March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
1 members (Travis S), 251 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,373
Posts543,976
Members14,389
Most Online1,131
Jan 21st, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 24 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 23 24
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,431
Likes: 34
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,431
Likes: 34
And for your further enlightenment, try this on for size, from Business Insider:

Quote:
As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red Statesthe ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cutare a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.


http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#!IpqnG

For those of you who don't click on the link, the title of the article is "Red States Are Welfare Queens."

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
I argue that counting Federal contracts and social security payments as "taking" and lumping those funds in with with Federal welfare programs and then using those totals to rank each state as a takers or giver doesn't convey anything.

If you want to take those Federal contracts and social security out of those figures and then rank the states that might mean something.

I don't doubt the lefty profs' numbers. Their logic is certainly sub-par though.

Last edited by AmarilloMike; 01/05/18 12:35 AM.


I am glad to be here.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Replacement, I think you have me in the wrong group.I never claimed that California was being subsidized by other states. Yes, Montana is a taker. We're poor here. I don't feel the least bit defensive about it. It's just a fact. We'd pay more if we could. My only point about California is to note that under the Arnold administration, the state was going bankrupt, and that under Governor Moonbeam things have taken a dramatic turn. Personally, I'd like to see California get some disaster relief. As you point out , they've paid their share.

Last edited by rocky mtn bill; 01/05/18 12:40 AM.

Bill Ferguson
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,431
Likes: 34
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,431
Likes: 34
Quote:
If you want to take those Federal contracts and social security out of those figures and then rank the states that might mean something.


Well, gosh, it turns out that California is second, a little behind Virginia (shocking!) in federal contract dollars, and way ahead of Texas in FY2014 federal contract spending, as reported by the GSA. Ne lefty professors there, eh? And California is still ranked 46th in federal dependency.

http://gsa.federalschedules.com/resources/most-profitable-states-for-government-contractors/

You guys really need to learn how to wrap your heads around actual facts.

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,441
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,441
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: rocky mtn bill
Replacement, I think you have me in the wrong group.I never claimed that California was being subsidized by other states. Yes, Montana is a taker. We're poor here. I don't feel the least bit defensive about it. It's just a fact. We'd pay more if we could....

Bill, you're full of beans. If you could pay more, you'd buy another classic rifle. That's an internet fact based on your comments, and no don't feel the least bit defensive about it.

For simple things, I find myself repeating for no particular reason. Replacement's 'facts' are not, repeat not a money exchange to joe average dependent on big brother. Montana is dotted with nuclear missile silos and military bases that require a large influx of fed money towards your state. Your state happens to be lightly populated, it's just math, big fed dollar PER person in to the state, compared to fed taxes paid out.

Montana infrastructure such as road and power projects that get fed subsidies have a high dollar amount per person that it serves because your state is lightly populated and the services have to link residents that are spread farther apart. That results in a high fed dollar ratio per Montanan.

I can't stand your we're poor here crap. What are you saying, if you move to kali, you get rich. I'd bet the cost to run kali's fed only prisons could fund an obscene percentage increase of Montanans on welfare. Just because it could be, doesn't mean it has to be. Why don't you and Replacement get together and dig up the facts about what percentage of those kali fed prisoners are courtesy of your sanctuary ideology.

kali is just a high density state, so the numbers come out less fed dollars coming in per person. kali alone is responsible for your talking points that hill won the pop vote, but you never complained when kali spotted hill 55 electoral votes for an automatic participation trophy. The 'facts' that you folks are pointing to go far beyond welfare and mishap relief.

Last edited by craigd; 01/05/18 01:46 AM.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,431
Likes: 34
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,431
Likes: 34
craigd, I thought you were smarter than that. I guess I gave you too much credit.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Bob Cash
Well it's official...

Buying ammunition in California is going to be a problem but you can purchase all the WEED you want.


Let me give us some hope.....



School kids taught how to shoot dress and cook wild game on open fire.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,015
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,015
Thats clown Replacement has been playing that donor state BS tune for years even thou its proven to be false !
Politifact:

Many advocates for California, including former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have pointed to a study by the Tax Foundation as proof the state receives even less from the federal government.

That report said California received only 78 cents on the dollar from the federal government in 2005. The LAO, however, says that study is flawed because it "inflates the estimated amount Californians pay in taxes."

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the LAO report is a fair representation.

"I think the LAO report is fairly accurate," Coupal said. "Their ultimate conclusion that its about a dollar in for a dollar out, we think is probably accurate within the margins for what we can measure."



And YES we-those of us in low State and local tax States ARE indeed subsidizing the high tax ones like Kalif !

Perfect example even a simpleton like Replacement can understand:

"Heres the simple pitch. If you and I make the exact same amount of money, we live in the exact same value of house, we have the same kind of car, our kids go to the same kind of schools, shouldnt we pay the same federal income tax? The answer is yes, but the real world is no. If I live in a high tax state and you live in a low tax state, you actually pay more towards the federal government than I do. And thats just not fair. Its not right.

Low-tax states are subsidizing the high-tax states because the taxpayers in those states cant deduct as much from their taxes. Indeed six statesCalifornia, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvaniaclaim more than half of the value of all state and local tax deductions nationwide, according to IRS data. (Texas has no state income tax.)


Hillary For Prison 2018
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,015
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,015


http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/11/per-capita-federal-taxes-and-spending.html

High-tax state defenders have pretty much run out of ammunition. Clearly the lower tax states are doing better in job creation, business generating, business retention, cost-of-living, prosperity and net immigration standpoint. The one "fact" the lefties still love to post in desperation is the assertion that the high tax tax states subsidize the low tax states through the federal collection and distribution system. There's a grain of truth in the assertion, but a ton of manure is added to give the factor its desired decaying aroma.

It's time we took a closer look at this basic tenet of our progressive friends -- using the two most compared states -- Texas and California. This rebuttal may get a little wonky at times, but for the serious defender of the taxpayers, this is crucial stuff. Once you grasp the basic facts, you can just post the URL to this article. Rest assured that your opponents will not read it -- let alone understand it.

Since most of you won't read this semi-academic treatise, here's my bottom line conclusion -- destroying this bogus claim. EXCERPT:

Compare the full equation for California and Texas -- and the national average (all per capita paid per year):

*****************Paid to Feds**********Received from Feds
California************$7,691************************$8,967

Texas****************$8,537************************$8,865

Nat'l Average*********$7,918************************$9,961

BOTTOM LINE: California paid LESS to the feds per capita than Texas. California got MORE back per capita from the feds than Texas.


Hillary For Prison 2018
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Originally Posted By: Replacement
Quote:
If you want to take those Federal contracts and social security out of those figures and then rank the states that might mean something.


Well, gosh, it turns out that California is second, a little behind Virginia (shocking!) in federal contract dollars, and way ahead of Texas in FY2014 federal contract spending, as reported by the GSA. Ne lefty professors there, eh? And California is still ranked 46th in federal dependency.

http://gsa.federalschedules.com/resources/most-profitable-states-for-government-contractors/

You guys really need to learn how to wrap your heads around actual facts.


Still doesn't change the flawed logic of your professors' ranking system. You now have two data points, Texas and California, on federal contracts. And until your profs go back and redo the rankings, leaving out federal contracts and social security, we don't know if your/their argument stands.

And I bet most of the welfare payments in those Red states go primarily to the Democrats' constituents. And since most of the welfare system as we know it was promulgated by the Democrats there is some justice in letting the Democratic states' residents pay more federal taxes.

Last edited by AmarilloMike; 01/05/18 07:43 AM. Reason: spelling and grammar


I am glad to be here.
Page 10 of 24 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 23 24

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.068s Queries: 35 (0.042s) Memory: 0.8697 MB (Peak: 1.8988 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 08:38:21 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS