Freedom!

or something else?

If the gov for instance has 500 miles of border to protect in "any state" are we being disingenuous in somehow trying to say that they are "takers"?

Can't beleive NY is not on this list. I mean it is our "financial" center and we've dumped trillions into propping it up over the past 6-8 years...Oh but let's not count those dollars? But that is somehow not "taking" but in WVa it is?

5%-7% of the annual fed spending in TN goes to federal government entities doing research and development within our border.

Should we pick on Florida because it happened to be a good place for Kennedy Space Center and NASA?

Sure there are some shitty states listed, however even the article states that they were going to "cherry pick" the data. And when the article actually says that they cheery picked the data to come up with this list then one should question the article - I mean they are telling you that it is bullshit.

NY pays a LOT more in federal taxes than it gets in aid, military contracts or bailouts. Texas may have a lot of oil, but it gets a lot more money from the feds because of it's tons of poor people, major military bases, etc.

like to see some of that data if you have some links.....I mean I am truly interested in the numbers.

Oh and you are help making my point when you said "military bases" above. Those are federal programs for a military to defend our nation and have nothing to do with states. The government pretty much decides where it wants a military base and pays to operate within that state by paying federal dollars in wages, R&D, etc and we are calling this what, Takers?

So let's go all the way down through the argument from "State - County- City - Individual".

On the individual level and based on this argument then one could simply state that:

All Federal employees as well as all politicians are "takers" on the individual level based off what is paid to the federal gov in taxes vs what they receive from the federal gov... so they are all "takers"?

That's not a statement I'd personally make but one could def use the same logic.

state. Three airbases plus spill over from ElPaso's fort Bliss and lets not forget Los Alamos. Every single business by the bases live for the 1st and 15th of the month and are loyal republicans for promising to keep more military spending.

Lots of poor in the rural areas of New Mexico.

no doubt it would have a tough time existing...but would it?

I mean an argument here is that most "military" and any spouse that may work that are stationed at a base can pay state income taxes back to their state of residence and most do. So all those military folks for sake of arguing an extreme, can in essence not contribute a single dime in state income taxes to New Mexico. So the roads we need in the area would need to be funded by the federal gov.

I am X-military. I was stationed in Oklahoma for awhile adn I paid zero income taxes to Oklahoma but instead paid them to Ohio...that sucks for the state of Oklahoma because someone has to pay to maintain the roads that are needed to get to the base/on post, so how can a state afford to accommodate all these military people through infrastructure when they for the most part do not pay any income taxes?

I envied the guys from Tennessee while in the military. There is no "state income tax" so while in the military and stationed in say Ft Cambell Ky they paid zero in taxes to anyone on a state level but they used the infrastructure within the state.

I mean if I ruled Ky (haha) I'd probably look at the Federal Gov and say "Do to policy most of these folks do not pay taxes in the state but live here and use the infrastructure. With this said you are gonna have to pay for the costs associated with maintaining your operation on my land". And this would show up as huge federal expenditures which may make them be a "taker" state. (I do not know if Ky is, just using a hypothetical).

A large % of fed money flowing into a state is also in the form of Social Security. Should we call all the retirees in Florida "takers" since a large majority of those folks do not pay taxes and probably contribute a good deal to federal dollars going to Florida?

We are trying to equate "dependency" on the gov by simply using monies going to states with little understanding of it being anything but "welfare" so-to-speak. How much of it is truly "welfare" or "dependency" vs it being a necessity since the federal government owns it?

Here's one of the top results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

Scroll down to the tables for the easiest-to-read data. You can sort the columns by clicking on the arrows after the column name.

In FY2013, Florida got $143 billion more from the Federal government than it paid to the Federal government. California sent $106 billion more to the Federal government than it received from the Federal government.

actually asking for some place to find the actual numbers broken down. For instance your "Florida" example and what did the $143 billion go to on an itemized list of say, 10-15 major categories such as:

Defense, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, schools, etc.

Then I'd like find some place to see how excise taxes are taken into consideration for each state.

I realize it's a pretty complicated concept, and requires vast amounts of effort to read the paragraph right above the tables that tells you

It's not new.

and here I asked for help and you say "google it".

I just took by your post that you may just be able to save me a little time as you referenced that data
...thanks for the help bob, no need for you to share your data to back up your facts.

So why should we expend any effort beyond "Google it"?

Now let's try this little game again:

And to quote bob:

"NY pays a LOT more in federal taxes than it gets in aid, military contracts or bailouts"

Show me the "bailout" section of your chart, show me one place in your chart where it shows and itemized breakdown....because I am having a hard time finding it in your wiki link but obviously you are not....could you please be so kind as that is what I asked of Bob.


Did you even read my question?

It isn't my job to highlight your textbooks for you. And your inability to read the pages you are provided demonstrates that it would be a 24/7 job in order to satisfy you.

Want an itemized breakdown? Google it.

Besides Arizona.

is paying to protect its border. In New Mexico, we called Mexico "Old Mexico". Very common.

Some of them are making claims about doing so for political reasons.

So there is that...

In all seriousness though, most of the northern, rural part of the state has had double-digit unemployment levels since the 90's. Lots of contributing factors to that, which I won't bore anyone with.

Also, Maine is the oldest state in the nation demographically. And these older folks are people who can't afford to retire in a warmer climate.

Lots of other things going on, but bottom line, I'm not about to dispute these figures. I'm sure (at least in the case of Maine) that they are probably accurate.

Specifically? Federal aid to Native American reservations which are the majority of some of those states? You did say all, right?

lots of poverty

Anti-white and they view the government as a white dominated oppressor.

funded from federal money distributed to the states on that list, then those funds should be separated and paid directly to the governments of said reservations.

Fuck those red states!

NA reservations are part of the money the that is deemed by these silly studies to be "going to the states". So you are going to eliminate NA aid. What else. Social Security? Veteran pensions? Disability pensions? Food stamps? What are you going to eliminate? You are a Republican's dream. They would love you in charge.

Can you not read?

And I will not tolerate being called a rethug. I have alerted on your post. My record of support on this board and elsewhere for DEMOCRATIC policies and for Native Americans is well established.

I am a Democrat and have been all my life.

Why don't you post a "study" which shows money "going to the states" that DOESN'T have the things in it you think should be separate. You are using studies that have everything included. What do you want to eliminate??? No answer to that...

board, right to your face, in support of post(s) you've made.

However, now that you have insulted me, I will no longer be responding to your posts.

Also, my knee-jerk reaction to seeing those states that vote against social programs and against the poor or against NA or AA needs and issues is no reason to insult me. You obviously have had no desire to know me well enough or you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous insult in the first place. My anger for those states that have put assholes in charge of our Congress is real and my reaction to seeing that they are the most dependent on funds from BLUE states aggravates the shit out of me.

But you just go ahead and insult me all you want.

n/t

Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2015, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

your point is?

Edit:

oops I see you were the first to respond and i missed it. I get your point now

government like a lamb sucks milks.

really by this data or article.

They stated that it's cherry picked data to come up with a desired result.

I'd like to see all the data. I am sure we can look at Arizona and New Mexico and honestly not blame them for the amount of federal spending that goes into securing the border or due to Payment in Lieu of Taxes Federal Gov owns 50K + sq miles of land in Arizona which is about the size of Illinois). Do these funds tip them over the top?

So what argument are we making here? Cut them off? Let's say for instance if Ohio was a "taker" - should we cut them off and let nearly 50% of the folks that are on our side suffer? I mean Ohio is one of those states that could go either way politically.

Since Oak Ridge Tn is in my state should those funds count towards being a "taker"? If you happen to have 30K federal employees on a military base in your state should those dollars count towards "taking"? They do in this instance (article).

Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2015, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Because the REAL point isn't about numbers, or what reason WHY these states are receiver states. The most salient aspect here is the general political ideological make up of these particular states.

The most important thing that you've cherry picked to make a point in your argument is to exclude the fact that these are mostly RED states. And red states are remarkable because it's usually Republicans who are all about complaining about the so-called federal "Welfare State." Now whether or not a state receives more federal funds than it doles out, in an ideal world that shouldn't really matter one way or another. Of course, these things happen for the very reasons you've mentioned.

The problem with these states in particular is the fact the they're full of "welfare" queens, sucking on Uncle Sugar's tit, all the while screaming up and down that their tax dollars are being wasted on people who refuse to work. That's pure Republican hypocritical bunk… It's OTHER people's tax dollars that are propping up THEIR states instead.

The last thing that any REPUBLICAN in these states should be doing is complaining about taxes paid to the federal government and what outlays goes to particular states.

defies rational belief. The toothless cretin who says "votin' Republican ain't worked yet but mebbe it will" is an absolutely perfect symbol of the dumber-than-stone 40% of this country.

I agree with you 100%. I just hate labeling a "group" as one, in this instance the group is a "state".

So since the U.S Federal Govt owns nearly 49% of the land in Arizona should that not indeed be a "taker" state regardless of taxes? I mean nearly half the land since owned by the gov is not generating any income, so they pay the state "Payment in Lieu of Taxes" and is federal spending for that state - has nothing to do with the "taking" of anything. My logic here is that "we" as a nation own 49% of the land in Arizona and I see no problem with the "state" being a taker....could be any state that receives funds outside of things such as "social services".

If we use "takers" we have to define that term and to me it can't be defined if we can not accept that some things are needed and funded on a federal level. These things are sometimes "happenstance" and need federal monies simply by being.

Along with telling them to shut the hell up about so-called "welfare state" politics, when they're on the receiving end of everyone else's tax dollars.

We in the donor states don't mind giving more than receiving, when after all, we're all just one big happy country and promoting the GENERAL WELFARE is duty written right into our Constitution.

But obtuse and hypocritical Republican motherfuckers have no idea what they're talking about. If it's wasn't for them, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Who benefit the most should pay into the system to help those who benefit the least. That's because no one can do it on their own...

As long as we're talking about people and not states. Each state is successful all on it's own and isn't the beneficiary of the efforts of other states.

Yes. There seems to be a stench of hypocrisy coming from all over.

Because most all of the state's area is either 1) Native American reservations or 2) federal land. Do you wish aid to Native Americans to stop? Yes or no? Do you wish the federal land to be turned over to the state as the state has requested for generations? Yes or no? BTW why didn't you include DC and make it just "states"? Oh, yeah, that's right it would screw up the meme.

The same factors that AZ has New Mexico and S. Dakota has. Do you wish federal aid to Natives in those states to be cut and land turned over to the states? Yes or no? If the answer to the questions is no then stop complaining about it.

always find a way to stay on the government dole.

That's what happens to people who are raised to obey autocratic figures.

I hate these lists because they only measure direct outlays, not total costs. Let's be honest, if we valued the implicit guarantee that megabanks in the US possess, NY and NC would zoom to the top of the list. If we took account of the legal monopoly granted by patent and copyright, CA might well pass NY and NC. This type of methodology is akin to the right when they rail against welfare. They only talk direct outlays. If they talked subsidies, tax credits, tax deductions, and favorable tax treatment period, the discussion of welfare would include a lot of people they don't want to offend. The same dynamic for the left is present with this type of list.

I hear of people that think Medicare is crappy. Either they were on Medicaid or they thought they could just sign for Medicare parts A&B and thats all. They don't get a supplement to pay the 20% or get a cheap Medicare advantage and wind up having to pay more. There self made problems.

If it was one, that means everyone in the state works for the federal gov. How can a state have 15 federal employees per capita?