Who do you think gets subsidized the most?

All depends on how one defines subsidized.

(Page 1 of 45) - Taxing, Spending, Red States, and Blue States: The Political Economy of Redistribution in the US Federal System authored by Lacy, Dean.

This study seems to basically state that the ones who benefit most from federal funds are ones for the most part who voted for Dubya in 2000 and 2004. Meanwhile, the net contributors are the Democrat states.

This is why I always get a kick when people in red states especially says they're going to secede when in reality many of those states rely on the Federal Government for survival.
 
All depends on how one defines subsidized.

(Page 1 of 45) - Taxing, Spending, Red States, and Blue States: The Political Economy of Redistribution in the US Federal System authored by Lacy, Dean.

This study seems to basically state that the ones who benefit most from federal funds are ones for the most part who voted for Dubya in 2000 and 2004. Meanwhile, the net contributors are the Democrat states.

This is why I always get a kick when people in red states especially says they're going to secede when in reality many of those states rely on the Federal Government for survival.

Washington State has the largest tax payer of any state.
 
Military Industrial fleecing complex, and the Ghestapo (DEA), third conservative coalition.
 
Both and neither. Campaign money?


"Subsidyscope, launched by The Pew Charitable Trusts, aims to raise public awareness about the role of federal subsidies in the economy."
Subsidyscope.com


This article details some of the complexity of subsidies.

Oil industry subsidies for dummies | Cleantech Group

"Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

* Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
* Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
* Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
* Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
* Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
* Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
* Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
* The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
* Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
* Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
* Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)"
 
Damned little wefare goes to the people.

Most welfare is disguised as contracts for services and it goes to corporations and their minions.
 
Damned little wefare goes to the people.

Most welfare is disguised as contracts for services and it goes to corporations and their minions.

No. COntracts for services are exactly that. Try waging war without mess facilities. Won't last long.
Most money allocated for welfare gets eaten up by the bureaucrats running the programs, giving them a natural reason to continue to "serve" their clientele.
 

Forum List

Back
Top