Reply With Quote
What does the map look like by the House of Representatives?
Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the Providers, Red State Are the Parasites
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 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
What does the map look like by the House of Representatives?
LOL... once again you ing 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 . But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?
Last edited by GSH; 02-29-2012 at 09:04 AM.
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?
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.
So Texas is a parasite while California is a provider?
Huh. Learned something new today.
If y'all have "your" "true" numbers, post them
lol Sarah Robinson
lol @ moving the goal posts.
TB with his extremely consistent content-free posts stalking The Great Boutons.
lol boutons getting -slapped.
Hey, just for grins, define blue state as represented in the "study". Cite your source.
post your number or STFU
lol...goal post move
boutons too unfamiliar with his own OP to answer questions about it? figures.
thread needs less blue vs. red pigeonholing and more data
lol..who knew boutons was George Carlin. “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
2004 data? Not sure if srs.thread needs less blue vs. red pigeonholing and more data
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
You just found the point I was hoping would be made. Since the economic crisis, we are all net "parasites".
printing up money is a brilliant strategy that is indefinitely sustainable!
I'm shocked that the higher income areas of the US pay more taxes! Shocked!
It's almost as shocking as how states with higher concentrations of poor and retired people are getting more benefits.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
