http://townhall.com/hrd.html?sid=179266&lo.../mediamyths.asp

http://townhall.com/hrd.html?sid=179266&lo.../mediamyths.asp

 

well,i feel retarded after reading that...another bulls*** sour grapes article...

 

damn them! DAMN them for making jokes that it would be nice to have LOng vacation times and shorter work weeks...TELL THE TRUTH!!!

http://townhall.com/hrd.html?sid=179266&lo.../mediamyths.asp

 

Oh yes, the highly regarded Free market Project, which is of course neutral, telling me hard hitting economic facts! Laissez-faire, laissez-faire, laissez-faire! Excuse me while I go read The Weekly Standard, NewsMax, and the Wall Street Journal so I can finish my pro business circlejerk.

Oh yes, the highly regarded Free market Project, which is of course neutral, telling me hard hitting economic facts! Laissez-faire, laissez-faire, laissez-faire! Excuse me while I go read The Weekly Standard, NewsMax, and the Wall Street Journal so I can finish my pro business circlejerk.

 

So you are saying the tax cuts did not increase revenues?????? We should not be allowed to keep more of our money. No let the government keep it and spend it on farm subsidies and entitlement programs. They work so well.

So you are saying the tax cuts did not increase revenues?????? We should not be allowed to keep more of our money. No let the government keep it and spend it on farm subsidies and entitlement programs. They work so well.

Let's not forget unnecessary multibillion dollar wars.

So you are saying the tax cuts did not increase revenues?????? We should not be allowed to keep more of our money. No let the government keep it and spend it on farm subsidies and entitlement programs. They work so well.

I could make a number of notes here about which party was in power when the last, massive, gargantuan, ridiculous package of farm subisides was passed, but I believe I'll pass. Oh wait, I think I just did it.

So you are saying the tax cuts did not increase revenues?????? We should not be allowed to keep more of our money. No let the government keep it and spend it on farm subsidies and entitlement programs. They work so well.

 

 

 

 

The government should be made to do with less before it asks the people to pay more. Why should you, me and everyone else subsidize wasteful government spending?

The government should be made to do with less before it asks the people to pay more.  Why should you, me and everyone else subsidize wasteful government spending?

Because, to put it simply, right now there is no possible motivation for the government to actually do more with less. Politicians are being elected based on how much money they can bring home to their district or to businesses within their district. Politicians are not being elected based on their willingness to balance the federal budget. We are subsidizing wasteful government spending because we have decided/been told that massive deficit spending is the best thing for our economy right now.

Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

 

8. Global warming is causing stronger hurricanes

 

The government should be made to do with less before it asks the people to pay more.  Why should you, me and everyone else subsidize wasteful government spending?

 

 

agreed. and that biggest douche in Alaska, Ted Stevens is the worst of them all.

 

I want all Republicans here to look at who is the problem of "big government spending"

 

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

 

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):

 

 

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)- D

2. North Dakota ($2.03)- R

3. New Mexico ($1.89)-D in 2000, R in 2004

4. Mississippi ($1.84)- R

5. Alaska ($1.82)- R

6. West Virginia ($1.74)- R

7. Montana ($1.64)- R

8. Alabama ($1.61)- R

9. South Dakota ($1.59)-R

10. Arkansas ($1.53)-R

 

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold

 

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

 

1. New Jersey ($0.62)- D

2. Connecticut ($0.64)- D

3. New Hampshire ($0.68) R in 2000, D in 2004

4. Nevada ($0.73)- R

5. Illinois ($0.77)- D

6. Minnesota ($0.77)- D

7. Colorado ($0.79)- R

8. Massachusetts ($0.79)- D

9. California ($0.81)- D

10. New York ($0.81)- D

 

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.

Edited December 17, 200520 yr by jasonxctf

umm...lack of bold confused me

agreed. and that biggest douche in Alaska, Ted Stevens is the worst of them all.

 

I want all Republicans here to look at who is the problem of "big government spending"

 

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

 

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)- D

2. North Dakota ($2.03)- R

3. New Mexico ($1.89)-D in 2000, R in 2004

4. Mississippi ($1.84)- R

5. Alaska ($1.82)- R

6. West Virginia ($1.74)- R

7. Montana ($1.64)- R

8. Alabama ($1.61)- R

9. South Dakota ($1.59)-R

10. Arkansas ($1.53)-R

 

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold

 

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

 

1. New Jersey ($0.62)- D

2. Connecticut ($0.64)- D

3. New Hampshire ($0.68) R in 2000, D in 2004

4. Nevada ($0.73)- R

5. Illinois ($0.77)- D

6. Minnesota ($0.77)- D

7. Colorado ($0.79)- R

8. Massachusetts ($0.79)- D

9. California ($0.81)- D

10. New York ($0.81)- D

 

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.

 

Just guessing here, but the per capita income of the states in the first list would probably be substantially lower than the pci of the states in list 2. Wouldn't the "poor" states be the ones that should receive the lion's share?

im sure you're right about the pci, but i guess it shows who is actually paying for those "bridges to nowhere" that Alaska wants. It's certainly not the Alaskans.

Politicians are getting elected by spending more and taxing less. Imagine our joy in learning we can cut our taxes, spend at record levels, and someone else will pay the deficit, with interest, instead of us. :headshake

Just guessing here, but the per capita income of the states in the first list would probably be substantially lower than the pci of the states in list 2.  Wouldn't the "poor" states be the ones that should receive the lion's share?

 

Not to mention a pretty close correlation to population density there as well...

Just guessing here, but the per capita income of the states in the first list would probably be substantially lower than the pci of the states in list 2.  Wouldn't the "poor" states be the ones that should receive the lion's share?

 

Washington D.C. should receive the most per person. Because it doesn't have a state apparatus, most of its budget is controlled by the Federal Government. Plus I'm sure that 6 dollar figure also accounts for maintenance of all the special needs that having a capital has.

 

Alaska actually has an average income higher than most states. Yet they receive more federal funding than the average state.

 

Anybody read "What's The Matter with Kansas?" Great book and it talks about the fundamental disconnect between the populist movement in the midwest and its own interests. The people in the poorer states who get more money seem to bark the loudest about a government that's way too large - yet vote for their representatives who bring as much money back to their state as possible. I tend to think that the conservative movement feeds itself on hypocrisy. They use anger and resentment over government handouts to build their victory but only get re-elected thanks to government handouts (farm subsidies, ethanol programs, etc.) Apparently the personal responsibilty and independence that they talk about all the time doesn't apply to themselves.

 

And the reason it works so well is that the conservative movement gets the unwashed and unmoneyed masses in the midwest to form an angry mob and fly the flag over the gated community shouting at the elites that they hate so, "We've come in anger to lower your taxes."

I was aware of the DC and Alaska exceptions to my statement. I was speaking in generally terms, or taking the each list collectively.

Washington D.C. should receive the most per person. Because it doesn't have a state apparatus, most of its budget is controlled by the Federal Government. Plus I'm sure that 6 dollar figure also accounts for maintenance of all the special needs that having a capital has.

You know, somehow I doubt that, Washington D.C.'s unique in that it doesn't really have a representative in Congress, so it has no one who can really "Bring home" all those federal dollars that other cities get. They're often quite pissed about it. Don't have any numbers to present on this one though.