California is a donor state

Related:
Create New Tag

12/21/2017 8:01 PM

If anyone would deserve assistance during an emergency they would be on the short list.

|

12/21/2017 8:05 PM

|

12/21/2017 8:09 PM

Hard to believe Illinois beats it at 47th.

|

12/21/2017 8:12 PM
Edited Date/Time: 12/21/2017 8:27 PM

Look at the bible belt,

|

12/21/2017 9:34 PM

I kinda wonder a bit about the methodology, although I think that we are probably about where we should be for the most part.

But take the Hanford Reservation for instance. There are plenty of federal contracts there that probably count as "dependence", but in reality it's cleaning up the mess created by the federal government. Some of us western states with large amounts of land owned by the federal government might also get the dollars spent on those areas counted as "dependence", even though it's actually going to maintain a federal asset, etc.

All of these things can be manipulated a bit, obviously, but they all do seem to have the same trends.......

|

12/21/2017 9:43 PM

How many municipalities transferred their city/state pensions to the Federal Program? Several if I recall...

|

12/21/2017 10:01 PM

Hut wrote:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/


Source: WalletHub

APLMAN99 wrote:

I kinda wonder a bit about the methodology, although I think that we are probably about where we should be for the most part.

But take the Hanford Reservation for instance. There are plenty of federal contracts there that probably count as "dependence", but in reality it's cleaning up the mess created by the federal government. Some of us western states with large amounts of land owned by the federal government might also get the dollars spent on those areas counted as "dependence", even though it's actually going to maintain a federal asset, etc.

All of these things can be manipulated a bit, obviously, but they all do seem to have the same trends.......

Anyone that has an issue with so called donor states should then have issue with millionaires having to pay higher tax rates than minimum wage earners.
California, New York, and others have industry's, financial centers, etc, with high earners . So it's not really shocking. Has nothing to do with how red vs blue states manage finances or look for handouts even though that's the intent of these articles.

Also, like Alpman said the Feds fund and subsidize all kinds of stuff to different states. Military bases, agriculture, different populations of retiries,etc.

|

12/22/2017 9:16 AM

The point is federal tax from a person in any state might go to help fight a fire in California. To suggest otherwise is completely ridiculous.
When a hurricane destroys a Southern state the rest of us want to see our tax dollars put to use to help those people.

|

12/22/2017 10:14 AM

No they’re put to use in a sexual assault slush fund. One of the many bullshit funds allocated. Our money.....

|

GP740
Since 1987

12/22/2017 10:22 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/22/2017 10:25 AM

From Business Insider:
"[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers... As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are 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."

If you look at poverty maps, food stamp usage maps, and compare it to money paid vs money received from the federal government it's pretty obvious what's going on. As much as people want to shit on blue states without them many red states would crumble.
|

12/22/2017 10:23 AM

akillerwombat wrote: From Business Insider:
"[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers... As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are 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."

If you look at poverty maps, food stamp usage maps, and compare it to money paid vs money received from the federal government it's pretty obvious what's going on. As much as people want to shit on blue states without them many red states would crumble.

w00t silly w00t grin silly grin w00t whistling pinch
|

GP740
Since 1987

12/22/2017 10:31 AM

GeorgiePorgie wrote:

No they’re put to use in a sexual assault slush fund. One of the many bullshit funds allocated. Our money.....

They aren't allowed to talk about that.

|

12/22/2017 10:33 AM

akillerwombat wrote: From Business Insider:
"[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers... As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are 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."

If you look at poverty maps, food stamp usage maps, and compare it to money paid vs money received from the federal government it's pretty obvious what's going on. As much as people want to shit on blue states without them many red states would crumble.

Won't stop them from screaming how righteous they are.

|

12/22/2017 10:40 AM

Hut wrote:

Won't stop them from screaming how righteous they are.

... even the guy at the bus stop has the decency to say "thank you" when I buy him lunch.

|

12/22/2017 10:47 AM

akillerwombat wrote: From Business Insider:
"[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers... As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are 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."

If you look at poverty maps, food stamp usage maps, and compare it to money paid vs money received from the federal government it's pretty obvious what's going on. As much as people want to shit on blue states without them many red states would crumble.

Try and sell that to the coal mining families who have spent their lives keeping the lights on for the rest of the world for pennies.

|

12/22/2017 10:51 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/22/2017 10:55 AM

hard2kill wrote:

Try and sell that to the coal mining families who have spent their lives keeping the lights on for the rest of the world for pennies.

Gladly.

I always welcome to opportunity to thank people for their hard work but if their state loses upwards of $4-$7 for every $1 they make then maybe they should in turn thank those who work so hard to keep food on their tables as well... or at the very least refrain from telling us to fuck off so often.

|

12/22/2017 11:01 AM

Not denying that, just trying to show that it is more complicated than these biased opinions. Do you think the coal miners have really earned the wages they are worth? Its not just the coal mining industry either, wages for the same exact jobs in different areas are often vastly different.

|

12/22/2017 11:07 AM

hard2kill wrote:

Not denying that, just trying to show that it is more complicated than these biased opinions. Do you think the coal miners have really earned the wages they are worth? Its not just the coal mining industry either, wages for the same exact jobs in different areas are often vastly different.

Organize!

|

12/22/2017 11:15 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/22/2017 11:17 AM

hard2kill wrote:

Not denying that, just trying to show that it is more complicated than these biased opinions. Do you think the coal miners have really earned the wages they are worth? Its not just the coal mining industry either, wages for the same exact jobs in different areas are often vastly different.

I think a lot of people are paid far less than they are worth... but the game is designed to keep it that way.

You want to help coal miners – you have to help everyone that struggles to make a decent living because as much as we might not like guys who ride quads we'd be dumb as shit to not team up with them to keep our natural riding spots open because of pride.

|

12/22/2017 11:44 AM

akillerwombat wrote: From Business Insider:
"[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers... As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are 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."

If you look at poverty maps, food stamp usage maps, and compare it to money paid vs money received from the federal government it's pretty obvious what's going on. As much as people want to shit on blue states without them many red states would crumble.

GeorgiePorgie wrote: w00t silly w00t grin silly grin w00t whistling pinch

But watch Wombat scream from the mountains when we suggest kicking some useless fucks off the gubmint tit.

|

12/22/2017 11:53 AM

newmann wrote:

But watch Wombat scream from the mountains when we suggest kicking some useless fucks off the gubmint tit.

Which is better; a few go hungry as long as no one games the system or a few game the system as long as no one goes hungry?

|

12/22/2017 12:01 PM

akillerwombat wrote: From Business Insider:
"[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers... As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are 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."

If you look at poverty maps, food stamp usage maps, and compare it to money paid vs money received from the federal government it's pretty obvious what's going on. As much as people want to shit on blue states without them many red states would crumble.

GeorgiePorgie wrote: w00t silly w00t grin silly grin w00t whistling pinch

newmann wrote:

But watch Wombat scream from the mountains when we suggest kicking some useless fucks off the gubmint tit.

Business insider= liberal website......

|

12/22/2017 12:07 PM

vetmxr wrote:

Business insider= liberal website......

Instead of shouting, "fake news / liberals", why don't you put in the work to disprove what they're saying?

|

12/22/2017 1:18 PM

akillerwombat wrote: From Business Insider:
"[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers... As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are 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."

If you look at poverty maps, food stamp usage maps, and compare it to money paid vs money received from the federal government it's pretty obvious what's going on. As much as people want to shit on blue states without them many red states would crumble.

It's not the hippie socialist liberals sipping lattes on the way to the abortion clinic that are sending all this tax revenue to the Feds . It's your 1% buddies in CA sending massive income taxes from CA . Hedge fund investers in Silicon valley, plastic sergeons for the rich and famous, and oil company execs building mansions in the hills of malibu.

So you think it's unfair for the welfare queens in the bible belt to receive money from CA. Should it be corrected by lowering taxes on the oil exec in malibu? Or should the Feds credit that money back to the oil exec instead of sending it to the hipocrytical welfare queens in Mississippi?

I know your a good liberal but this article and your argument isn't any different than saying people on Federal subsidence are taking something they don't desereve.

Or maybe you agree with me and think the federal income tax should be repealed all together.



|

12/22/2017 1:38 PM
Edited Date/Time: 12/22/2017 1:48 PM

SCR wrote:

It's not the hippie socialist liberals sipping lattes on the way to the abortion clinic that are sending all this tax revenue to the Feds . It's your 1% buddies in CA sending massive income taxes from CA . Hedge fund investers in Silicon valley, plastic sergeons for the rich and famous, and oil company execs building mansions in the hills of malibu.

So you think it's unfair for the welfare queens in the bible belt to receive money from CA. Should it be corrected by lowering taxes on the oil exec in malibu? Or should the Feds credit that money back to the oil exec instead of sending it to the hipocrytical welfare queens in Mississippi?

I know your a good liberal but this article and your argument isn't any different than saying people on Federal subsidence are taking something they don't desereve.

Or maybe you agree with me and think the federal income tax should be repealed all together.



I think if you'd read what I posted you'd see that not only have I never said they don't deserve it but I've also stated numerous times that I am quite happy to help out my fellow Americas (red, blue, or purple).

What baffles me is this "stick it to the blue states" tone that has consumed America (most recently with this new tax bill) as blue America is responsible for keeping much of red America above water. Are we responsible for keeping all of it a float, of course not (just getting a head of this), but the size of our contribution is laughably and somewhat painfully ignored.

Honestly, the amount of shit I get on this board because I am a "liberal" is dwarfed by the shit I get because I am from Cali (and even more so from Los Angeles) yet those same people throwing shit have no issue taking $3, $4, $5, $6, or $7 out of the pockets of fellow Americans in said blue states.

|

12/22/2017 1:57 PM

akillerwombat wrote: From Business Insider:
"[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers... As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are 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."

If you look at poverty maps, food stamp usage maps, and compare it to money paid vs money received from the federal government it's pretty obvious what's going on. As much as people want to shit on blue states without them many red states would crumble.

hard2kill wrote:

Try and sell that to the coal mining families who have spent their lives keeping the lights on for the rest of the world for pennies.

Coal miners make good money.... nobody would do that work if they could make the same paycheck at McDonald's.

|

12/22/2017 2:02 PM
Edited Date/Time: 12/22/2017 2:04 PM

akillerwombat wrote: From Business Insider:
"[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers... As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States—the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut—are 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."

If you look at poverty maps, food stamp usage maps, and compare it to money paid vs money received from the federal government it's pretty obvious what's going on. As much as people want to shit on blue states without them many red states would crumble.

SCR wrote:

It's not the hippie socialist liberals sipping lattes on the way to the abortion clinic that are sending all this tax revenue to the Feds . It's your 1% buddies in CA sending massive income taxes from CA . Hedge fund investers in Silicon valley, plastic sergeons for the rich and famous, and oil company execs building mansions in the hills of malibu.

So you think it's unfair for the welfare queens in the bible belt to receive money from CA. Should it be corrected by lowering taxes on the oil exec in malibu? Or should the Feds credit that money back to the oil exec instead of sending it to the hipocrytical welfare queens in Mississippi?

I know your a good liberal but this article and your argument isn't any different than saying people on Federal subsidence are taking something they don't desereve.

Or maybe you agree with me and think the federal income tax should be repealed all together.



akillerwombat wrote:

I think if you'd read what I posted you'd see that not only have I never said they don't deserve it but I've also stated numerous times that I am quite happy to help out my fellow Americas (red, blue, or purple).

What baffles me is this "stick it to the blue states" tone that has consumed America (most recently with this new tax bill) as blue America is responsible for keeping much of red America above water. Are we responsible for keeping all of it a float, of course not (just getting a head of this), but the size of our contribution is laughably and somewhat painfully ignored.

Honestly, the amount of shit I get on this board because I am a "liberal" is dwarfed by the shit I get because I am from Cali (and even more so from Los Angeles) yet those same people throwing shit have no issue taking $3, $4, $5, $6, or $7 out of the pockets of fellow Americans in said blue states.

Do you understand the bottom line determining factor as to who prospers and who doesn't? It's not hard work, or better ideas, or organized labor forces. CA or any state you want to pick for that matter is not "responsible for keeping much of red America above water". How do you think these "blue states" fund many of their economic boosting projects?

Additionally just thought i would mention that most of your arguments are well thought out and have many valid points, but you often express them in a way which appears divisive "red state" "blue state" and so on. You often appear to be expressing the same kind of attitude that you are condemning. I don't think that is your intention, and it often causes your message to get lost.

|

12/22/2017 2:10 PM

hard2kill wrote:

Do you understand the bottom line determining factor as to who prospers and who doesn't? It's not hard work, or better ideas, or organized labor forces. CA or any state you want to pick for that matter is not "responsible for keeping much of red America above water". How do you think these "blue states" fund many of their economic boosting projects?

Additionally just thought i would mention that most of your arguments are well thought out and have many valid points, but you often express them in a way which appears divisive "red state" "blue state" and so on. You often appear to be expressing the same kind of attitude that you are condemning. I don't think that is your intention, and it often causes your message to get lost.

... I have to run to a meeting but I rarely use "blue state" and "red state". It's just appropriate in this thread as the basis of the conversation is about the difference between red and blue states in terms of their contributions / consumptions.

|

12/22/2017 2:21 PM

SCR wrote:

It's not the hippie socialist liberals sipping lattes on the way to the abortion clinic that are sending all this tax revenue to the Feds . It's your 1% buddies in CA sending massive income taxes from CA . Hedge fund investers in Silicon valley, plastic sergeons for the rich and famous, and oil company execs building mansions in the hills of malibu.

So you think it's unfair for the welfare queens in the bible belt to receive money from CA. Should it be corrected by lowering taxes on the oil exec in malibu? Or should the Feds credit that money back to the oil exec instead of sending it to the hipocrytical welfare queens in Mississippi?

I know your a good liberal but this article and your argument isn't any different than saying people on Federal subsidence are taking something they don't desereve.

Or maybe you agree with me and think the federal income tax should be repealed all together.



akillerwombat wrote:

I think if you'd read what I posted you'd see that not only have I never said they don't deserve it but I've also stated numerous times that I am quite happy to help out my fellow Americas (red, blue, or purple).

What baffles me is this "stick it to the blue states" tone that has consumed America (most recently with this new tax bill) as blue America is responsible for keeping much of red America above water. Are we responsible for keeping all of it a float, of course not (just getting a head of this), but the size of our contribution is laughably and somewhat painfully ignored.

Honestly, the amount of shit I get on this board because I am a "liberal" is dwarfed by the shit I get because I am from Cali (and even more so from Los Angeles) yet those same people throwing shit have no issue taking $3, $4, $5, $6, or $7 out of the pockets of fellow Americans in said blue states.

hard2kill wrote:

Do you understand the bottom line determining factor as to who prospers and who doesn't? It's not hard work, or better ideas, or organized labor forces. CA or any state you want to pick for that matter is not "responsible for keeping much of red America above water". How do you think these "blue states" fund many of their economic boosting projects?

Additionally just thought i would mention that most of your arguments are well thought out and have many valid points, but you often express them in a way which appears divisive "red state" "blue state" and so on. You often appear to be expressing the same kind of attitude that you are condemning. I don't think that is your intention, and it often causes your message to get lost.

The only reason I made this thread was a reaction to someone bitching about his tax money going to help fight fires in California. When the tax thread got shit-canned.

|

12/22/2017 2:24 PM
Edited Date/Time: 12/22/2017 2:25 PM

SCR wrote:

It's not the hippie socialist liberals sipping lattes on the way to the abortion clinic that are sending all this tax revenue to the Feds . It's your 1% buddies in CA sending massive income taxes from CA . Hedge fund investers in Silicon valley, plastic sergeons for the rich and famous, and oil company execs building mansions in the hills of malibu.

So you think it's unfair for the welfare queens in the bible belt to receive money from CA. Should it be corrected by lowering taxes on the oil exec in malibu? Or should the Feds credit that money back to the oil exec instead of sending it to the hipocrytical welfare queens in Mississippi?

I know your a good liberal but this article and your argument isn't any different than saying people on Federal subsidence are taking something they don't desereve.

Or maybe you agree with me and think the federal income tax should be repealed all together.



What about all my 10% Brothers that are paying taxes on their hard earned wages? The ones about to lose travel deductions. (insert strong Lincoln, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt labor quote here)

|