News

Liberals love claiming “red states mooch more than blue states”. Here’s proof that’s baloney.



Meanwhile…our tax dollars are being used to promote video contests for ObamaCare.

This needs to be spread far and wide my friends. Facts: A statist’s worst nightmare.

[tabs_head][tab_title][/tab_title][/tabs_head]
There’s been this meme floating around the internet for a year or two now. Anytime a conservative or libertarian mentions welfare or the 47%, the standard liberal retort is to cite that red “welfare” states receive more federal money than the IRS collects in taxes from that state. Liberal economist Paul Krugman would have you believe that Social Security and Medicare is what constitutes mooching. Their narrative is that Republicans are bigger moochers than Democrats.

The problem with both of those claims is that it doesn’t get to the heart of what “mooching” is. The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures at both the federal level and the state level. Defense is not welfare. Actual welfare and poverty programs only amount to about 10% of the expenditures at the federal level. Now if a state received only funds for poverty programs, then you could claim that it is a welfare state. But unfortunately for their argument, this is not this case. PBS states, “In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars.” (Other big ticket items that round out the list for state money from the federal government include farm subsidies, retirement programs and infrastructure projects) It’s simply a function of flowing from the states without large defense operations and retired people to the states with them. If a less populated state has a large military base with a legion of personnel conducting operations should we be surprised that there might be an imbalance of funds? No, because it is a government organization that is not producing goods, but is consuming ammo, gas, food, electricity, salaries etc.. Also, most states don’t tax military paychecks, which would somewhat offset the federal expenditure, so overall there is going to be a net draw of funds. But more to the point, national defense is a common good that benefits the whole country, so it can hardly be classified as mooching.

And then there are other problems with Krugman’s claim. Does he really consider Social Security and Medicare recipients, who paid payroll taxes into the system their whole lives only to get a payout during retirement, a moocher? I don’t think that is what constitutes a moocher in anyone’s definition, except maybe a very special liberal like Krugman. But wait, then there’s another problem; how do you control for a state that is a retirement haven like Florida or Arizona? A good portion of these people worked in other states only to migrate to the retirement haven during their golden years. So this would show up on the books as a contribution in one state and later a draw in another. These are not the welfare queens that are what people have in mind when they are talking about government dependency. But they want to argue that the red-states/Republicans are moochers, so they’ve got to fit the right set of facts to fit their narrative somehow.

Bloomberg jumped into the fray recently with an article attempting to stir up the debate. They titled it “Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls” with the obvious implication that Republicans are the ones that benefit the most from food stamps. What did they find? “Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg.

Aside from the obvious bias painting Republicans as heartless villains and Democrats the saviors with the “commitment to help those struggling to meet basic needs” line, the claim could sound pretty damning, right? Well, not if you are a critical thinker and ask the right questions. The first point that came to mind for me was that Romney won a majority of the counties in the country. Ergo, there are more red counties for events to happen. They didn’t use a rate and instead a raw number, so therefore even if the food stamp growth rate were uniformly distributed across the country’s counties, more would register for red counties. I bet the counties that had a doubling of traffic accidents also went to Romney. The second point that came to mind is the fact that these counties are much smaller than counties that went to Obama. In fact, they are less than half the size as shown in Table I. There are more opportunities for doubling, because it is much easier for a small county with a small food stamp population to double it than it is for a large county with a large food stamp population to do the same. But does a small county with 5,000 people and 500 food stamp recipients have the same weight as a large county with 50,000 people and 5000 food stamp recipients? What they should have done was report the population-weighted food stamp rate by party according to county voting preferences. Seems to me that would get to the heart of the matter. Since they went through all the datasets to aggregate the figure they reported, I bet they calculated this figure and would have published it had it been the result they were looking to report. But since they didn’t publish this figure, it tells you a lot of what they didn’t find, huh? Sometimes omission contains information.

TableI

*The Guardian reports about 1000 more counties/areas than officially reported by the census. If someone has any insight into the difference, please inform me.

To solidify their conclusion in the article they pull out a single county “which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, [and] has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.” What was the proportion? 10%? 20%? How does it compare to Obama’s county with the highest proportion? No mention of that. We’ll get back to that later.

But anyway why pussyfoot around with all the misleading metrics about federal spending and food stamp growth with TableIIsleight of hand? If you want to determine who are the biggest moochers, why not go straight to the welfare data for starters? (Especially since those who are on welfare are generally on a whole host of other dependency programs, pardon the pun). Well we know the reason, but since I am on the other side of this debate, I will go straight to the relevant and inconvenient facts. They probably won’t surprise anyone unless they really believe the red state-moocher narrative. What I found is that blue states have an over representation of welfare cases relative to their population and as a consequence of the former, red states have under representation based on their population sizes.

About 1.3% of the nation are on welfare proper. I say proper because there are a whole treasure trove of backdoor welfare programs that don’t have the welfare label (think food stamps, tax credits and Social Security Disability), but I hope to run some analysis in the future if I can find all of these datasets. If the welfare population were uniformly distributed across the nation then each state would have 1.3% of their population on welfare. But what we find is that Democratic states have 24% more representation than the national average after adjusting for population size while Republicans have 43% less. And this is even giving Democrats Florida, which is one of the most evenly divided states in the union. Without Florida going to either party, Democratic states would be overrepresented by 33.7%. A shocking fact is that a full third of the welfare cases in the nationcome just from the state of California, yet they only represent 12% of the nation’s population.

If you want raw number of welfare dollars, you’ll see that only two states out of the top 15 welfare spenders are red states.
Even still, this is all a very indirect way of getting at the underlying issue of which party mooches more. Here’s a thought experiment: You could have a highly bifurcated county with lots of poor Democrats and lots of rich Republicans. Say all 49% of the Democrats are on food stamps and all 51% of the Republicans in the county are wealthy. Well the county would vote Republican, but the food stamp benefit ratio would also register highly (or vice versa, for that matter). In a more realistic case, you’d have 5% of the county on food stamps and the county could vote either way, but that wouldn’t tell you if the 5% was Republican or Democrat. So it’s really hard to pin down which party mooches more when looking at state or county level more unless you have individual data. Alas, we do.
Before we go there, I could draw your attention to the summary page that shows the largest growth in food stamp use went mostly to blue states and the highest proportion of food stamp use goes to Washington DC followed by a mix of blue and red states. But I’m not going to play this game. Frankly, because I don’t need to.

If you look at the interactive county map that shows the highest concentration of food stamp use, it does appear at first glance that the southern red states are the biggest offenders. But look a little deeper. Most would consider it to be racist to just point to a map showing racial representation, and since we have actual data on food stamp use, we can do better than just simple assumptions. But you will notice that in a majority of the cases, black recipients, a factor 93% correlated with Democrats, outnumber whites (a category that includes Hispanics) by a factor of two to one on average (even though whites outnumber blacks by a factor of 5 in the general population). In fact, running a regression on the percentage of blacks on food stamps against the percent of the population on food stamps (0.868, t-stat: 21.6) and the log of the county size (1.6, t-stat: 7.7) we find that a 1% increase in the size of a county results in 1.59% increase of the percentage of blacks on food stamps and for each 1% increase in the number of people on food stamps, the percentage of blacks on food stamps increases 0.86%, showing that on average, most of the food stamp growth dependency comes from blacks, and therefore Democrats.

What else? We also know that Republicans earn about 40% more income than Democrats, on average. Voter exit polls for the most recent election showed that 63% of the sub $30,000 per year vote went to Obama and Obama voters were less likely to have jobs (and were younger). From a recent NPR poll surveying the long term unemployed, the Democrat’s proportion is twice that of Republicans.

Liberals repeatedly question why conservatives “vote against their own interests.” But maybe the simple answer is because they aren’t. Think about it, who would? The answer to this ‘paradox’ is because the ones who are actually voting for Republicans aren’t mooching off the government. The Occam’s razor answer was staring them right in the face the whole time, but they either couldn’t see the facts, or deliberately ignored them for their agenda.

So there you have it – Case Closed.

 
Share This on Facebook

  • bobbymike34

    Thoughtful and well researched thanks!

  • Sam Kendall

    This article is certainly a lot more well thought out/researched than the retort I would have come up with. Which, in the interest of full disclosure, would have been to ask Liberals why they put up with red-states “mooching” when they clearly have so much contempt for red-states/Republicans/Tea-Partiers/Conservatives.

  • jk13

    “The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures at both the federal level and the state level. Defense is not welfare”

    I think you should re-read the research again, according to Tax Foundation who are the original source of the study actually controlled for military spending and found that the mooching of red states holds true whether one includes defense or not. And, defense is definitely welfare when many states use the federal dollars as a jobs program when even the military doesn’t need what they are producing.

    Also, your PEW research link is very old, the updated stats shows the gaps have narrowed significantly.

    http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/08/8-23-12-5.png

    • Svan

      The link you show doesn’t cite the average, it cites ranges.

    • fel121

      And what do you get from all that defense spending, new bridges, roads, schools, anything other then something that gets used once and is gone forever like a 5k lb bomb.

  • smd

    Defense is not welfare, right. http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-weapons-makers-hidden-costs-spending-defense-foreign-aid. The pentagon cannot account for $2.3 trillion dollars, and the military’s own auditors cannot account for 25% of it’s annual budget. In the part of the budget that they can account for $24 billion goes to executive compensation of defense contractors.

  • Joseph

    You probably thought Dick Morris was on to something last Novemeber too lol. Keep the serious thought and things like Math to people who aren’t Faux News viewers.

    • http://www.chapter19.us/ Kevin Groenhagen

      Moron Alert. See Joseph’s comment.

      http://www.chapter19.us

    • WELFAREthenCOMPLAINtoo

      REPORT racism when a black sargeant calls for the takedown of a black criminal…yet whites are to blame? How about “burn it down”… I’m glad CNN/MSNBC and their reporting jumps on this with factual stuff, like WHITEMAN chokes out BLACKMAN…leaving out that your precious LIBERTARD news ALWAYS will do this so you watch them and Al Sharpton makes millions. We will work for ours, and CNN will make theirs on HATE. We can’t do anything for the people in DETROIT though…go live there where the TRUTH, including 93% BLACK MURDERS are due to BLACK PEOPLE and 145 black people killed by POLICE while whites was 380…and go cry RACISM there. They will cry with you, at home, waiting for their next hand out. While we go to work, and lead REAL american lives. Math/LOGIC to Libertards is like Work to an “African american”

  • Don

    Obama is a communist manifest speaker, he is socialist, it is how he got elected, he is the handout man, his wife is a looser also, neither ever held a job, been mooching off people everywhere, he deeply desires to be impeached, just listen to his words, he is a liar and does not even believe his own rhetoric, look at all his failed policies, he is a terrible failure in all that he does, that is what socialism will do in a land bought by the blood of true patriots, a land of Liberty, every death on every battlefield, earned Liberty…One never ever hears Obama use the word Liberty, it is against his own philosophy, one never uses words they hate…Wake up folks, Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated against human kind, every where…

    • islandtelecom96

      …you betchya !!

  • Oliver Pine

    Food stamp & other “welfare” use is higher simply where there are no jobs that pay enough for people to get out of poverty. If you want to lower the amount of people on welfare then put businesses in the inner cities other than taco bell & liquor stores, build plants in rural rundown areas instead of China. If we had the jobs back we lost to China we would be sitting down around 4% unemployment. Then poor people could pay taxes instead of leeching off the government.

    But, no we can get a 10% margin instead of a 5% margin. Employees and their lives don’t matter anymore. The fact that a country cannot physically exist for a long period of time on a solely consumption based model. People without jobs cannot consume. It doesn’t matter how cheap a toaster is. If you are broke you can’t buy one.

    • HardWorkWins

      The areas you speak of have burdensome regulatory climates that deter businesses from locating there, ala California. The burdensome regulations brought to you by, you guessed it, liberals.

      • Oliver Pine

        Yeah ok lets see did I mention California? No. I said rural run down areas.

        Do they have “burdensome regulatory climates”? No.

        Are those areas run by liberals? No.

        Are they populated with a ton of out of work people that would be happy to work for even half the median household income? Yes.

        So why aren’t the factories that used to be in the Rust Belt still running? Greed.

        This is not a blue/red issue. There is likely very little that government can do about it. People who have wealth in America have decided that they don’t love their country enough to set up business here and essentially they aren’t Americans anymore.

        Some of them like Jim Rogers, who made the bulk of his money manipulating the market, have even packed up and left America. It might be unkind to call him a traitor, but I don’t mind being unkind.

        • HardWorkWins

          More clueless generalizations… let me simplify for the economically illiterate. Companies exist to make profit. When expenses are greater than revenues long enough, the company goes out of business. Burdensome regulations, high labor costs, and products being made overseas are all reasons that a company can’t make a profit. It turns out that steel can be made cheaper elsewhere- hence many steel/manufacturing plants have shut their doors. If it were profitable, they would still be in business. Like it or not, profit margin and capitalism runs the US.

          • Oliver Pine

            You are the guy that said “these areas” so you might not want to talk about generalizations.

            It is nice that you realize that companies have to make money. That doesn’t change the fact that margins for companies are much larger now than they were years ago. That means that the owners are taking more of the cut now, almost twice as much as they used to.

            Lets see now average labor cost for a corporations is about 15%. The wage increase in the United States over the last ten years has been about .5% over CPI.

            Investors used to take 5% of the gross now they take 10%.

            So its high labor costs then?

            Oh its taxes you mean. Corporations paid about 300 billion dollars in taxes. If they are being taxed at the 35% then that means the total amount that corporations made in the US in 2012 would be something like 1 trillion dollars out of about 15 trillion GDP. Do you really think that corporations only made 1 dollar out of every 15 in the US? That is overtaxing?

            Steel is not the only thing that this area made. My grandfather worked his whole life at a plant that made furniture and my grandmother worked at an electronics plant. Their pay adjusted for inflation was not less than it is now for similar jobs and they actually got a pension as well, which you will be hard pressed to find nowadays.

            I’m sorry but if the company uses Chinese raw materials, Chinese labor and Chinese factories, it is Chinese. Business owners that move their businesses over there are basically saying that they are Chinese as well and not American.

            This is also very short-sighted for the simple fact that you cannot have a consumption based economy where nodoby makes any money. Also, by moving all of our production over to the Chinese, if a war breaks out all they have to do is nationalize and our economy simply will not exist anymore. Those little numbers you see related DOW and S&P and IRA. Just kiss them goodbye.

            Todays “entrepeneurs” are just rats leaving a sinking ship. The thing that is so hard to take is that the ship does not have to be sinking. It is just the sheer greed that is sucking the life out of America.

            And they better watch their back.

            When a person who works their tail off ends up eating hardtack with weevils while their neighbor who just sits and watches the money roll in off the stock market gets cake and champagne, people pick up rifles and they move out.

            that margins for companies are much larger now than they were years ago. That means that the owners are taking more of the cut now, almost twice as much as they used to.

          • Gallum

            I love how you totally ignore how much of their profit goes straight back into the economy.

          • Oliver Pine

            OK. What we had a generation or so ago was a setup where the owners of a company would take something like a 10% margin of the gross and pay out about 20% to the employees for a 4 to 1 ratio. Now ownership takes a 10% margin. Where did the 5% go? Off the payroll so instead of 20% to 5% you have 15% to 10%.

            Now I don’t know if you are happy that the guy who does nothing but runs your company is making twice as much money while you take a 75% pay & benefit cut, but I am not.

            As to your point. If you give a billionaire a million more dollars he will not spend it all, but if you give a group of people making the median income, they will spend every penny. The economic impact is greater when the people that actually are doing the work make a fair amount of the money being made. Not to mention the fact that many of these guys are jumping ship and taking that money with them to spend in other countries.

          • Gallum

            Stop incentivising capital flight and the money will be spent here. Duh

          • Oliver Pine

            Exactly how is capital flight incentivized? the US effective corporate tax rate has been on a steady decline since World War II. Globalization and the idea of a totally free market with no restraints is why we have companies being able to move wholesale out of the United States and yet still be owned by investors in the United States. Our “capital” is flying to China because everything we buy is made there.

            I am sure every thing I say will be considered wrong to you since you have taken an antagonistic stance and anymore once a person is seen as someone from “the other side” everything they do or say is wrong regardless of the merit of the individual. The truth is, however, that pretty much nothing I have said is “liberal” as the title of the article reads. In fact, the Republican party and its parent party the Whigs were the party that were proponents of tariffs in order to protect our industries.

            I have said it already and will say it again, the people that are moving our industrial complex overseas to possible military rivals are traitors. If there is a future conflict with China they wont have to bomb our factories to shut them down. They will just nationalize them and stop imports.

          • Gallum

            What is the capital flight incentive? Our corporate tax rate is higher than most devolved nations in the world. Duh. Plus there is a lot of money they can save on other taxes and regulations. I know you have this magical world you aspire to create but it would be nice if you stopped ignoring the realities of your policies. It don’t care what your intentions are, business doesn’t care what your intentions are, if you continue to push policies that are hostile to business then business will leave. Really basic stuff, shouldn’t need to explain it. This is basic economics, not right vs left.

          • Oliver Pine

            You are making it sound like this”capital flight incentive” is a new thing. Our laws with regard to trade and taxes have not changed very much over the past few decades. You are the one that is making it sound like there have been new government policies put in place that are an obstruction to the growth of our economy.

            I don’t have policies. I haven’t pushed any policies. This is just idiocy. We are living in a time where a group of people go about bawling “the sky is falling, look” and then point away from the sky. No new economic policies other than ones that bailed out large corporations have been enacted since Obama took office. None. Even if he wanted them they wouldn’t get through congress. Obamacare, which rich people pretend to hate, has done more for protecting the large corporate healthcare interest than anything.

            You want a policy? Here. Cut corporate tax rate to 0%. Get rid of dividend taxes, capital gains tax, estate tax, carried interest and tax all income as it is. Income. You pay the rate for all the money you earn at the Federal income tax rate. This would mean that billionaires pay the top rate (39.6 now but could be 35). Companies would have more money to pay employees, conduct R&D and yes, pay their investors. In the long run investors would be getting so mmuch more money that it would actually offset the fact that they aren’t getting away with the 15% captial gains rate.

            For example, Romney made 20 million and paid about 15% in taxes or 3 million.

            You are the one saying that the corporate tax rate is the problem here and that rate is currently 35% so if a corporation could keepall that money they could pay that 35% out. Lets say 1 billion gross. Used to be 650 net. now they get the 350K more ending up with about 1.5x as much money

            Romney makes almost all his money from investments so he now makes 30 million from investments instead of 20 milion.

            So currently his take home after tax is 20 million minus 3 million or 17 million

            My way he makes 30 million minus 12 million for take home pay of 18 million.

            He actually does better. The total amount taken in by the government is pretty much the same.

          • Gallum

            Ok look the boring leftist rhetoric talking points have lost my interest. You are spouting the same ignorance that has been disproved time and time again by myself. Not really interested in going through your social engineering hypothetical that only works in vacuums and fantasy lands while the whole time you Demonize rich people for making too much money and then try and claim at the end that using your methods they would actually make MORE money haha. Yeah, ok, i believe you. I am sure the policies you support because you want those evil rich job creating investors to have less money will actually increase their take home wealth every year. That makes sense… sheeeesh

          • Oliver Pine

            So you believe that if you go to work everyday and sweat for what you do you should pay a higher tax rate than a person that merely had some capital and put it in an investment? At the end of the day it is all income. The math works out. You can say odd vague remarks, but that is about it. In the case I stated Romney would take home more money in the long run, enabling him to “job create” more. And he still would literally have had to burn zero calories making that money. A minimum wage worker would have to work a quarter million hours to make the same amount of money. That is like twenty or thirty lifetimes of work. This is not hypothetical. Romney pays less in taxes than you do for doing nothing and you are fine with that. It is a concrete fact.

          • Gallum

            Ugh yeah, if some risked their earning to invest in the market then I don’t think they should be punished. I think they should be rewarded.

          • fel121

            Dude I told you, you are arguing with a fool, all the hard numbers and info you gave this dolt and he just continues to spew none sense that he heard on AM radio, give it up.

          • IRaiseBlackKids90%nodaddys

            While you burn down your own cities…which are built by WORKING americans…complaining your THUGS are good people?

          • fel121

            You realize you are arguing with right wing robots who know nothing that was not spoon feed them from Rush, Glen, or Fox news.

            Save your breath, just make sure you are out of debt when the right retakes the Congress and finishes the job of selling this country to the highest bidder they started under Clinton.

          • Oliver Pine

            The other thing here is I keep hearing this whining about the costs of “welfare” which usually is just money given to poor people who have children and accounts for about 400 billion or pretty close to 10% of the budget. That is for things like child food programs, tax credits and EITC which is basically another child tax credit. If you want to throw in SSI & Medicaid as welfare you are looking at maybe another 400 billion so the greedy selfish guys cost us as a part of the budget about 20%. Nevermind that many of those greedy people work, some more than one job. Ryan was just talking about expanding the EITC so you might want to jump on that liberal while your at it.

            There are 2 reasons that we have larger deficits than before Baby Boomers and Bombs.

            It has not been a secret to anyone who paid any attention to actuarial data over the last 30 years that when the Baby Boomers retired there would be a huge strain on the government. We have vast numbers of people who are retiring. They live to be 77 now not 67. For that whole time we have to pay pensions & health care. Right now we are paying about a trillion and a half for that which is of course growing because even though we have the most free market health care system in any developed country which is supposed to be aces for keeping costs down we run about 18% of our GDP in health care costs. Double what all those commies over in Europe pay. The total here works out give or take to about 33%.

            The military just in the form of the department of Defense spending has more than doubled since 2001. When Bush took office it was at $300B/yr and now it is $700B/yr. Add in the VA (130B) Homeland Security (60B) and taking care of our nukes over there at Energy (10B) and we are up to 900B which is about 25%.

            The current interest payments on the debt is around 400 billion which is close to 10% of the budget and that is with severely depressed interest rates. If we stopped keeping them so low that number could nearly double.

            Most of the rest is just normal discretionary spending.

            The point here is that making it sound like government spending is out of control because of a bunch of welfare queens in the ghetto is just stupid. But hey go ahead and try cutting the “fat” off the government rolls.

            If you want to cut child credits go ahead. Don’t like food stamps? Cut them too. Get rid of HUD and put a million people on the streets. Cut SSI so we can have a bunch of mentally “challenged” people on those streets too. Chop Medicaid. More sick people is better. We don’t need rehabs for addicts or anything like that, especially now the we have millions more on the streets.

            You want to see a real episode of the Walking Dead. Cut all those programs right now. Yeah it makes a lot more sense to do that than to just provide employment for them and have them making money which they will spend at store, increasing the economy and making your whining butt richer.

            Go ahead cut them. You might find out the streets will be coming to a neighborhood near you.

        • whidbeyisland

          You’re absolutely correct. The cities that have “burdensome regulation climates” like San Jose, Sea-Tac, San Francisco, etc. where the minimum wage is $15.00 an hour (a burdensome regulation climate for business if there ever was one) are suffering mightily. HA!

          http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/

          • abcnewscensorscansuckit

            Yeah, “addictinginfo” is where I go for “information.” Dumb broad.

          • abcnewscensorscansuckit

            Here’s a simple fact that even a stupid broad should understand: when you raise the cost of labor, the most costly expense of every business, the price of their goods must rise accordingly. What this does is put the 16 year-old who still lives at home and has a minimum wage job, back at square one. His/her purchasing power didn’t increase at all. What about that can’t you dumb libtards grasp?

        • abcnewscensorscansuckit

          Set up your own business with no demand for it, you fool. You can’t call people “greedy” who want to protect their own money. Greed is people like you demanding that “the rich” give their money up to YOU, to “even things out.” Greed is demanding something that isn’t yours.

    • Gallum

      Maybe if you stopped raising the taxes then businesses would stop leaving you fools hahaha

      • Oliver Pine

        Actually taxes have been lowered not raised. The Bush tax cuts were a tax relief program that was set to run out in 2010. Many of the cuts were retained so the taxes are actually lower now.

        • Gallum

          That is federal. I am talking about Democrat cities tax in our business. States like Texas, where I live arent having this problem that you describe because we aren’t hostile to business. Pretty simple stuff

          • Oliver Pine

            That’s interesting. I am glad its very simple for you. You could probably cite many instances of local taxes being raised in some areas while ignoring others, but I wouldn’t want you to bore me.

          • Gallum

            One thing I am sure of is that stats and facts bore you.

          • Oliver Pine

            It is just boring to have to hear your manufactured talking points answers without looking at truth. Local tax policies do not have much effect on “capital flight” anyways. Take banking for instance. There are many localities that have harsher tax policy, but it simply does not matter. Banks go to Delaware because that’s where they can get the cheapest tax code. They don’t leave the country though. You said that rising taxes are causing companies to leave the country. Taxes have not been raised. Corporations pay less tax now then they ever have, so your statement, “if you stopped raising the taxes then businesses would stop leaving “, is false. It is simply not happening. It is just the typical chorus spouted by wealthy people that live off the backs of others in order to decrease their already low tax burdens; a chorus that is then parroted by non-thinking fools like yourself. The sad thing is that you are actually cheating yourself out of being fairly compensated.

          • fel121

            It is also the cry of the low information dimwit that the modern day Conservative movement has convinced to vote against their own best interests, which if i were a betting men, I would say more accurately defines our friend Gallum here.

    • CivilDutiesToREALAmericansNOTu

      DETROIT was built and worked in…until MOOCHERS came…when CRIME went up, as the workers went to work…the moochers robbed the workers (not devising that their existence was in LARGE PART of thanks to those workers), the workers got fed up and left. THE WORKERS LEFT, but the MOOCHERS stayed. This doesn’t work for moochers, who now have no one to blame but themselves…yet the NAACP files for CIVIL RIGHTS on why they can’t PAY THEIR BILLS for services we pay for. AND TO ADD…IF I have to pass a urine sample to WORK to COVER your silly azzz, then you should have to pass it to RECEIVE those funds. You can’t use my passing the test as yours. STOP COMPLAINING and making up “red states” use welfare off FAKE numbers and read this article above, along with what I write. GET OFF YOUR AZZES! Realize that we are HIDING from you because we are sick of you mooching off us.

      • Oliver Pine

        Funny thing, this guys data is wrong anyways. Southern rednecks are seen as the biggest moochers, simply because they are the biggest moochers.

        “When adjusted for inflation, the value of welfare benefits in Alabama has increased $5,760 since 1995. That’s the ninth highest increase in the nation over that time period.” — CATO institute

        Most of the people that collect “welfare” work. Most of them full time. People who collect eitc, child tax credit, making work pay credit & TANF have to work to collect benefits. Most of those programs are directed at working families with children. Those “benefits” are paid largely in the form of tax credits, so if you have no income you cannot possibly benefit from them.

        As far as Detroit goes, if you wanted to make an argument that unions gained too much power in the automotive industry, causing pensions and benefits to rise above a level that the companies could sustain, then perhaps you might be worth listening to. The “hard workers” of Detroit did not leave. The jobs left for two reasons: productivity increases (if a machine does all the welding you don’t need to hire welders) and the efficiency of transoceanic shipping.

        I am a little confused as to what the proper spelling of “azz” is. Are their two or three Zs? You see I was never fortunate enough to go to a quaint one room schoolhouse with an outhouse like ya’ll get too. Are you worried that you might not pass a urine test? I can pass mine just fine. Oh, and just in case you didn’t know, you don’t actually pass a urine test by chugging it down the fastest. Jebediah was trolling you.

        See you on the next episode of Moonshiners. Keep up the good work my wonderful fellow American.

  • whidbeyisland

    Unlike the above article, the following link takes into account much more than just a narrow issue like welfare. If you look at all the sources, not simply one or two handpicked to make their point (I’m referring to you, Young Conservatives), you’ll see that primarily Red States are taking in more federal tax dollars than they generate, and most blue states are using less than they pay in.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/10-republican-red-states-that-mooch-off-of-coastal-liberal-states/#.VB-wU9-gpZM.facebook

  • whidbeyisland
  • MurderInTheBarn

    Good job of cherry picking federal funds given to states so it works for your article.

  • cameron

    Wait wasn’t it the gop candidate Romney who said people on social security are moochers? Now your attacking Al Krugman? LOL.

  • Aaron King

    lol.

    you have spent a lot of time reading blogs to come to a stupid conclusion based on a very simple misunderstanding.

    in fact, the only thing that matters is how much money the state sends to the feds, and how much money the state gets back. by that measure, which is the only one that matters, blue states are propping up the red states.

    blue states pay for your roads, your security, your welfare (and ours!), your military installations, your food subsidies, your fuel subsidies, all of it.

    what a jackass you are. how about just looking at reality and saying “ah, i see, I was wrong” instead of “oh, I can come up with a complicated way of making this seem different”?

  • David2020

    “Liberals repeatedly question why conservatives ‘vote against their own interests.’ But maybe the simple answer is because they aren’t. Think about it, who would?”

    Liberals don’t “repeatedly question” that. But I see Dartmouth is still turning out patriots.