🚀 go-pugleaf

"Chom Noamsky" <blahblah@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message 
news:sbGdnXvi84vylafQnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 1/21/2011 1:29 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> "Chom Noamsky" <blahblah@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
>> news:486dnX25BJDBcaTQnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 1/21/2011 11:14 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>> "raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f25jj6litgu8ncdum1maearu037pbf08is@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:29:37 -0800 (PST), ??????B??dC??????
>>>>> <usenetlegends00019@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The debt ceiling has become a focal point of the debate over spending
>>>>>> and debt. Even though congressional leaders say the cap will be
>>>>>> raised, Republicans are vowing to use the issue as leverage to force
>>>>>> spending cuts.
>>>>>
>>>>> While at the same time, maintaining tax cuts for the wealthy. "The
>>>>> GOP: conning people into voting against their own economic interests
>>>>> since Herbert Hoover".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting that to the left, tax cuts to the taxpayers, ALL of 
>>>> the
>>>> taxpayers, is considered tax cut to the wealthy.
>>>> But then considering that the left is pandering to those who pay little
>>>> of no taxes and basically are getting a free ride at the expense of
>>>> taxpayers, that's no real surprise.
>>>
>>> Anyone getting a "free ride" generally has an income below poverty,
>>> and that could be due to choice or circumstance (usually
>>> circumstance). Regardless of why, are you saying these people don't
>>> deserve a voice because of their low income status? If so a lot of red
>>> states will be pissed, being that red states are beneficiaries of
>>> federal tax money more so than blue states.
>>
>>
>> In a democracy, it is clear that venal politicians will promise to spend
>> the money of the productive to buy the votes of the non-productive
>>
>> And your claim about the Red States is just more ignorant propaganda
>> from such as you
>> Read what follows
>> ___________________________________________________
>> Sunday, November 21, 2004
>>
>> A few years ago - about 4, IIRC - a friend, looking at the new USA Today
>> map, asked me how it could be that the election was so close, but that
>> most of the country appeared to be for Bush. Because I had looked up
>> some figures even earlier than that, the answer was obvious to me:
>> density. I knew, for example, that approximately 1/4 of the population
>> lives in the 13 or so largest cities, and 1/2 live in about the top
>> 25-30 urban centers. It's for this reason that the abolition of the
>> electoral college would mean that presidential candidates would never
>> leave the coasts except to visit Chicago, Phoenix, and Dallas. I'm sure
>> I'm not the only one who saw it, but there are those who dispute it.
>>
>> At that time, Paul Krugman reportedly wrote a piece claiming that the
>> Blue states support the Red States (sorry, no link, probably in the
>> NYT). At the time, I assumed it was true and took no further interest in
>> it because it fit neatly with something I have been pointing out to
>> racists for years: most welfare recipients are white. They always
>> counter with the claim that black welfare recipients are more common
>> than black citizens are in the US as a percentage. Perhaps, but the bill
>> that the federal government sends me is based on the total number of
>> welfare recipients, not the portion that is black or white. Total
>> Number. Caucasians contribute far more to that number than other races.
>> The problem with welfare isn't the color of the people receiving it,
>> it's that there is a need - real or perceived - in the first place.
>>
>> Okay, well, the "Blue State Subsidy" claim has arisen again, and this
>> time I decided to check it out
>> (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html).
>> Again, I don't dispute it, but there's something in those patterns that
>> has me curious. Now, I couldn't use their sources (the Tax Foundation's
>> "State-by-state tax burden model"), but I could use the Statistical
>> Abstract for state-by-state spending and the IRS for state-by-state tax
>> stats for 2003. My results were similar, though the actual numerical
>> results of money received to taxes paid ratios were different.
>>
>> I found two interesting results: one, that taxes paid and benefits
>> received track right along with population (see figure), and two, the
>> total amount of benefits spent in the "net donor" Blue states listed in
>> the links above (New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota,
>> Massachusetts, California, and New York) are far more than than what is
>> spent in the "net recipient" Red states (North Dakota, Mississippi,
>> Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, and Arkansas, and
>> I would add New Mexico since it went Red this time around).
>>
>> The five most populous Blue states (CA, NY, IL, PA, MI) paid 33.5% of
>> the total taxes paid, and only received 29% of the benefits doled out
>> from Washington. The five largest Red States (TX, FL, OH, GA, NC) paid
>> out 22% of the total taxes paid and received only 21% of the benefits.
>> Yes, they paid more than they received. If you expand to the Top 10
>> largest (includes NJ, MA, WA, MD, WI), the corresponding numbers are 45%
>> paid and 39% received for the Blue States and 31% paid and 32.8%
>> received for the Red States (include VI, IN, TN, MO, AZ). They are
>> starting to receive more than they paid in. But add it up: the 20 most
>> populous states are paying 76% of the taxes and receiving about 72% of
>> the benefits. That leaves only about 1/4 of the federal budget to be
>> divided among the other 30 states, most of which are Red. There were
>> only 20 states and Washington DC that went Blue, leaving 30 states that
>> went Red. All of the Blue states and Washington paid 56% of the tax
>> burden and receive 48% of the largesse. All of the Red states paid 44%
>> of the tax burden and receive 52% of the largesse. Amazingly close to
>> the vote totals, no? While I think it's a coincidence that probably
>> surfaces in any figures that are close to being evenly split, it is well
>> known that incumbent parties have been using discretionary spending to
>> buy votes.
>>
>> Let me put that another way: between California and New York, they
>> receive $335 B that gets distributed among 54 million people. You have
>> to add up Wyoming, both Dakotas, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, W.
>> Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa,
>> Oklahoma, Kentucky, S. Carolina, Louisiana, and Alabama before you get
>> to $324 B (adding Colorado bumps it over $350 B), and you have to add
>> the populations of those states to get 51 M (plus Arizona to get to
>> 56.5).
>>
>> Two more points: What about looking at this in terms of paying/spending
>> per capita? And what is the correspondence of high income earners and
>> population density?
>>
>> To answer the first question, I took my results and divided by the
>> population of each state (and DC). For the Top 5, Red Staters paid out
>> $6342 per person and received $5894 per person. Blue Staters paid out
>> $7280 per person but received only $6143 per person. They paid more per
>> person, but also received more. As you go to less populated states, Blue
>> staters pay more, but continue receiving roughly the same per person,
>> while Red staters gradually pay less per person and receive more. When
>> you include every state one but DC, Red states are receiving about
>> $6540/person, slightly more than $6522 per person received in Blue
>> states.
>>
>> The Red states pay more per person than the Blue states ($5740 vs.
>> $7710). My conjecture is that this has to do with the relative costs of
>> living in those places (you have to have a much higher paying job to
>> afford to live in NYC than you do to live upstate, where the counties
>> went red, and people who are paid more pay more in taxes) and with the
>> distribution of really wealthy people. It is well known that - even
>> after the "tax cuts for the wealthy - the richest 1% pay about 33% of
>> the total tax bill, and the wealthiest 10% pay about 67% of the total
>> tax bill. In other words, I am suggesting that the real reason for the
>> Blue/Red subsidization is that the real party of the wealthy is the
>> Democratic Party. Research in The Economist apparently supports this
>> hypothesis: they found that people worth between $1 M and $10 M went for
>> Bush 63-37, but people worth more than $10 M went for Kerry 59-41. Hmmm
>> ... party of Working Class, indeed.
>>
>> Bottom Line: You Blue Staters are overstating the amount of
>> subsidization you are forced to do. Most of that money is coming right
>> back to you, and the rest is divided among dozens of states mostly by
>> population, so dividing federal spending by statewide taxation
>> overstates the amount of money going to, say, Alaska or New Mexico.
>> Besides, you keep voting for politicians who run on a redistribution
>> platform, so these are the chickens coming home to roost. And for you
>> Red Staters: you are being subsidized, whether you like it or not.
>> Studies show that people believe that all Congressman but their own
>> belly up to the pork barrel. Well, guess what? Yours does it, too, and
>> you need to be aware of it the next time you have a chance to vote.
>
> An interesting analysis, but one that generally supports what I claimed.. 
> ROFL!!!



No
    It proves your claim to be a lie for multiple reasons
But nice attempt to spin out of your bullshit
    The same-old, same-old.