🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1/20/2011 8:29 PM, ▂▃▄▅▆▇BѦиdC▇▆▅▄▃▂ wrote:
> We said all along that his "stimulus package" was nothing but a
> tremendous waste of taxpayer money and the result of gross
> inexperience and again we were correct.

I think it's great that you've mastered Unicode identifiers.  However, 
as Dick Cheney once said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". 
Then again Dick could have just been shooting his face of (he is known 
to involve faces and shooting).

�  �  �  �  �  �  BѦиdC�  �  �  �  �  �    <usenetlegends00019@gmail.com> wrote:
>We said all along that his "stimulus package" was nothing but a
>tremendous waste of taxpayer money and the result of gross
>inexperience and again we were correct.

Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.

    CBO says stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs
    By Lori Montgomery

    President Obama's much-maligned economic stimulus package added as
    many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter
    of this year, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back
    into recession, according to a report released Tuesday by the
    non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

    In its latest quarterly assessment of the act, the CBO said the
    stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 and 1.8
    percentage points during the quarter ending in June and increased
    the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3
    million. The higher figure would come close to making good on
    Obama's pledge that the act would save or create as many as 3.5
    million jobs by the end of this year.

    The CBO said the act also increased the nation's gross domestic
    product by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent in the second
    quarter, indicating that the stimulus may have been the primary
    source of growth in the U.S. economy. The Commerce Department
    estimates that GDP grew 2.4 percent in the second quarter, a
    figure many economists expect to be revised lower in a report due
    out Friday.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/08/cbo_says_stimulus_may_have_add.html

-- 
Ray Fischer         |  Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfischer@sonic.net  |  The new GOP ideal

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".

"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.

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.

Chom Noamsky wrote:
> 
> 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.

Freedom and Justice for them that can afford it!

It's the republican way.

JAM

"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.

http://www.zianet.com/ehusman/weblog/2004/11/demographics.html 

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!!!

"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.
 

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:14:23 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com>
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.


Obama's love affair with Wall Street is becoming more an more obvious.
Picking the CEO of GE to 'promote' jobs is almost funny.  The bailout
of GE Capital and their ownership of the Obama network, sometimes
known as MSNBC has shown that as long as you walk the walk and talk
the talk, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue thinks you can solve all of
America's problems.  Between Wall St. and the Clinton cabal, is there
really any policies created by Obama, or is he just the mouthpiece?