RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution

RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 10:59:41 PM)
the list AGAIN I'm sorry I'll have to get back on you for the 2012 data when it's available in 2015 Of course the transfers go far deeper than what krugman was speaking of you see. The list is on the right in the link. Krugman was speaking to percentage of income from social programs. the othe rarticle speaks to the total wealth transer . You see if defense costs 100 dollar and ct pays 15 and MI pay 5 per capita then CT is subisidizing MI... Now you might even find data that says the dollar value is greater per capita in some blue states and because you seem to have trouble grasping the idse of revenue and expenditures being connected like all conservatives of the "u libtard" type I'll expalain if MI got 1 dollar for every person from the fedsfor those programs and the per capita income was 2 dollars then half would be the sudisidy. if CT got 1.25 cents from the feds and the per capita income is 3.75 then it is 1/3 even though it's more actual money I know you are thinking he stepped into my trap GOTCHA but you cant connect expense and revenue remember? If Mi pays 4 dollars per capita in taxes and CT pays 15 dollars per capita MI is still getting more back and when you add up all the cost of govermnent CT gets back less than a dollar and MI more than a dolar and it's a LOT more than 4 percent difference. I know you dont understand it but that doesn't make it untrue. Another way to look at it is if we pay more than a dollar for every dollar the goverment spends we have a tax surplus in liberal states and the problem is the tax deficit in red[image][/image][image]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4FZ8qC2ag-w/Tl5dtTfWK0I/AAAAAAAACm8/gaHBgy_MPLQ/s400/th_welfare_queens.jpg[/image][image]http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tax.jpg[/image]

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 11:09:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms I'm NOT trying to play some "gotcha" game... as I'd stated earlier, BOTH SIDES (Dems and Reps) play with numbers/statistics to make political points. Krugman has a history of misleading. And as such, I was looking for the actual numbers HE USED. I appreciate all the research you've put into this... I do, and have tried to offer the same -- again, given Krugman's history, I just don't trust him, is all. My Best, MSLA [:)]

Hippiekinkster -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 12:26:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel A mere 4.1%? But I'm sure if that percentage were going in the other direction you'd be bitching about it wouldn't you. Oh, fuck, do your own math. Don't accept any number from someone who can't construct an non-fallacious argument. Dumfuckistan got 21.2% of all income as a Fed xfer. Donor states received 17.1% of all income as a Fed xfer. The difference is NOT 4.1%. Dumfuckistan got (21.2-17.1)/17.1 x 100 = 24.0% MORE income as Fed xfers.

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 5:40:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms I'm NOT trying to play some "gotcha" game... as I'd stated earlier, BOTH SIDES (Dems and Reps) play with numbers/statistics to make political points. Krugman has a history of misleading. And as such, I was looking for the actual numbers HE USED. I appreciate all the research you've put into this... I do, and have tried to offer the same -- again, given Krugman's history, I just don't trust him, is all. My Best, MSLA [:)] fair enough, now that you see the numbers on taxes per capita. Do you understand why to me their seems a disconnect with the conservative stated belief in self reliance and self support when liberal states are paying far more per capita for the cost of goverment and conservative states pay far less per capita ffor the cost of goverment? Then add in they fel they pay to much and it's a but over the top. We'd have to cut spending in half to equal the goverment they pay for

fucktoyprincess -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 6:09:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms fair enough, now that you see the numbers on taxes per capita. Do you understand why to me their seems a disconnect with the conservative stated belief in self reliance and self support when liberal states are paying far more per capita for the cost of goverment and conservative states pay far less per capita ffor the cost of goverment? Then add in they fel they pay to much and it's a but over the top. We'd have to cut spending in half to equal the goverment they pay for Just wanted to thank you for persevering in laying this one to rest. Again, it is beyond me the hypocrisy that continues to exist in this country. To those who say they want less government, lower taxes, less of a social safety net paid for by tax dollars, I have a long list of countries that they can move to and get EXACTLY what they claim they want. But the fact of the matter is, they would never actually want to live in any of those places. The ultimate irony. Because yes. They enjoy all the benefits of living in our society, don't pay their fair share, and then have the audacity to complain about the overall system.

GotSteel -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 8:01:19 AM)
Yes yes after 5 pages I'm sure we all get that you don't like the author of that particular piece. Thing is that in no way changes the reality that my state is paying a bunch of money to keep the beltway of shame states afloat.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 10:07:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Try to at least pretend you understand MATH before spouting off. FACT: Given the numbers stated, THERE IS ONLY A 4.1 PERCENTAGE POINT DIFFERENCE -- got that?!! FACT: The difference BETWEEN the percentages (24%) amounts to a whopping $239.77 per $1,000 -- i.e., big fucking deal. FACT: The specific Gov. Programs/Services that comprise said "Government Transfers" to each State is UNKNOWN -- i.e., YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT EACH STATE IS BEING PAID FOR VIA SAID "GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS". [8\|]

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 10:33:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms I'm NOT trying to play some "gotcha" game... as I'd stated earlier, BOTH SIDES (Dems and Reps) play with numbers/statistics to make political points. Krugman has a history of misleading. And as such, I was looking for the actual numbers HE USED. I appreciate all the research you've put into this... I do, and have tried to offer the same -- again, given Krugman's history, I just don't trust him, is all. My Best, MSLA [:)] fair enough, now that you see the numbers on taxes per capita. Do you understand why to me their seems a disconnect... I fully understand the premise of the OP, as well as what YOU have put forth -- but do you NOT see why I continue to challenge the numbers given, as the author has not provided the SPECIFIC programs/services offered to each State which comprise said "Government Transfers"?!! Examples: Some states have an OLDER population -- so certainly Medicare/Social Security payments would differ, yes/no? Some states have families with MORE children -- so certainly welfare/financial relief would differ, yes/no? Some states have more NATURAL DISASTERS (floods, tornados, etc.) -- so certainly Federal Aid would differ, yes/no? Some states have more SINGLE PARENTS -- so certainly Medicaid payments would differ, yes/no? Some states fund ROADS/REPAIRS differently (e.g., toll/non-toll roads) -- so certainly that would differ, yes/no? Some states have more FARMING that receive farm subsidies -- so certainly that would differ, yes/no? Can you see WHY I don't just accept the term "Government Transfers" at face value?!! It's easy to just dump ANY Federal Payment into some generic "Government Transfers" bucket, then use those numbers to make some point. Does that better clarify the emphasis I've placed on specifically defining "Government Transfers" -- which the author does not?!!

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 10:37:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess ...laying this one to rest. Much to your likely great dismay, it has NOT been laid to rest.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 10:39:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I'm sure we all get that you don't like the author... Has nothing to do with a "like" or dislike for the author -- it has to do with accepting numbers at face value from one that has a history of misleading.

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 11:28:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess ...laying this one to rest. Much to your likely great dismay, it has NOT been laid to rest. I'd like to hear how it isnt laid to rest.If every stae paid the par capita taxes of MI, AL, GA, Alaska, SC, NC we would have to eliminate medicare social security or defense entirely and slasj=h the other two deeply, Ct paying 15k per capita and those states 5k kind of makes it impossible for them not to be nenefitting from a transer ofwealth that allows them to have those programs and pay a third as much for them

Moonhead -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 11:30:04 AM)
But these figures are from an unreliable source, not one that can be trusted to take a right leaning bias like Fox or another News International company...

fucktoyprincess -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 12:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess ...laying this one to rest. Much to your likely great dismay, it has NOT been laid to rest. You asked for numbers. You got them. And your opinion has been shown to be false. Done. End of story. You can continue to complain, but I suspect most of us aren't interested in listening anymore to unsubstantiated opinion. Thanks for your time.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 1:15:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess You asked for numbers. I asked for MORE than "numbers". Reading is your friend. [8\|]

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 1:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms I'd like to hear how it isnt laid to rest. Addressed above, D4SS4D.

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 2:50:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms I'm NOT trying to play some "gotcha" game... as I'd stated earlier, BOTH SIDES (Dems and Reps) play with numbers/statistics to make political points. Krugman has a history of misleading. And as such, I was looking for the actual numbers HE USED. I appreciate all the research you've put into this... I do, and have tried to offer the same -- again, given Krugman's history, I just don't trust him, is all. My Best, MSLA [:)] fair enough, now that you see the numbers on taxes per capita. Do you understand why to me their seems a disconnect... I fully understand the premise of the OP, as well as what YOU have put forth -- but do you NOT see why I continue to challenge the numbers given, as the author has not provided the SPECIFIC programs/services offered to each State which comprise said "Government Transfers"?!! Examples: Some states have an OLDER population -- so certainly Medicare/Social Security payments would differ, yes/no? Some states have families with MORE children -- so certainly welfare/financial relief would differ, yes/no? Some states have more NATURAL DISASTERS (floods, tornados, etc.) -- so certainly Federal Aid would differ, yes/no? Some states have more SINGLE PARENTS -- so certainly Medicaid payments would differ, yes/no? Some states fund ROADS/REPAIRS differently (e.g., toll/non-toll roads) -- so certainly that would differ, yes/no? Some states have more FARMING that receive farm subsidies -- so certainly that would differ, yes/no? Can you see WHY I don't just accept the term "Government Transfers" at face value?!! It's easy to just dump ANY Federal Payment into some generic "Government Transfers" bucket, then use those numbers to make some point. Does that better clarify the emphasis I've placed on specifically defining "Government Transfers" -- which the author does not?!! Look when CT pays 15k per capita three times what many conservative states pay per capita of course we pay more of the cost of goverment than they do. Look it's staring at you. if people live in poverty of course they get more social services[image]http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Percent-Living-in-Poverty.jpg[/image] if the avg wage is higher of course they pay more in taxes andf if a state pays less taxes per cpita of course it's subsidized. This is conservative 101. It's their talking point. The thing is they don't like to look at it from a geographic perspective because then it becomes clear that when fox is talking about the 50 percent who dont pay taxes they are talking about the resdents of the most conservative states not liberal states [image]http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/system/files/Personal_Income_Per_Capita_2010.PNG[/image] Of course they don't pay an equal share they are poor states. Your list of questions is just more fallious argements evntually uwill find one I cant answer but really it's obcious staes thet pay more in taxres pay a larger share for goverment. A single disarter causes a one yr flux as with Katrina. If its's a yrly cost and you think that's a justification based on need you just made my arguement for why welfare is needed becaue you are defending wealth transfer based on need. The roads thing is nonsense. They get federal money for hiway repair and construction it isnt handled differently on a federal level and if you mean they may have greater need again that is using need as a justification for wealth redistribution. Again though even if a state had an older population if need is a justification for redistribution of wealth that makes sense but that isnt conservative principles and other than FLA it just doesnt make a dfference the demagraphics are so similar. The specific transfers are listed. I posted them a few times in a link. the thing is thats the tip of the iceberg if one state pays 1/3 the amount in taxes per capita then it pays 1/3 the amount for defense, for the epa, FDC, Education, doj etc

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 2:51:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess You asked for numbers. I asked for MORE than "numbers". Reading is your friend. [8\|] I gave you the link wth the listing and when looking at overall cost of goverment and tax per capita it's a no brainer u pay less you pay a smaller share and someone who pays more a larger one

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 3:51:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms I gave you the link wth the listing... No... you provided a link with a mere SIX components (for 2009) -- is that the COMPLETE ACCOUNTING for what the author termed "Government Transfers" to the various states that are being compared?!! NO, it's not!!! Thus, until that is shown, neither you, or the author, can make ANY credible claim as to State-A receiving "X", or State-B receiving "Y" -- as there may be LEGITAMATE reasons (e.g., size of population, age of population, marital status of population, occupation of population, federal relief, etc.) why one state may receive greater federal dollars than another state. Nobody with an OUNCE of credibility puts forth a CONSLUSION without also showing THE DATA from which that conclusion is based -- and anyone BELIEVING a conclusion without seeing the data is sorely lacking in common sense!!!

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 4:44:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms I gave you the link wth the listing... No... you provided a link with a mere SIX components (for 2009) -- is that the COMPLETE ACCOUNTING for what the author termed "Government Transfers" to the various states that are being compared?!! NO, it's not!!! Thus, until that is shown, neither you, or the author, can make ANY credible claim as to State-A receiving "X", or State-B receiving "Y" -- as there may be LEGITAMATE reasons (e.g., size of population, age of population, marital status of population, occupation of population, federal relief, etc.) why one state may receive greater federal dollars than another state. Nobody with an OUNCE of credibility puts forth a CONSLUSION without also showing THE DATA from which that conclusion is based -- and anyone BELIEVING a conclusion without seeing the data is sorely lacking in common sense!!! yes I agree there are legitimate reasons for the redistribution of wealth. What's the point???? it's still redistribution isnt it? As to demagraphics you act like we a re 50 to countries the doifferences are small outside of FLA. Even if CT recived twice what MI recieves MI would still be recieving a redistributive transer of wealth because we paidd 3 times as much in taxes per capita. You keep ignoring that. You keep ignoreing that the states with the highest poverty levels so the largest dependence on anti poverty programs are conservative. You keep moving the goalposts when the game is already over[image]http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Poverty-rates-by-State-2009.jpg[/image] helllllo <-----------------------------[8\|] -----> [image]http://chartingtheeconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/book5_21680_image001.gif[/image] Will you explain how a state paying 1/3 the taxes per capita of Ct like half the deep south does is making and equal contribution to the federal budget ergo is being being given more govt than they pay for. Ii answered I think 3 rounds of questions on the data i am sorry if you dont like the facts but they remain the facts Unlike the scurrelious Powerline blogs most of which cherry pick and stuill ended up making AKrugman look good for getting so much right in 2001 -2003. Oh and some trash from poewrline which cherry pics a single phrase to prove him a liar look ridiculous when you read how prophetic his actual editorial was not the caricature it is pretended to to of been. You ave yet to explain how a state paying 3 times as much per capita as MI isnt subsdizing them by paying for the services governt provides

GotSteel -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/5/2012 4:55:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA Has nothing to do with a "like" or dislike for the author -- it has to do with accepting numbers at face value from one that has a history of misleading. This is of course an argumentum ad hominem as a number of users have pointed out to you. However, as a matter of practicality I suspect we all agree that it's a good idea to get news from reputable sources as opposed to the disreputable ones; that we shouldn't watch Fox News for example. So complaining about the author if you have an issue with him makes sense but at some point which was reasonably about four pages ago it's time to deal with the actual argument seeing as the numbers on this subject are well documented.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875