quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

TANF does not represent all government money paid out to states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

Moreover, what is the definition of "Government Transfers" that's being used?!!  Are they comparing apples to apples (e.g., same family size, education, etc.), or apples and oranges?!!  TWISTING BLIND STATISTICS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES IS COMMON PRACTICE -- on both sides. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, the teabaggers and neo-cons are government welfare patients... 

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
You're not actually expecting a RATIONAL, let alone HONEST, answer are you?!!

Nah, I used a biased source... Oh wait...
Um how about, "well Krugman is a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER... Oh wait... So are Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Kim Dae-jung, Kofi Annan and UN

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
You're not actually expecting a RATIONAL, let alone HONEST, answer are you?!!

Nah, I used a biased source... Oh wait...
Um how about, "well Krugman is a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER... Oh wait... So are Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Kim Dae-jung, Kofi Annan and UN


Here we go... You neocons are stupid fucktards! Yeah, that will be the reply.

Careful... you'll only confuse them with UNCOMFORTABLE FACTS and a MIRROR into their own behavior.  lol so um exactly what did that chart show? it didnt show federal dollars it showed the number of people on the programs right?
How much is tanf...well lets see 20 billion the last yr records are available. So, you didnt list any actual dolalrs and the dollars the chart you did list referenced are about 1 percent of federal spending EUREKA a new false arguement! we have arguement by laziness after all you do know each stae sets its own standards for the program and then kicks in the difference for the ,pre loiberal programs so someone in CA wouldnt qualify in MI and the federal money is a block grant and those red states well they dont beliebvve in adding much to it because they unlike say CT dont have the state gdp to do so. Now the next piece of course if=s the arguemtn of a flase analogy where you compare numbers on the dole with dollars and they arent the same thing. Bravo you still havent explained why a state paying 5k in federal taxes per capita is not being subsidized by one paying 15k per capita....of course it is. Of course they arent pulling their weight on defense spending or on border scurity or on hiway bills or any othe rfederal program. Those programs are apartial entitlement for them paid for by peopole who make money /////////////article
. The Red/Blue Paradox

Why do liberal states give while conservative states take?

Veronique de Rugy from the August/September 2011 issue






We hear it all the time: Red states are for limited government; blue states are for heavy spending. While this may be true when it comes to broad political preferences, it’s false as measured by patterns of federal spending.

When you compare the 50 laboratories of democracy after sorting them based on how their citizens voted in November 2008, only 10 Democratic-voting states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 Republican states. Only one red state (Texas) is a net payer of federal taxes, as opposed to 16 blue states. One blue state (Rhode Island) pays as much as it gets.

Political scientists have been wrestling with this apparent paradox for years. One explanation sometimes offered is that the red states, on average, have smaller populations. In “Political Determinants of Federal Expenditure at the State Level,” published by the journal Public Choice in 2005, two University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa economists, Gary Hoover and Paul Pecorino, note that residents of low-population states have more per capita representation in Congress, since every state, regardless of population, has two senators. That edge, Hoover and Pecorino argue, translates into more federal handouts. The results are conspicuous in the case of homeland security grants, where small, rural, relatively low-risk states get much more money per capita than urban states that face bigger terrorist threats.

But red-state lawmakers’ ability to bring home the bacon isn’t the main reason for the paradox. Red states, on average, are also lower-income states. Because of the progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes. These payments are unlikely to be matched by federal spending directed back into those states.

This transfer of tax dollars from the states to the federal government is net of tax deductions, including deductions for state taxes ($50 billion in fiscal year 2012) and mortgage interest ($100 billion). As the former U.S. Treasury economist Martin Sullivan showed in the March issue of Tax Notes, the mortgage interest deduction overwhelmingly benefits high-income states. If it weren’t for that deduction, blue states would be even bigger net payers than they are today.

The mortgage benefit is somewhat mitigated by the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which disallows certain tax breaks, including the personal exemption and the deductions for state and local taxes. About half of the people paying the AMT in recent years live in one of four states: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Between them, those four states account for almost a quarter of the nation’s population.

Why would voters in red states elect lawmakers who promise them small government when they benefit disproportionately from federal handouts? Why would voters in blue states elect lawmakers who support policies that redistribute their income to red states?

One possible explanation is that the voters are misinformed. According to this theory, the people who benefit the most from federal spending simply don’t understand how much money they receive; they assume their tax dollars are subsidizing others when in fact they are the ones being subsidized. People in rural states might be convinced that liberal urban Northeastern jurisdictions get large subsidies for entitlements, welfare, and industry bailouts, while failing to understand how much their own states benefit from agricultural and welfare spending. They may mistakenly equate life in a low-density environment with self-sufficiency. Subsidies and welfare from the federal government help maintain this illusion, enticing them to vote for advocates of smaller government. By contrast, voters in highly urban areas may assume they are the ones who get the most subsidies. In turn, they vote for big-government politicians, thinking that welfare spending will ease social frictions in big cities. Ultimately, everyone is wrong.

Another explanation holds that voters are simply irrational. In the words of the George Mason economist Bryan Caplan, “Voters often see themselves as they want to be, not as they really are. People in red states tend to think that ‘government is the problem,’ so they tell themselves that big government is mostly a problem in blue states. People in blue states tend to think that ‘government is the solution,’ so they tell themselves that their government takes care of people.”

These hypotheses may explain some voters’ behavior, but they amount to generalized guesses about other people’s thought processes. Two other theories take a closer look at the data.

In “Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State,” a 2007 paper for the Quarterly Journal of Political Science, four researchers—Andrew Gelman of Columbia, Boris Shor of the University of Chicago, Joseph Bafumi of Dartmouth, and David Park of George Washington University—explain that while richer voters are more likely to be Republican than poorer voters, this tendency is weaker in blue states. Take two equally wealthy people. One lives in a blue state and the other lives in a red state. The data show that the voter living in the richer blue state is more likely to be a Democrat than the one in the poorer red state, although both are more likely to be Republican than a poor resident of either state. Simply put: Income plays a greater role in determining voter preference in red states than in blue ones. So while voters in red states are more motivated by their financial interests (or perceived financial interests), issues outside of income are more powerful motivators for blue voters. This pattern could help explain why some states vote Democratic despite their wealth and some states vote Republican despite their poverty.

The second theory, which is consistent with the first, holds that Republican voters want to reduce federal spending only if it means cutting other people’s handouts. That would explain why elected Republicans in red states, such as Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), don’t let their limited-government rhetoric get in the way of voting for farm subsidies.

In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn’t any. The Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers. The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem coherent and connected.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy ([email protected]), a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, writes a monthly economics column for reason.
.............................

Go look at taxes paid percapita to federal goverment then explain to me how they pay their way on defense down south or hiway bills or farm subsidies or education block grants?

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
You're not actually expecting a RATIONAL, let alone HONEST, answer are you?!!

Nah, I used a biased source... Oh wait...
Um how about, "well Krugman is a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER... Oh wait... So are Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Kim Dae-jung, Kofi Annan and UN

Careful... you'll only confuse them with UNCOMFORTABLE FACTS.  lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

Where does family size come into it?

Hmmm... Family A (no children)... Family B (4 children) -- now which do you think might have higher FOOD expenses, for example?!!

Good GAWD, this had to be explained to you?!!

quote:

Um how about, "well Krugman is a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER... Oh wait... So are Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Kim Dae-jung, Kofi Annan and UN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

You can keep trying to HIDE from the question, but I'm going to keep asking it...

1)  The following was stated in YOUR OP:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

2)  Thus, given "government transfers" are the CORE of your (and the idiot Krugman's) argument, SPECIFICALLY DEFINE/LIST ALL THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS/PAYMENTS TO THE VARIOUS STATES THAT COMPRISE SAID GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS?!!


If you can't answer the above question, then it PROVES that your ENTIRE OP is based on blind bullshit!!!

k'thanx

quote:

educate thyself
A chart on Sunday with the continuation of an article about increased federal aid for the middle class contained a map that designated North Carolina as one of the states won by Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. In fact, President Obama won that state. (In the 100 counties with the highest dependence on federal aid, Mr. McCain won two-thirds of them.)

quote:

) Thus, given "government transfers" are the CORE of your (and the idiot Krugman's) argument, SPECIFICALLY DEFINE/LIST ALL THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS/PAYMENTS TO THE VARIOUS STATES THAT COMPRISE SAID GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS?!!


If you can't answer the above question, then it PROVES that your ENTIRE OP is based on blind bullshit!!!

k'thanx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

quote:

quote:

if u have trouble with the big words here is a graphic and a list

Ok I am tired of playing. I didnt loose anything. All I did was reveal some facts to you that didnt fit your worldview and rather than change tha5t you have acted on faith your assumptions are true and the facts a lie If a link says "here is a list" chances are if you click it you will find a list and a great graphic

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

Just as I suspected... the very CORE of your (and the idiot Krugman's) proof is "government transfers", yet YOU CAN'T DEFINE WHAT THOSE GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS EVEN ARE?!!

I've offered you AMPLE opportunity to define what said "government transfers" entail (i.e., specific programs, services, etc.) that you (and the idiot Krugman) BASE YOUR ENTIRE OP ON, but in TYPICAL Lib fashion, you offer ZERO SUPPORT for your empty allegations -- just more BLIND OPINIONS that are based on nothing but Looney-Lib fantasies.

Thanks for playing -- you lose... again!!!

(in reply to Dom4subssub4doms)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

quote:

quote:

if u have trouble with the big words here is a graphic and a list

Ok I am tired of playing. I didnt loose anything. All I did was reveal some facts to you that didnt fit your worldview and rather than change tha5t you have acted on faith your assumptions are true and the facts a lie If a link says "here is a list" chances are if you click it you will find a list and a great graphic

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

Just as I suspected... the very CORE of your (and the idiot Krugman's) proof is "government transfers", yet YOU CAN'T DEFINE WHAT THOSE GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS EVEN ARE?!!

I've offered you AMPLE opportunity to define what said "government transfers" entail (i.e., specific programs, services, etc.) that you (and the idiot Krugman) BASE YOUR ENTIRE OP ON, but in TYPICAL Lib fashion, you offer ZERO SUPPORT for your empty allegations -- just more BLIND OPINIONS that are based on nothing but Looney-Lib fantasies.

Thanks for playing -- you lose... again!!!

Oh I have ignored the constant typical lib shit but for someone who hasnt made a SINGLE non specious arguement to what I posted you really have balls. If I kept posting i am sure you could run through the gamnut of false arguements oh and denyng a proven easily verifiable fact like what states get back more than they pay is argueing from pigheadedness


Since if I hadnt answered the question I would of lost can we assume since I did you lost. I didnt know it was a competition I thought facts were facts. You can keep but really whether you allow facts to effect you they are still facts

(in reply to Dom4subssub4doms)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel