What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

taxes, blue states, and red states

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,437
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Do you realize how it sucks to be a liberal and listen to all the whining Conservatives? Constantly crying in their beer instead of going out and getting a job.

We liberals in the blue states have to subsidize their lazy asses. Here is a list of states that recieve more from the federal government than they put in.

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

And a list of states that recieve less.

New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Come on, fellows, can't you get off of your lazy asses just once?
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,123
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Sounds to me like youd prefer it if the Federal government didn't have as much of your tax money to give to people who are lazy.

Welcome to the conservative movement.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
71,637
Reaction score
38,408
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Do you realize how it sucks to be a liberal and listen to all the whining Conservatives? Constantly crying in their beer instead of going out and getting a job.

We liberals in the blue states have to subsidize their lazy asses. Here is a list of states that recieve more from the federal government than they put in.

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

And a list of states that recieve less.

New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Come on, fellows, can't you get off of your lazy asses just once?
Too bad, so sad.

That's what you get for living the lie that you're doing everyone a big fat favor by being a Fabian do-gooder.
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,134
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
Do you realize how it sucks to be a liberal and listen to all the whining Conservatives? Constantly crying in their beer instead of going out and getting a job.

We liberals in the blue states have to subsidize their lazy asses. Here is a list of states that recieve more from the federal government than they put in.

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

And a list of states that recieve less.

New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Come on, fellows, can't you get off of your lazy asses just once?
Did you research those states' (and district's) budgets yourself to get those numbers or did someone else do that work? If the latter, you need to credit them and preferably give the rest of us the source so that we can look at the methodology.

Thanks in advance.
 

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
I've said this before that most of those red states are rural areas so if you spend just as much money on a rural red state as blue state the ratio of the money spent vs money taxed per person is going to be higher.

Its interesting to note that the same people that throw this stat out don't tell you how much per state tax dollars are being spent.
 

slackjawed

Self deported
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
5,307
Reaction score
650
Points
153
Location
15th congressional district of Arizona
Do you realize how it sucks to be a liberal and listen to all the whining Conservatives? Constantly crying in their beer instead of going out and getting a job.

We liberals in the blue states have to subsidize their lazy asses. Here is a list of states that recieve more from the federal government than they put in.

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

And a list of states that recieve less.

New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Come on, fellows, can't you get off of your lazy asses just once?

got a link for any of that, i would be interested in see more.

or is this just your own "research"?
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,943
Reaction score
48,672
Points
2,190
Red States have smaller populations and still have the same number of Senators. This puts them in a position to receive more percapita than populated states.

They also have a disproportionate number of military bases which recieve more federal aid
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,437
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Do you realize how it sucks to be a liberal and listen to all the whining Conservatives? Constantly crying in their beer instead of going out and getting a job.

We liberals in the blue states have to subsidize their lazy asses. Here is a list of states that recieve more from the federal government than they put in.

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

And a list of states that recieve less.

New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Come on, fellows, can't you get off of your lazy asses just once?

got a link for any of that, i would be interested in see more.

or is this just your own "research"?

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,437
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
This land is red land, paid for by blue land ... America: Paid For By the Blue States - November 29, 2004

But a new analysis in The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America, a coffee-table book/political rant by liberal billionaire John Sperling, shows that a fiscal map looks awfully like an electoral map. (Lest you think this is all just liberal bias, the right-leaning Tax Foundation supplies similar data.) Between 1991 and 2001, "winner" states got nearly $1 trillion more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes. Alabama won the biggest, raking in $100 billion. Losers California, New York, and Illinois each paid $250 billion or so more than they got back. The huge gaps are driven by higher average incomes in the "donor" states, plus subsidies for farms, oil, mining--"extractive" industries that skew red. There are exceptions (Texas is a loser, Pennsylvania a winner), but the map on this page shows the big picture. The heist is more impressive considering that the winners have only a third of the U.S. population.

For blue staters, it's one thing to watch red states pick the President and set national policy on everything from Iraq to judges. But to pay them lavishly for the pleasure suggests that blues aren't just losers, they're stupid losers. You can feel blue anger rising. You reds don't like taxes? Okay, stop taking mine! You can have your states' rights too--and we'll start by cutting your allowance!
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,532
Reaction score
16,064
Points
2,180
Do you realize how it sucks to be a liberal and listen to all the whining Conservatives? Constantly crying in their beer instead of going out and getting a job.

We liberals in the blue states have to subsidize their lazy asses. Here is a list of states that recieve more from the federal government than they put in.

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

And a list of states that recieve less.

New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Come on, fellows, can't you get off of your lazy asses just once?

when you prove to us it's the Republicans in those states that are on the dole.. let us know.
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,532
Reaction score
16,064
Points
2,180
This land is red land, paid for by blue land ... America: Paid For By the Blue States - November 29, 2004

But a new analysis in The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America, a coffee-table book/political rant by liberal billionaire John Sperling, shows that a fiscal map looks awfully like an electoral map. (Lest you think this is all just liberal bias, the right-leaning Tax Foundation supplies similar data.) Between 1991 and 2001, "winner" states got nearly $1 trillion more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes. Alabama won the biggest, raking in $100 billion. Losers California, New York, and Illinois each paid $250 billion or so more than they got back. The huge gaps are driven by higher average incomes in the "donor" states, plus subsidies for farms, oil, mining--"extractive" industries that skew red. There are exceptions (Texas is a loser, Pennsylvania a winner), but the map on this page shows the big picture. The heist is more impressive considering that the winners have only a third of the U.S. population.

For blue staters, it's one thing to watch red states pick the President and set national policy on everything from Iraq to judges. But to pay them lavishly for the pleasure suggests that blues aren't just losers, they're stupid losers. You can feel blue anger rising. You reds don't like taxes? Okay, stop taking mine! You can have your states' rights too--and we'll start by cutting your allowance!

do it by god, we double dog dare ya!
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,532
Reaction score
16,064
Points
2,180
Red States have smaller populations and still have the same number of Senators. This puts them in a position to receive more percapita than populated states.

They also have a disproportionate number of military bases which recieve more federal aid

:lol::lol: wowser.. wowser wowser
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
I'd be OK resurrecting the old Confederacy, adopting the original Constitution sans slavery, and telling the Federales sayonara.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,943
Reaction score
48,672
Points
2,190
I'd be OK resurrecting the old Confederacy, adopting the original Constitution sans slavery, and telling the Federales sayonara.

See ya!
 

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,776
Points
48
Red States have smaller populations and still have the same number of Senators. This puts them in a position to receive more percapita than populated states.

They also have a disproportionate number of military bases which recieve more federal aid

Somebody has to pay for all of those highways. All roads lead to Gotham none the less. Got to get those goods to market Toby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

slackjawed

Self deported
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
5,307
Reaction score
650
Points
153
Location
15th congressional district of Arizona
Do you realize how it sucks to be a liberal and listen to all the whining Conservatives? Constantly crying in their beer instead of going out and getting a job.

We liberals in the blue states have to subsidize their lazy asses. Here is a list of states that recieve more from the federal government than they put in.

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

And a list of states that recieve less.

New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Come on, fellows, can't you get off of your lazy asses just once?

got a link for any of that, i would be interested in see more.

or is this just your own "research"?

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

cool, thanks!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top