Reply With Quote
So is Boutons saying that his party is the party of the 1%?
Yes, yes he is.
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/2011/07/1...edblue-paradox
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...
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.
The blue states, home to the 1%, are clearly not paying their fair share.
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.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.
Occupy Blue States!
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.
I think the 2009 tables posted by greyforest did a fair job of illustrating the issue with the study and it's data.
I don't know if the republicans invented wedge issues, but they've damn near perfected them.
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.
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....
Isn't he supporting Bounton's case here?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.
Darrin, Blake, JohnSmith, Coyote Ugly, all the usual wing-nut bandwagoners out for this mob
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...end-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 , but it's great fodder for the confirmation bias diet.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
