http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-18/politics/30039546_1_blue-states-federal-taxes-red-states

Non-federal-income-tax-payers are also known as the "47 percenters", after Romney's infamous answer to wealthy donors about the 47% who paid no taxes (actually, Mitt, who paid no federal INCOME taxes -- they pay a whole bunch of other taxes).



#1 thru #10 - see red-colored states on map

In the below, "Repub" means Republican-voting in the 2004 presidential election (Bush v. Kerry), and "Dem" means Democratic-voting in that election. I wanted to use "red" and "blue" terminology, but that conflicts with the colors on the map.

#11 thru #15: Tennessee, N. Carolina, Utah, Arizona, Kentucky

All Repub states, generally speaking. Utah #13. Idaho #10, LOL - the only top-ten state in the geographic north -- I used to live there.

#16 - California (sigh, that's Dem.), #17-Oklahoma, #18-Montana, #19-Indiana #20-Michigan (Dem), #21-Missouri #22-W.Virginia #23-New York (Dem)

Anyway, of the top 22, only California (#16) and Michigan (#20) are Dem states based on the 2004 presidential election. (And likewise in the 2000 presidential election except that New Mexico (#4) was Dem in 2000 and Repub in 2004).

(In 2008, of the top 22, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, New Mexico went "Dem", i.e. for Obama, while California and Michigan stayed Dem for a total of 6 Dem states by this definition)

you are welcome to use the part of the road I paid for.

They make that assumption because they are selfish and can't understand why someone would support policies that don't benefit you directly.

Democrats support policies that help those who really need help. The poor. The unemployed. The hungry. The elderly. The sick. You know, like that fellow named Jesus would do.

We want government to benefit those who need help the most, not just those like the rich who really need no help at all. We are not "freeloaders" at all, we are compassionate and sick and tired of a government that only benefits 1% of Americans while everyone else suffers needlessly.

The Constitution makes it clear that the role of government is to "promote the general welfare." That's what Democrats support. To assume we just want "free stuff" is an insult to any true patriot.

Last edited Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

they come to argue and insult, because they are shielded from taking responsibility for their words by a keyboard and a monitor.

2) Know that you are not always talking with a person as they have represented themselves. The 40 year old working mom from New York who has voted Democratic all her life but can't stand Obama is just as likely a 15 year old boy from Mississippi using his mom's profile to stir up shit by repeating what he heard his Uncle Jimbo say after a few too many six pacs. As a result, his (her) responses will not seem to be the measured, mature responses you might expect from an adult.

3) Because of #s 1 and 2, you will not "win" online confrontations. The best you can hope for is that you represent facts correctly and maturely, and that a few silent but thoughtful onlookers will respect your voice, and digest some of your facts.

Truth has a liberal bias, use it and hold your head up, and welcome to DU .

Yup, the reason I get into the mixed message board / comments on news articles discussion is not to even attempt to change the mind of the ideologs, but rather the occasional "swing" onlooker who may, as one example, prefer the Dems on social issues, but have been indoctrinated into believing that Obama's stimulus has failed, that Repubs are more responsible fiscal stewards and the better job creators etc. So I'm big on putting out job creation records of Dems v. Repubs, the Repub record on the national debt (nearly tripled under Reagan, nearly doubled under G.H. Bush, nearly doubled under G.W. Bush) and responding to the nonsense like it was the Democratics taking control of Congress in January 2007 that crashed the economy ("it was doing just great until then&quot . Nope, mortgage defaults were rising every quarter throughout 2006 and housing prices were already heading down from a June/July 2006 peak and trillions of dollars of collaterized debt obligations and credit default swaps were out there ready to explode if housing prices fell on a sustained basis and on and on.

Make them produce their numbers, their facts, their statistics first in order to support their thesis.

THEY CANNOT.

All else can then be dismissed as nothing but opinion based on...well, absolutely nothing.



Here's fact for them to chew on: There are more White people on Welfare in this country, in total numbers, than any other race.




(I assume they think everyone on welfare is Black or Latino, and a Democrat.)

It you hide your loot offshore and rely on the middle class to completely shoulder the tax burden, and then take their savings
and use it for your gambing habit in deviratives, etc. ... what do you call it?

Because of the type of nursing I do and the way I personally like to connect to my patients if I can, I can tell you anecdotally that RW folk are no more self suffient than anyone else; they can be decently insured, to underinsured to no insurance. They apply for charity care, they struggle with paying for prescriptions, they give up and let the hospital eat the cost.

Their 'self suffiency' dogma is a myth like any other dogma. They live in the same country, face the same challenges. The difference is the RW is paranoid, perhaps clinically so. They want to blame the government (as well as people of color, immigrants, Gays and working women and the working poor) for all their woes. It's like they never got out of that two year old 'mine! mine!' stage, and their politics reflect and enhance this immaturity and paranoia.

But, I like what you said.

of Govt.

PROVE IT.

# Good night, and good luck.

That link #3, Squinch is great. Odd that the 3rd biggest beneficiary of federal dollars (per dollar of federal taxes each state pays) is Alaska -- don't they give all their residents an annual bonus of $9,000 or something like that from what they collect from the oil companies in taxes?

Yup. I was lucky to inherit the right genes to be very successful in school academically and to earn a degree in a high-paying field and earn 3 times the salary of a close relative that worked just as hard in school but was only a little better than average academically. I feel deeply the bite of a progressive income tax but I'm also a supporter of it because I know at least as much of success is luck as hard work. I feel sorry for some of the goobers I dialog with online - one can tell from their postings that they just aren't very bright or big earners (sometimes that comes out in long dialogs...) and I suspect they are RepubliCONNED because they are mad as heck that some "multicultural" types where they work are doing better than they are.

Sometimes when I'm called "Freeloader" I point out that I pay $20,000 in income and payroll taxes and that's probably a lot more than you do (that said while dialoging with someone who doesn't come across as well endowed in skills, knowledge, and critical thinking skills), and that I feel that you (again that person) are freeloading by paying less taxes than I do.