On 4/13/2016 12:23 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:06:03 -0600, carnal asada >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2016 11:49 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:40:38 -0600, carnal asada >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2016 1:13 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:42:18 -0600, carnal asada >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/11/2016 10:41 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>> To prove my point, all you need to do is Google which states TAKE the
>>>>>>> most Federal "handout" dollars vs how much they contribute in taxes
>>>>>>> and how many of them are red (Republican dominated) states.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of course Dems _never_ cease to hand out other peoples' money to
>>>>>> one and all - they're equal opportunity redistributors, always.
>>>>>
>>>>> Red states never fail to have their hands out to take a Federal
>>>>> handout. Typical hypocrites.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And they only have red people in them?
>>>>
>>>> Those are the only people getting federal aid?
>>>>
>>>> Do tell...
>>>>
>>>> Btw, is their political polarity at present the defining trait of those
>>>> states?
>>>>
>>>> Or are there perhaps other demographic traits that are a bit more relevant?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As far as money going to the state far outstripping what the state
>>> contributes in taxes. Yes, absolutely.
>>>
>>
>> No, that's RIPE BULLSHIT!
>>
>> You have made blanket statement with ZERO demographic references or
>> proofs, and you have done so repeatedly despite being told you are
>> uneducated on the matter.
>>
>> Now then:
>>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...e_welfare.html
>>
>
> Why don't you stop posting conservative bullshit and post some real
> stastics for a change.
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...takers/361668/
Why don't you EVER post anything other than far left biased links?
There are specific demographic reasons why given states produce and
consumer varying levels of federal funding.
But before we get to those...
Do you ever excoriate Taxachusettes for their absurd porkopolis known as
the "big dig"?
http://archive.boston.com/news/local...ing/?page=full
As deadlines passed and costs skyrocketed from $1 billion to more than
$14 billion, the Central Artery/Tunnel project championed by the late
Democratic speaker, Thomas P. ``Tip" O'Neill Jr., came to represent the
worst excesses of pork-barrel politics. Many members of Congress cheered
when the federal government finally moved to stop cutting checks in 2000.
How about Washington state's Jurassic pork?
TAKING A RIDE ON THE SEATTLE MONEY TRAIN
Washington Light Rail Project a Heavy Burden for Taxpayers
Seattle’s $1.9 billion light rail project, one of the most expensive in
the United States, appears to
be anything but a first class trip for taxpayers.
42,43
The Sound Transit University Link light rail
extension is a 3.15 mile tunnel that will connect
downtown Seattle to the University of
Washington’s campus. Construction on the
segment began in 2009 and is expected to open
sometime in 2016, although the Central Puget
Sound Regional Transit Authority (CPSRTA),
which is responsible for the project, has been
notorious for missing deadlines.44,45
Federal funds were earmarked for the extension in 2008 and over $300
million in earmarked
dollars were steered to it through 2010. 46,47,48 After the earmark ban
took effect, the project
received another $400 million through federal grants, committee
influence, and omnibus
bills.
49, 50,51,52,53
With respect to making federal funding for this project a priority, it
doesn’t hurt that its chief
proponents include a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and
longtime Chairman of
the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee.
While light rail is sold as being lighter and more efficient, some
transportation experts believe
that light rail is more wasteful and inefficient.
54 Unfortunately, the incentive to build light rail
infrastructure comes from the Federal Transit Authority’s (FTA) New
Starts program, which
promises to pay up to 50 percent of the cost of building new transit
lines.55 Hence, cities that
spend more, get more. However, cities – at times with the help of
willing congressional
proponents – can tend to bite off more than they can chew when they know
that the federal
government will pay for a good portion of the project. Taxpayers can be
taken for a ride twice.
They pay once for the initial deluge of federal funds and again for the
maintenance and upkeep
of light rail systems after the original federal funding is long gone.
With the national debt topping $18 trillion, spending under a scenario
like this is anything but
light and represents a heavy burden on taxpayers.
....or closer to your own BLUE state home:
FERRY FUNDING FLOWS LIKE WATER IN BAY AREA
San Francisco Ferry System Costing Taxpayers Millions
San Francisco’s Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) is
responsible for operating and expanding ferry
services in and around the San Francisco
Bay.56 As the manager of the ferry system,
WETA has the authority to expand service
areas and designate new terminals around the
bay. With subsidies provided by local taxes
and federal funding, WETA is able to operate
throughout the bay as the premier ferry service
with routes as far north as Vallejo and as far
south as Harbor Bay.57 Since 2008, WETA’s
efforts to expand the ferry service from
Albany and Berkeley to San Francisco have
benefitted from the attention of the local
congressional delegation.
In 2007, San Francisco politicians successfully procured an earmark
worth $750,000 for ferry
boats and terminals for the Berkeley/Albany Ferry Service, and an
additional $475,000 earmark
in 2009 for vessel and terminal construction.58,59 In 2010, a
particularly well-connected member
of Congress from the City by the Bay jumped on board and helped earmark
$1 million for the Berkley/Albany to San Francisco Ferry Service.60
These pre-ban earmarks are emblematic of the
thirst for federal funding that survives beyond the earmark ban.
In addition, it appears that, as of February 2015, over $2 million in
federal taxpayer funds that
were directed to ferry-related expenditures have yet to be allocated and
remain a drain on the
U.S. Treasury.61 What’s more, the flow of federal funding has yet to stop.
In 2014, WETA received a $3 million grant from the U.S. Department of
Transportation to
support more construction on terminals and maintenance facilities for
ferries in the bay.62 WETA
Board Member Jeff DelBono even mentioned the importance of the Bay Area
congressional
delegation in securing this grant.63
Despite record deficits, the federal government continues to spend money
on old earmarks,
leaving taxpayers working desperately to try and stay afloat. The Bay
Area’s affinity for
parochial spending is enough to give taxpayers the feeling that the
entire federal budget is
fiscally adrift.
Now THAT is some big time blue state WELFARE from the Feds!!!!!
Do you even acknowledge any differences in population, income,
infrastructure, or any other key factors that create innate disparities
between the lamestream media-labeled "red" and "blue" states?
Or do you just sit here and spew back Dem whipping post polemics with
not the slightest thought cycles of your own?
Let's review some KEY facts which you just snipped and dismissed:
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...e_welfare.html
1. the "red state welfare" argument appears to be entirely based only on
how each state voted in the most recent presidential election.
2. State finances take decades to develop as either "haves" or
"have-nots," so looking at only a single election is meaningless.
http://www.youngcons.com/liberals-lo...thats-baloney/
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4.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.
Now please rotate on those FACTS!