Reply With Quote
I have a feeling this is gonna get ignored, and it's gonna turn into a semantics argument about what my argument was.
read what you're typing. My argument was never "Every blue state pays in more than it takes!" that's a strawman argument you're making up. My argument was urban states (like the ones I listed, all of which do actually pay more than they take) aren't getting subsidized. No one brought up blue states before you did. The only blue state/red state mention from me was the Texas part I edited in, which had nothing to do with blue states.
I have a feeling this is gonna get ignored, and it's gonna turn into a semantics argument about what my argument was.
This is so hilariously wrong I can't stop laughing.
DUNCANownsKOBE wins this argument.
I don't know about that. UTA has a world-class agricultural subsidy accounting program.
You didn't mention red or blue states. You said southern states. According to those stats, most of the states that get more than they pay are not southern states.
Make sure you mention that to m>s
Most of the states in the country aren't Southern States. You can argue semantics all you want in spite of how obvious what I was saying was (that Southern States receive the biggest government subsidies), which they do for the most part. The fact there are a few states that might receive more than the Alabamas and Mississippis of the country does very little to discredit what I said.
Look at where the Southern States are on this list. Almost all of them are near the top of the list. As much as you want it to be, my argument wasn't an absolute blanket statement . It's meaning was pretty obvious, that as whole, Southern States receive more in federal subsidies than the rest of the country, which you know is true, thus your dancing around it with semantics.
Also important to note that those receiving the subsidies are by and large Democratic voters (if they vote at all). Southern farmers are historically Democrats. Minorities vote democratic as well. Military spending, imo, is not a subsidy.
So is this about Democrat vs. Republican or not?
No, not more. More compared to their income taxes paid out. That is not the same as getting more. In 2006, Iowa, Illinois and Texas received the greatest amount of farm subsidies, yet Texas and Illinois are in the clear on differential.
It's a bit of cherry picking stats to say that such and such paid in more and got less, because the state may have 8x the population and still get the lions share of subsidies in raw numbers.
If it's not, it has to be about geography and I don't know how geography figures into anything. How can the states themselves (the land) have anything to do with it?
Also, aren't the bank buyouts and automaker rescues considered taxpayer subsidies?
Regardless, my original point was that all states receive subsidies, which they do.
So they received more of a net subsidy than other states. The fact they paid a lower amount of income taxes is an indictment of their productivity.
Right, because they paid enough in income taxes.
What would be cherry picking is looking at gross subsidies without factoring in taxes paid. The stat is factoring in all subsidies like welfare, medicaid, etc.
Which had nothing to do with what I originally said. My original point was that the states ing about the federal government the most (Southern States) are the states that come the furthest from covering the subsidies they receive with the taxes they pay, so they're ing about the federal government they depend on much more than other states.
I don't dispute that ALL states do receive subsidies one way or another.
No it's not, since productivity isn't taxable. It's an indictment of their lower wages.
Some did, some did not. Those who paid in likely did not get subsidies. Again, there's no "net" when it comes to subsidies, other than the misleading stat of comparative nets. Individuals pay in (as do corporations) and individuals receive subsidies (as do corporations). States do neither unless you consider education assistance to be a subsidy.Right, because they paid enough in income taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ncentives.htmlWhat would be cherry picking is looking at gross subsidies without factoring in taxes paid. The stat is factoring in all subsidies like welfare, medicaid, etc.
This is an interesting interactive website. You can see which states get which subsidies, and most of the subsidies are not farm or welfare related, but corporate tax breaks and property tax abatement.
States don't , people do. I don't know why you're drawing geographical borders on ing. Are they Dems or Republicans? It always goes back to a political stance.
Regardless, the government doesn't do but redistribute our money. ing at them isn't biting the hand that feeds you, as you seem to imply.
Let's just make up and posture like it's true.
If you mean historically as in 1895 then you have a point. Maybe even 1965 but southern farmers today are not voting democrat unless they have some pigmentation.
The largest 'subsidy' is medicare and we all know who gets that and how they vote. Acting like the money paid out to states is only food stamps, AFDC and WIC is fun I guess.
As for military spending not being subsidies then you are being at best naive. Go to northern virginia, places like SA or anywhere else there is a large military or military contractor presence and tell me that those communities are not 'subsidized' by military spending.
and the hits keep on coming.
There's a difference between where the military spends its money for its goods and giving money away to make up for a loss of revenue. How do you put a number to the amount that the military boosts the local economy? You cannot just use how much they spend to run the base. That's defense spending. It's no different than saying a hospital subsidizes a community because the community thrives by supporting it, or that Dell subsidizes Round Rock because Round Rock would suffer if Dell left. There's a difference between a symbiotic relationship and a subsidy.
Let's just make up and posture like it's true.
If you mean historically as in 1895 then you have a point. Maybe even 1965 but southern farmers today are not voting democrat unless they have some pigmentation.
The largest 'subsidy' is medicare and we all know who gets that and how they vote. Acting like the money paid out to states is only food stamps, AFDC and WIC is fun I guess.
As for military spending not being subsidies then you are being at best naive. Go to northern virginia, places like SA or anywhere else there is a large military or military contractor presence and tell me that those communities are not 'subsidized' by military spending.
In terms of "subsidizing". It's not biting the hand that feeds you to at the federal government since they aren't financing anything.
and the hits keep on coming.
What's hard to understand about that or do you just prefer to operate with a stick up your ass?
When you're a bible thumper in Mississippi who doesn't have two nickels to rub together and needs food stamps to survive, yeah, it completely is.
I don't know how it pans out for all 50 states, but part of the disparity is because of the various costs of living and wages. New Jersey, for example, getting the least revenue back, also is in the ranking at, or near the top of per capita income. This does two things. On average, the citizens are in higher marginal tax brackets for federal taxes, and less qualify for government assistance. I'll bet that holds true for a pretty large number of states receiving less than they pay out, and the opposite for states that take in more than they send to DC.
No, it's not. The federal government does not give out money. They only redistribute it. You've made that point above and are now ignoring it for the sake of your argument. I hate the freeloading gots as much as anyone, but I also detest the notion that the feds give out money as if they are somehow a profitable en y.
I'm pretty sure that's well understood and at the center of DoK's point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions