Subject: Re: Why Are Red States Notorious Socialist Bloodsuckers? Why Are They Hypocrites?
"Mr. Unagi"<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> GunHuggers Are Despicable Socialist Parasites
> Blue State, Red Face: Guess Who Benefits More From Your Taxes?
> Picking up on yesterday's theme, the fiscal cliff, let's look
> at the wider context to the argument between left and right
> over taxes and spending cuts.
> Michael Moran Michael Moran
> Michael Moran is an author and geopolitical analyst.
> There are serious economists who study the difference between
> what our states pay in taxes and how much they get in return
> from the U.S. government. These people generally don't draw
> political, let along moral, judgments from these numbers.
> I'm under no such constraint. The numbers, for decades now,
> have been quite clear: With some exceptions, what we regard as
> red states are sent a whole lot more of your hard-earned tax
> dollars than the traditional blue states. In effect,
> supposedly indolent, "tax and spend" liberals actually
> subsidize the individualistic, pure, and hard-working
> lifestyle of our conservative countrymen.
> Don't believe me? Well, there's plenty of room for quibbling
> about what constitutes a tax payment vs. a federal benefit.
> Let's hash that out below in the comments section. But for
> simplicity's sake (and to account for the fact that it's hard
> to label some states as purely red or blue, I've taken the
> most recent Electoral College Map from RealClearPolitics-which
> shows how these states would likely vote if the presidential
> election were today-and cross-referenced it with numbers from
> one of those places peopled by serious economists: the
> nonpartisan Tax Foundation.*
> The results will stun many people, though not me: I've been
> telling my Tea Party relatives this for years. Here's a list
> of the top 10 states that got the most back in terms of
> federal benefits, followed by the bottom 10. I've added the
> reasons why, when they're obvious, in the space to the right.
> To save space below, "pension benefits" include both Medicare
> and Social Security; "anti-poverty aid" includes Head Start,
> Low Income Home Energy Assistance, Food Stamp and nutrition
> programs for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and several
> school-lunch-style benefits.
> Top Ten (Source: Tax Foundation):
> 1. New Mexico Indian reservations, military
> bases, federal research labs, farm subsidies, retirement
> 2. Mississippi Farm subsidies, military
> spending, nutrition and anti-poverty aid, retirement programs.
> 3. Alaska Per capita No 1 recipient
> of federal benefits; infrastructure projects, DOT and pork
> 4. Louisiana Disaster relief, farm
> subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, military spending.
> 5. W. Virginia Farm subsidies, anti-
> poverty and nutrition aid.
> 6. N. Dakota Farm subsidies, energy
> subsidies, retirement and anti-poverty programs, Indian
> 7. Alabama Retirement programs, anti-
> poverty and nutrition aid, federal space/military spending,
> farm subsidies.
> 8. S. Dakota Retirement programs,
> nutrition aid, farm subsidies, military spending, Indian
> 9. Virginia Civil service pensions,
> military spending, veterans benefits, retirement, anti-poverty
> 10. Kentucky Retirement programs,
> nutritional and anti-poverty aid, farm subsidies.
> Now consider the bottom 10, i.e., the ones that give more to
> the federal government in taxes than they get in return. From
> 1 to 10, they are:
> New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota,
> Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, Colorado.
> Anything strange about that list? Yes, they are all blue
> states (or the deepest of purple).
> Adding to this fallacy are the assumptions surrounding Mitt
> Romney's now infamous comments about the indolent "47 percent"
> of Americans who regard themselves as victims and therefore
> pay no taxes. As the American Conservative magazine (no less)
> pointed out recently, nine of those 10 states are in the red-
> as-ruby Old Confederacy.*
> Put another way, again by the American Conservative, "On the
> other hand, eight of the ten states with the highest non-
> payment rates are solidly Republican. The exceptions are New
> Mexico and Florida."
> Is your mouth agape?
> Now, one more cross-reference: these facts compared with the
> know-nothing rhetoric of the Tea Party. There are only two
> ways to parse that result: one is ignorance-which we should be
> willing to forgive in anyone as long as they revise their
> views when faced with reality.
All of that and all you said was you are a homo....lol
> And the second? Selfish hypocrisy. How else can you explain
> the fact that the denizens of the most welfare dependent
> states in the country-dare we say, those who enjoy the most
> benefits from socialism-profess to abhor welfare?
> This is a far cry from what most people think. My sense is
> that, if you asked the average American, they would assume
> that states benefiting most from federal spending are exactly
> the opposite-you know, those populated with Ronald Reagan's
> "welfare queens" and lazy unionized auto workers.
> I'll be the first to admit this isn't a black-and-white
> exercise. Plenty of questions need to be settled before clear
> judgments can be made. For instance, does an Army base and the
> federal money that goes into keeping it running and paying its
> troops count as a benefit? (It does in my book.) What about a
> federal prison? (Yeah, jobs and the tax revenues they generate
> should count there, too.) A private university that is
> showered with federal research dollars? (Again, yes, those
> funds count, too.)
> But those questions get harder.
> Agricultural subsidies? How do we count them-and do we
> subtract the tax revenues generated by the jobs the farm
> creates or the export earnings it provides?
> And what about defense contractors? Connecticut, Washington
> state, and California are chock full of weapons merchants.
> They provide jobs, export income, and many other benefits.
> Should we count as a federal inflow to those states the money
> spent, say, on Sikorsky aircraft contracts in Connecticut? And
> how do we factor in the taxes those companies paid (assuming,
> unlike nearby General Electric, they actually paid taxes)?
> And I admit, maybe we should dock Connecticut and New Jersey
> for the remaining outstanding balance of the TARP program?
> All these accounting issues are over my head, I'll freely
> admit. But I trust the figures above, compiled by the rock
> solid economists at the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research
> group-as a good indicator of the general state of our fiscal
> reality. When the reality has veered so far from the
> prevailing political bullshit, it's time for someone to point
> it out.
> So spare me all that red state angst about the federal
> deficits and national debt. When you stop spending New
> Jersey's money, Tex, and produce a plan to replace it with
> your own revenue stream, then you've earned an opinion in the