen) that purports to do so suffers from numerous methodological flaws. I do not have the time or interest in reading through all the footnotes for this particular study but similar studies almost invariably suffer from the following design issues:
1. The problem of how to account for monies being paid into the system while living in one state, and paid back while living in another. For example, suppose a person spends all of his working life in NY, then retires at the age of 65 to Florida. While in NY, he works and pays taxes into the system. Once in Florida he stops paying federal income taxes and starts receiving social security and medicare. On the surface the numbers reflect a net-taker in Florida, but is that really a fair way to account for what is happening here? He is simply receiving money back in Florida that he paid into the system while in NY. Why should FL be painted as a sponge in this case? Given that certain states have a larger share of newly-resident retired persons, the failure to account for this skews the results.
2. One of the largest items of federal spending is on the military. How should that be accounted for as between the different states for this type of inquiry. Equally, with each charged 1/50th of the cost? By population? Coastal areas are far more difficult to defend than inland areas - - should this be reflected in the accounting?
3. How to account for federal spending outside of the United States. Suppose the US gives billions of dollars to Israel, Egypt, etc. Suppose also that doing so is supported by the people in states 1-25, and not by those in states 26-50. Should that spending be allocated to states 1-25 for the purposes of this analysis? If the spending is being commanded by the residents of states 1-25 (against the will of states 26-50) is it not fair for this to be reflected as an expenditure by states 1-25.
4. How to account for items of federal spending that are not wanted by the people of state X, but are forced upon it by the federally elected representatives of other states. If the federal government is spending money in state X on a certain entitlement program that is mandated by federal law, but the federally elected representatives of state X voted against that program, but it passed anyway because the federally-elected representatives of other states voted in favor of that program, is it fair to charge those costs to state X for this analysis? Is it more fair to say that this spending is at the will of the people of states A-C, so the accounting should reflect expenditures by the people of those states?
Follow
Befriend (3)
28 threads
747 comments
Tarzana, CA
You know what? He had the guts to 'put it out there', for all to see whether they agree or disagree.
For me, I literally Thank God every day I am alive to see this. The oligarchs, the banks, the politicians, there was no discrimination of any kind (except for sparing themselves) in this current environment, is there? (Losing houses, foreclosures, jobs, etc.)
Follow
Befriend (4)
334 threads
922 comments
Conservatives are idiots without help from anything.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
I'm not suprised about Alaska. Doesn't the federal government pay people to live there? Plus there are quite a few military bases with out many people living there "permanently." Also not suprised about dirt-poor states like WV, MS, LA, and AL.
What's going on in NM? Maybe it's expensive to keep the aliens under wraps?
Follow
Befriend (28)
171 threads
4,221 comments
Premium
Fuck these piece of shit parasites.
The victimized states should join the commonwealth and let the rest of the N American descend into the Somalian chaos they so richly deserve.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Ruki says
WTF? The net transfer is a measurement of how much blue states pay in Federal taxes minus how much Federal money they get back, or equivalently, how much red states pay in Federal taxes minus how much they get back.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,498 comments
Ruki says
You simply don't know the difference between withheld and paid. You apparently missed the part where they explained how the number on the budget called revenue is calculated. The number used is the final amount paid after all the deductions, not simply the amount withheld. Denial isn't just a river in egypt.
Follow
Befriend (4)
28 threads
776 comments
It isn't exactly red vs blue.
here's some data crunched by tax foundation granted you have to keep in mind a few things
1) Cost of living differs dramatically in some states and within those states
and
2) State taxes differ dramatically as well. It is hard to argue that say Nevada and Vermont have equal taxation. State taxes are often deductible against federal taxes so without that the numbers might be off again.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005
Is new mexico a "red" state? I dunno
The Gulf coast and Appalachia regions seem to be receiving the most. I wouldn't call Maine a red state and they receive 40% more than what they pay.
DC naturally gets much more, Alaska and Hawaii aren't surprising given the remoteness and the amount of involvement in the federal government (either BLM or the military)
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Obviously any state with a high ratio of roads and/or military bases to population will see more federal dollars coming in than going out.
That shouldn't be shocking.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
I'm amazed at the difference between NM and NV. Both are vast wastelands, and yet NM is a "deadbeat" while NV is getting "soaked."
Do the feds tax casinos? Is it border patrol? Los Alamos? Aliens in Area 51 paying taxes, with the aliens in Roswell living off government cheese?
What explains the big difference?
Follow
Befriend (13)
103 threads
3,768 comments
This doesn't prove any points. You can't compare a state with millions of people to a state that has less than a million. That's not apples to apples.
Follow
Befriend
34 threads
2,116 comments
I also sort of resent the attitude that the "blue" states subsidize the "red". But stepping back for just a minute, let me fill you folks who don't seem to know much about "red" states. Believe it or not you'll more than likely find that they are in many ways similar in political character to whatever "blue" state you might reside in. I know because I grew up in the south and now live in Cali. Truth be known most of the major cities in southern states- Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta, and so on- tend to be more liberal leaning and so on. The difference between these and other more populous states is that "blue" states tend to have more metro areas and thus they are more "liberal" while a lot of the Southern states have mostly large rural stretches- which tend to be more conservative and thus even if the major cities in those states might vote democratic they are grossly outnumbered by the largely Republican voting rural areas. This isn't unique. I have friends who live in rural parts of Cali who would feel right at home in rural NC,TN, AL.
But getting back to the gyst of this conversation: Simply put and as states by others, you can't compare a state that might have a few million people for the entire state versus a state with cities numbering in the 10's of millions each.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
That's true. There really are no Red States and Blue States. There are just Red Counties (rural), Purple Counties (suburban) and Blue Counties (urban). There really are "three Americas" (not two like John Kerry said): Rural Poor, Suburban Middle & Upper Class, and Urban Poor (with a few Wealthy Urban Hipsters thrown in).
It's just that the Blue States have more people living in cities than in rural areas like edvard said.
Follow
Befriend (1)
250 threads
4,758 comments
Is that a map of states most likely to take it in the can?
Follow
Befriend (14)
760 threads
2,591 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
taketheplunge says
Sorry, I have been moving. Here is the deal, conservatives are always defending their way of life against the likes of California and the corruption there, yet get bills paid because of California. Conservatives can be conservative, because they get bills paid by others. It is a game, a scam that the conservatives play.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,498 comments
Ruki says
Alaska. New Hampshire, Tennessee. Florida, South Dakota, Washington. Nevada, Texas, Wyoming have no income tax.
NH,WA: firmly blue.
TN,FL: swing
SD,AK,NV,WY: don't have enough population to matter.
Texas: The only state that this makes any difference at all. Wow, one whole state out of 50.
Repeating something does not make it true. I don't understand your dubious "logic", if the blue state deductions went away then the taxes paid would be MORE in the blue states so the subsidy would be even bigger. If the tax rate dropped then it would drop across the board so again it wouldn't matter. Blue states are paying more in than they get back in spite of deductions, not because of deductions. Deductions lower the tax paid. You are again confusing paid and withheld.
So once again I ask, show us how much money this involves out of the entire federal budget. Still waiting, still waiting, still waiting.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
47 comments
The data does not establish that conservatives get their bills paid by others. The data is often misrepresented as indicating that so called blue states pay more in taxes than they get back from the federal government and that the opposite is true for so called red states. From this, people conclude that liberals are somehow subsidizing
conservatives. That conclusion does not follow from the data presented.
>
It is important to remember that "states" do not pay any taxes to the federal government. Individuals and business entities pay taxes, states do not. It is therefore not accurate to state that California pays more in taxes than it gets back. What is true, and what the data does support, is that (generally speaking) taxpayers in blue states cumulatively pay more in taxes to the feds than that state receives back from the federal government, and that the reverse is true in red states. Does that mean liberals subsidize conservatives. No, it does not.
>
> We know that, in general, high income people pay far more in taxes than low income people do. We also know that high income people pay more into the federal government than they take out in the form of benefits.
Thus, it is high income people that do the subsidizing, wherever they might live, be they liberal or conservative.
>
> What the data does not tell us is whether high income people in blue states (the ones paying more into the system than they take out) are mostly liberals or conservatives. If, as the case may be, a certain state is "blue" (because most of its population votes liberal), but has an overpayment to the feds as a result of high income people in that state (who may themselves be conservatives) paying far more in
taxes, then it would appear that conservatives are responsible for that blue state's overpayment, even if liberals constitute a political majority. Of course, the data does not answer the question either way. It is clear, however, that this limited data does not support the conclusion that conservatives are subsidized by liberals.