Moocher states=Red states

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2012 7:26 PM GMT
    nonpayers.jpg

    If only Romney's assertion was true, it would be the opposite of the current red/blue state composition.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2012 7:50 PM GMT
    It's true, but if we didn't have this transfer union we'd be just like the Eurozone.

    Fiscal Union requires Political Union and the consequent transfers.

    Although sometimes I wish New England could just become a separate country :-)
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 19, 2012 9:20 PM GMT
    What a fucked up world we live in. These poor uneducated republicans like to bite the hands that feed them. It must be due to their racism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2014 6:38 PM GMT
    So... as it turns out, the liberals here were wrong again.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/24/red-state-blue-state-who-receives-the-most-federal-funding-not-ready-hold-for-wed-am/

    States-Funding.png

    As you can clearly see, there’s a difference in the distribution of federal funds among the states. In fact, if you combine “strong GOP” with “likely GOP,” the amount is still less than then amount “strong Dem” states have received in the last 12 years.

    Now some argue that certain states spend their federal funds differently, giving more back to the “pie” than others, and that this somehow changes everything.

    Again, that’s not the argument. The original argument claims “red” states receive more federal funds than anyone else, leading to things like an uptick in income growth. But as the above clearly indicates, “red” states simply don’t get more in fed funds.

    Now we’re sure you’re want to know which states have received the most since the turn of the new millennium. We’re glad you asked. It just so happens that we have a list prepared for you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2014 7:59 PM GMT
    The Blaze
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    Right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2014 8:38 PM GMT
    Aristoshark saidThe Blaze
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    Right.

    Very Right. And very wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2014 8:52 PM GMT
    That's lame math, you don't do go by raw numbers and directly compare them, you use percentages and compare what the variance is between what certain states put in and what they put back. Of course blue states receive more in raw dollars, there is more population, but blue states also generate more revenue. Red states are receiving more money than they are putting in, and in some cases, receiving an amount that is nearly disproportionate to the state population and far higher than what any blue state in terms of population proportion.

    It's like two persons of different heights, weights and fitness goals consuming the same amount of calories in one day, one person may be getting too much, while the other is getting too little.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2014 9:59 PM GMT
    condom_king saidThat's lame math, you don't do go by raw numbers and directly compare them, you use percentages and compare what the variance is between what certain states put in and what they put back. Of course blue states receive more in raw dollars, there is more population, but blue states also generate more revenue. Red states are receiving more money than they are putting in, and in some cases, receiving an amount that is nearly disproportionate to the state population and far higher than what any blue state in terms of population proportion.

    It's like two persons of different heights, weights and fitness goals consuming the same amount of calories in one day, one person may be getting too much, while the other is getting too little.




    Do you actually have a clue as to what you're talking about or are you just repeating something you've heard somewhere else?

    Actually every time you all try pulling this shit about how much more red states are getting from the Federal Government than the blus states, you all forget to take a full accounting of how much the Federal Government actually takes out of most of the red states besides taxes. Are you aware that in most red states the Federal Government controls more land inside the states than it does in most blue states?

    My own state is a good example. Someone complained on here at one time that for each $1.00 Utah paid in taxes it got back $1.07 back. But they left out all of the billions of dollars the Federal Government pulls out of the state of Utah that are not taxes. The inconvenient truth that you all would rather for get is:

    The Federal Government controls 67.9% of the land area in the state of Utah in the form of National Parks, Monuments, Forests and BLM lands. There are only four eastern states in which the Federal Government controls about 15% of their land areas and most are under 9% with many at 5% or less. The Federal Government makes Billions of dollars each year off of these lands inside the state of Utah in the form of leases and grazing permits of BLM and Forest Service lands,leases for energy and mineral exploration (oil, shale oil, natural gas, coal, gold, silver, copper etc), There are royalties on any energy or mineral production on these lands over and above the cost of the leases, leases to private businesses operating inside these lands, concession fees from businesses operating in or adjacent to these lands,there are leases for building private homes and cabins inside these lands,there are fees charged for entering, using, and camping inside these lands, and there are lumber leases.
    That's just a fraction of the fees extracted out of these lands by the Federal Government. All of these BILLIONS of dollars from lands with in the boarders of my state are paid to the Federal Government and go to Washington to pay for a lot of batshit crazy policies, many of which don't benefit my state and the majority of people in my state don't want or agree with.
    There's a movement in the western states to regain control of these lands that were promised to be returned to us when we entered the union as a state.

    What I say to people like you, is get on the stick and pressure the Federal Government into returning these lands back to the states and let us keep the Billions of dollars in our states and then all of you people who have no idea of what you are talking about can keep your extra 7cents/dollar on our taxes. I guarantee that right now you're getting the better deal from the red states than we are getting from you, especially now that there is an energy boom in parts of Utah.

    Percentages don't matter if you aren't counting everything you are taking from us in your equations. Stop bitching about what the Federal Government is giving to red states until you honestly look at all it is extracting from those states and if it bothers you so much then stop taking our natural resources and return them back to the people living in the states that you are taking them from. Until then this is not an honest discussion.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2014 10:05 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidAccording to the NYT on August 31, 2010, using the latest data from US Census Bureau, Alaska, North Dakota, Kansas, Virginia, all red states received the most federal funds.

    economix-31fedfundstostates3-custom1.jpg

    You do take into account the fact that Virginia has a lot of military bases, right? Not to mention the fact that Virginia is a purple state trending blue, and can't be classified as red proper anymore?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2014 10:05 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidAccording to the NYT on August 31, 2010, using the latest data from US Census Bureau, Alaska, North Dakota, Kansas, Virginia, all red states received the most federal funds.

    economix-31fedfundstostates3-custom1.jpg


    Maybe you could be so kind as to tell us how much in non-tax dollars the Federal Government extracted from each of those states?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2014 12:27 PM GMT
    woodsmen said"Maybe you could be so kind as to tell us how much in non-tax dollars the Federal Government extracted from each of those states?"

    I don't have that information but if you do, please share it. With respect to your state of Utah, Utah was Mexican territory when the first pioneers arrived in 1847. Early in the Mexican-American War in late 1846, the United States had captured New Mexico and California, and the whole Southwest became U.S. territory upon the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on March 11. The land of Utah originated as federal land.


    Really? You couldn't answer the question I asked, so instead you researched the history of the western United States in an attempt to prove what I said was wrong?

    You were good, up to your last sentence. Since I'm involved with a think tank and a group of politicians who are in the process of trying to have the Federally controlled lands returned to the state I'll try to explain where you're wrong, while trying not to get too far into the weeds.

    The Mormon settlers, in an attempt to maintain self-determination decided to try to bypass the territorial process and applied directly for statehood in 1849 and were turned down, however in 1850 Utah was awarded territorial status. As a Territory, all of the lands within the boarders of the territory were under the control, jurisdiction and administration of the Territorial Government of Utah and remained so for half a century, until 1896.
    In 1896 Utah became a state, and as every state before it and every state after it, was forced to enter into a contractual compact with the Federal Government known as an Enabling Act. Under the contract in order to become a state the Territory of Utah was forced to turn over all lands within the territory not privately owned or held in trust for Utah's education system. In the Enabling Act the Federal Government promised to:

    1) Dispose of the lands in the new state of Utah through sells to private persons or interests, thereby returning control of the lands back to the state

    2) Set up a perpetual trust with 5% of the proceeds from the sale of the public lands held by the Federal Government.

    The Federal Government broke those promises to the state by not selling the public lands and therefore not setting up the trust as promise, thereby breaching the contract between the State of Utah and the Federal Government. The contract was further breached when the Clinton administration ceased Utah School Trust Lands guaranteed to the state for use in funding it education system.

    As you can see, the state of Utah no more "originated as Federal Land" any more than the state of Illinois did simply by virtue of it having been part of the Louisiana Purchase. Obviously the Federal Government felt the same way, otherwise there would be no reason for them to require the states to have an Enabling Act to join the union if their lands already belonged to the Federal Government.

    Thanks for trying to school me in the history of my state, but as you can see you need not have bothered. Maybe you could research the Tea Pot Dome Scandal for us next, but I'm sure that won't be as much fun for you without the incentive to prove me wrong.
  • mybud

    Posts: 11819

    Jan 24, 2014 3:40 PM GMT
    Republican's continue to hold tight to the 47% philosophy...Keep doing so and practice saying President Hilary Clinton....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2014 2:21 AM GMT
    mybud saidRepublican's continue to hold tight to the 47% philosophy...Keep doing so and practice saying President Hilary Clinton....

    QF freakin' T