Red State Parasites, Blue State Producers

[boutons_deux]

Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the Providers, Red State Are the Parasites

http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_1330391586_givetakesmallfinal.png

It's now well-understood that blue states generally export money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.

the people who are getting our money are so damned ungrateful -- not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on stuff we don't approve of. We didn't ship them our hard-earned tax dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies, and so on. And we sure as hell didn't expect to be rewarded for our productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked insanity about how we’re just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who can’t wait to hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/154338

[Wild Cobra]

What does the map look like by the House of Representatives?

[GSH]

LOL... once again you fucking loons choose to present the most distorted data you can concoct. I know you don't care, because you already said, explicitly, that truth is unimportant to your arguments because you have "right" on your side. (Sounds strangely like a religious zealot to me.)

I could list about 20 distortions in this map (cleverly contrived by the NY Times). But I'll just give one - because it shows pretty clearly the way the data was screwed with:

Look at the number for Washington D.C. Strangely, it shows that D.C. gets back 30 cents for every dollar spent in taxes. Really? You don't have to be a tax expert to realize that something is wrong with that. The fact is, D.C. receives almost $7.00 in federal funds per dollar spent in taxes. And when you think about it, how could it be any other way?

So how did they come up with the 30 cent figure? The same way they came up with the rest of the map. They left out things that were inconvenient.

Remember, people like Boutons don't have any regard or need for facts. He/she already stated that in a recent post. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, so long as it is a "representation" of the truth. And who decides that? Why other zealot lunatics. They are the sole keepers of "truth", so it's okay if they make things up.

I've seen these exact kinds of maps before - they all show something different. Why? Because the "adjustments" used vary from one moonbat group to the next. For instance, many of them adjust the federal aid number for cost of living in that state. Why? Because they claim that a dollar of federal aid is worth less in California than in Utah. So they "adjust" the numbers, but never bother to mention it in the article. (This one is probably cost of living adjusted, too, looking at it.) Why not just use the raw data? Because it wouldn't give the picture they need to make their wingnut case.

One final thought. Consider that certain states have MUCH higher concentration of large corporations than others. The fact that they soak corporations for income taxes gives those states a natural leg up in graphs like this one. Some states have MUCH lower populations, which accentuates the impact of all federal spending. And some states have MUCH larger populations of old people - but Social Security isn't paid for by our federal income tax, is it? Why do they include the money RETURNED to us by the government as government spending? Well... they do it because it paints the picture they want.

The map is an utter load of shit. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?

[GSH]

Even if the numbers were totally correct (they aren't) they don't all mean what Boutons claims. Here's one more short piece that explains one of the reasons you can't just interpret them that way:

Consider that the Beehive State is a desert state with its share of high-tech firms, sagebrush, and fewer than 3 million residents. So is New Mexico. Yet Utah ranks last in the ranking of federal largess, while New Mexico is perennially near the top.

In a news article about its thin slice of federal pie, the Deseret Morning News in Salt Lake City attributes the difference partly to Utah’s relatively young population, so there are fewer Social Security checks and Medicare payments than most states have.

Also, the economy there hasn’t been hit as hard by recession, so a rise in jobless benefits nationwide last year didn’t show up as much of a trend in places like Provo. New Mexico, by contrast, gets an outsize share of procurement contracts and federal salaries – many tied to Energy Department labs in the state.

The truth is, every place you find those federally-funded jobs, you find a big concentration of Dem voters. Often, the reason there is a lot of federal jobs in a Republican controlled state is so that they can import, and pay for, Dem Voters. Oh, and by the way, THAT federal spending isn't for things like schools, or healthcare... is it? So why do articles like this one always talk only about that kind of "aid" that Republican states receive? Because that isn't the stuff that distorts the spending balance.

Once again - why let truth get in the way of a good story?

[coyotes_geek]

Once again - why let truth get in the way of a good story?

Clearly not a concern for boutons...

[GSH]

Clearly not a concern for boutons...

He is really a hate-filled, rabid little moonbat, isn't he? Makes you wonder what went wrong in his childhood.

[Blake]

So Texas is a parasite while California is a provider?

Huh. Learned something new today.

[boutons_deux]

If y'all have "your" "true" numbers, post them

[TeyshaBlue]

lol Sarah Robinson

[TeyshaBlue]

If y'all have "your" "true" numbers, post them

lol @ moving the goal posts.

[boutons_deux]

TB with his extremely consistent content-free posts stalking The Great Boutons.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol boutons getting bitch-slapped.

Hey, just for grins, define blue state as represented in the "study". Cite your source.

[boutons_deux]

post your number or STFU

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...goal post move

[Winehole23]

boutons too unfamiliar with his own OP to answer questions about it? figures.

[greyforest]

thread needs less blue vs. red pigeonholing and more data

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

lol..who knew boutons was George Carlin. “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.” :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

thread needs less blue vs. red pigeonholing and more data

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

2004 data? Not sure if srs.

[greyforest]

2004 data? Not sure if srs.

its hard to find more recent than 2004/2005 for this data (you're welcome to find it yourself!)
but here's a newer one

http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/0411/Images/a2t2.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

You just found the point I was hoping would be made. Since the economic crisis, we are all net "parasites".

[greyforest]

printing up money is a brilliant strategy that is indefinitely sustainable!

[DarrinS]

I'm shocked that the higher income areas of the US pay more taxes! Shocked!

[coyotes_geek]

It's almost as shocking as how states with higher concentrations of poor and retired people are getting more benefits.

[boutons_deux]

printing up money is a brilliant strategy that is indefinitely sustainable!

That's a really bad idea (straw man) of yours.

govt counter-cyclical spending (eg Barry stimulus) lessens the length and depth of, eg, Banskters' Great Depression. Millions of jobs were saved and/or created even with the stimulus too small by many $100Bs.

Austerity at all govt levels has been shown repeatedly to make economic crises much worse.

[boutons_deux]

The point is that the red-states, aka The Revered, Sacred Heartland, are parasites on the coastal, wealth-creating, producing blue states.

Poor Repugs poll as wanting govt to do more to help them (but they still vote in Repugs who push hard to do less for them).

It's not just Repug vs Dem, but Haves vs HaveNots, as it is eternally.

[TeyshaBlue]

Your point has already been demonstrated as being both devoid of actual critical thought and intellectually dishonest.
Your second point, stripping away your hyperbolic vitrol, is more interesting and actually holds a thought worth discussing. The poor will often poll as described.

Reason has a pretty good article on this.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox

[johnsmith]

So is Boutons saying that his party is the party of the 1%?

Yes, yes he is.

[coyotes_geek]

So is Boutons saying that his party is the party of the 1%?

Yes, yes he is.

boutons does seem to be taking offense to the poor and elderly mooching off his 1%/blue state buddies...

[boutons_deux]

no, it's hilarious, ridiculous that the red-state bubbas, beneficiaries of socialistic blue state wealth redistribution "trickle across", keep voting against the Dems who want to help, and for the Repugs who sacrifice the bubbas to protect and enrich their 1% benefactors.

[coyotes_geek]

The blue states, home to the 1%, are clearly not paying their fair share.

[Th'Pusher]

Your point has already been demonstrated as being both devoid of actual critical thought and intellectually dishonest.
Your second point, stripping away your hyperbolic vitrol, is more interesting and actually holds a thought worth discussing. The poor will often poll as described.

Reason has a pretty good article on this.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox

Good article. I think this point is key:


In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn’t any. The Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers. The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem coherent and connected.

This goes to show how effective the republicans have been in introducing wedge issues to get people to vote against their own financial interests. The old meme, people vote their pocketbooks is clearly not accurate.

[TeyshaBlue]

The blue states, home to the 1%, are clearly not paying their fair share.

Occupy Blue States!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To be fair to boutons, --and believe me I do not normally do this-- GSH's original post included a lot of assertions and was short on proof. He made the statement that the numbers were cooked but then did nothing to substantiate it. He claimed that the numbers were cherry picked and then did nothing to prove it.

Then everyone jumped on boutons and called it a day. We can do better than that.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think the 2009 tables posted by greyforest did a fair job of illustrating the issue with the study and it's data.

[TeyshaBlue]

Good article. I think this point is key:



This goes to show how effective the republicans have been in introducing wedge issues to get people to vote against their own financial interests. The old meme, people vote their pocketbooks is clearly not accurate.

I don't know if the republicans invented wedge issues, but they've damn near perfected them.

[coyotes_geek]

To be fair to boutons, --and believe me I do not normally do this-- GSH's original post included a lot of assertions and was short on proof. He made the statement that the numbers were cooked but then did nothing to substantiate it. He claimed that the numbers were cherry picked and then did nothing to prove it.

Then everyone jumped on boutons and called it a day. We can do better than that.

The numbers aren't cooked, the overly-simplified conclusion boutons wanted everyone to draw from the numbers is the problem. There's 1,000 different factors that determine how much money a state's population ends up paying in taxes and 1,000 more that determine how much that state receives in federal expenditures. To completely ignore the differences in demographics between the different states and attempt to attribute everything to the partisan makeup of that state's senate delegation is intellectually dishonest and perfectly deserving of the ridicule received.

A garbage man in New Mexico is making less money and paying less taxes than a garbage man in New York. There are a bunch of people who spend their working lives paying taxes in New England and then spend their retirement collecting benefits in a different state with a warmer climate. A greater military presence is required in Texas than in Colorado. Alabama has a higher percentage of poor people than Washington. Connecticut has more CEO's and investment bankers per capita than Montana. North Dakota has a different unemployment rate than Nevada. Etc, etc, etc.

[Nbadan]

To be fair to boutons, --and believe me I do not normally do this-- GSH's original post included a lot of assertions and was short on proof. He made the statement that the numbers were cooked but then did nothing to substantiate it. He claimed that the numbers were cherry picked and then did nothing to prove it.

Then everyone jumped on boutons and called it a day. We can do better than that.

Hard to impossible stop a forum wing-nut lynch mob....GSH's post is not only short on facts, the assertion that $1 should not be adjusted by state-to-state is bogus, a dollar in TX will go further than a $1 in California, everyone knows that ....he had a chance to provide data to back up his assertion that the methodology that they picked to adjust the value was invalid and he blew it....

[Nbadan]

Consider that certain states have MUCH higher concentration of large corporations than others. The fact that they soak corporations for income taxes gives those states a natural leg up in graphs like this one.

Isn't he supporting Bounton's case here?

[Nbadan]

Darrin, Blake, JohnSmith, Coyote Ugly, all the usual wing-nut bandwagoners out for this mob

[TeyshaBlue]

They NYT recently released a similar study. It was split out by county that shows the percentage of income in by a particular country in safety net payments. It showed that cities get around 13-15% while rurals get 30-50%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html

What the TPM map ignores is the granularity of data because they are too busy trying to make an ideological point in the macro while ignoring the micro.

States aren't bodily liberal or conservative. The unit of ideological separation is much more granular. The TPM map completely ignores this.

Study the NYT map...even within red or blue states, the pattern is clear. The data trends are geological not ideological. Generally, the more rural areas of blue states score worse than the urban areas...same for the red states.

What a poor job of making an actually honest point. But that wasn't TPM's intent nor boutons'.

As for the adjusted dollar arguement, dan, TPM doesn't reveal their data or analysis, which is a bit of a problem. But SS and other safety net benefits are not adjusted by region. The fact that a dollar goes farther in some areas than others is irrelevant to a per capita cost/benefit analysis. Adjusting the input value (taxes), regardless of the unnamed methodology used, can skew the data immediately towards the higher vector (blue states). It's hard to prove or disprove this as, again, TPM reveals no data or methodology.

It's dodgy as hell, but it's great fodder for the confirmation bias diet.