Slashdot Mirror

it just shows how truly awful a candidate Hilary was. We're talking about voting patterns overall, not one bad election with the most hated women in America.

I don't need to "believe" anything, it's pretty well documented that states that lean to the GOP depend heavily on the Feds. It's not hard to understand why. They don't invest in their people, and when you don't do that the people who can leave because the roads, schools, water supply and air quality suck rocks. This is the part where you point out folks leaving California and ignore the folks moving there....

Sowell's a hack, btw.

I believe the Politifact article you are referring to is: here. If this is not your article, please provide a link. This link shows your post to either be confused or full of carefully constructed half truths.

Your list of net givers appears to be taken from the figure from the California Legislative Analyst's Office, January 2017 (original). If so, you are reading that figure wrong. That is the per capita federal spending in the state - what the feds send back, not the net transfer.

Much of the original discussion around this started with a study from The Tax Foundation. Characterizations of this group range from neutral/non-partisan to fiscal conservative/business friendly. That study listed the top ten givers as:

Colorado: $0.81
New York: $0.79
California: $0.78
Delaware: $0.77
Illinois: $0.75
Minnesota: $0.72
New Hampshire: $0.71
Connecticut: $0.69
Nevada: $0.65
New Jersey: $0.61

and takers as

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51

But that's from 2005, and the California report I linked to above said they had questions about its methodology around estimating taxes paid by Californians.

WalletHub put out an analysis last year on "2018’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States." That list is largely similar, but with California buried at (gasp!) #39.

I have better things to do on a Saturday than correct people on the Internet, but if you'd actually like to have an informed discussion, we can pull data from the IRS and understand why PolitiFact's conclusion was there isn't a simple answer.

Since you did not provide a source, I found an article on Politifact's site which contained a few of these numbers here. It seems to ramble, and appears to be an opinion piece.

There are some better statistics that you can examine from the Associated Press, The Atlantic, and WalletHub, and The Tax Foundation

The Tax Foundation tracks the numbers back to 1981.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/which-states-give-the-most-the-federal-government-which-get-the-most.htm

After reading all of these, I am inclined to believe that you were fishing for something that would reinforce your opinion.

You can't fool all the people, all the time.

You'll find that the high tax areas in general line up with the ones over paying the federal government.

It doesn't seem to be fair that a state like NJ that ends up paying a larger proportion of its funding from local taxes is not able to get a little relief for its citizens as they help fund the low tax states.

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

Vermont has the 44th lowest property tax out of the 50 states + DC. You don't consider that relatively high?

2018’s Property Taxes by State

Welcome to the end of 2018.

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

Mar 20, 2018 | John S Kiernan, Senior Writer & Editor

https://www.money-rates.com/fe...

Richard Barrington | MoneyRates.com Senior Financial Analyst, CFA
Posted: April 3, 2018

I don't think either of those two dates qualifies as "The End of 2018"

Welcome to the end of 2018.

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

https://www.money-rates.com/fe...

Hate to break it to you but I think OK is already pretty high up on that list.

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

You can just look at their result, or compare their data against: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You're just wrong, and yet you say "lie much" right after using quotes about "backward gun and bible hugging country".

So you're avoiding the kind of life that leads to economic prosperity.

You really think the majority of Trump's base are long-term unemployed adults? Let's think about that - you think millions and millions of long-term unemployed adults with no means other than government handouts, are die-hard trump supporters cheering him on to wipe out the very programs they personally rely on to survive? Conventional wisdom is that those without other means of support tend to fall on the democratic end of the political spectrum.

It may not be a majority, but to think they don't represent some of this percentage is willful ignorance. You seem to asserting that the decisions of Trump supporters are derived from a place of logic and not from a place of emotions.

Conventional wisdom is that those without other means of support tend to fall on the democratic end of the political spectrum.

Conventional wisdom also says you probably shouldn't trust a candidate for president who isn't willing to show their tax returns when everybody else has for the last 40-or-so years or who can't string words together without sounding like a drunken homeless guy with more than a few loose marbles, but look where that got us. There are plenty of poor white racist Trump supporters out there who can blame the colored guy for doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY THEMSELVES DO, but don't see the hypocrisy.

You can't possibly be asserting that southern states like MS, NM and AL who rely heavily on financial aid and tend to always vote Republican don't have ANY Trump supporters hurting their own interests, can you? Maybe even a not-so-insignificant portion?! Oh well though ... it's 2018. Words don't mean much anymore. Just keep on believing whatever I guess.

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

Just wrong. Completely backwards. Look at actual stats for loan delinquency, then get back to me.

I really don't think you want me to look up those delinquency stats. You've made some assumptions without facts to back them up, old friend.

First the students most likely to be in default are the ones who borrowed the least

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/0...

Second, the states where there are the highest rates of student indebtedness are South Dakota and West Virginia. Those sound like places where a lot of people major in gender studies? Oh, and California has the third lowest student indebtedness score.

https://wallethub.com/edu/best...

Also, the states with the highest rates of student default are (in order) Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Nevada. Do those sound like places where students are clamoring to get basket-weaving degrees? And, the kicker is that the state with the lowest rate of student loan delinquency? If you guessed "Massachusetts" (and I know you didn't) then you would be right.

HornWumpus, you know, sometimes the thing that feels so much like it should be real...just isn't.

You mean the derelicts on the coast like in California.. .the third largest oil producing state in the US, and 5th largest economy in the world? Those derelicts who pay lots more in taxes so you cunt republicans in red states can give businesses tax breaks and blow jobs at the same time? Them?

At least it's not like Alaska, who gets a metric shit ton more money back from the federal government than they put in, while taking part of the proceeds from "their" oil sales and giving it outright to the people in their states... which arguably should be money they should spend on those things the federal government pays for, instead of being leeches off blue states.

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

Nordic states do derive an enormous amount of money from the sale of resources, unlike the United States. And that money there goes to helping their society. Here, we let private industry rape the resources and not compensate the people for anything remotely near the value. Conservative cunts are why the US can't have good things; you're too busy giving away everything to the already wealthy hoping you'll at least end up with a reach around while they're fucking you up the ass.

It's not because they're unbelievably Caucasian... it's because they're unbelievably empathetic to the people around them, you know, exactly opposite of what conservatives in the US are like.

And the worst quality of life.
https://www.usnews.com/news/be...

California has worst US air pollution in the nation
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-...

California has the highest poverty rate in the nation
https://www.latimes.com/opinio...

Schools are 39/51
https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

This is with a high state income and sales tax.

California's debt passed $400 billion under Moonbeam, and the deficit is back. But we'll tax more and borrow more, that'll fix it! Never mind that California has the highest poverty rate and is firmly in the bottom half in terms of educational quality. At least we get warnings that just about everything can cause cancer!

Most of the welfare recipients are white people in red counties within CA, actually. It's weird how much you hate them.

Most of the states that depend most heavily on federal aid are strongly red states. Most of those that depend the least on the government are blue states. Make of that what you will but I think there is some irony in there somewhere.

A 3rd of this country's welfare recipients are in California.

That's a nice little unsupported bogus made up statistic you have there. California does spend the most on welfare overall but since they are the state with the largest population (and a high cost of living) that's hardly shocking. Per capita they are high but not wildly out of the norm - with around 4% of the population receiving some sort of assistance. California is among the least federally dependent states in the US.

It has been losing population for the last 20 years

You must be talking about a different California than the one on the west coast of the US. Population growth there has been steadily growing with no sign of that changing any time soon.

I'll stay out of their business if they are able to shift their dependency rank below my state.

Until then, this is taxation without representation.

Wisconsin is already spending other states' tax money, because it cannot keep itself afloat. Now it's going to hand that money to China.

I hardly think people are disposable commodities

Then you probably shouldn't carelessly toss terms like that around. It speaks more to your outlook on the world than the person they're directed at.

-

I wouldn't be a firefighter if I thought that.

So you claim.

-

One of the reason why I fled the blue state where I lived for a decade was the attitude THERE that people were disposable commodities.

So you went from a "maker" state to a "taker" state, and you're touting that as some kind of personal indicator of pride? Lol, hypocrite much?

-

I will never willingly live in a "blue" community again, as people there mostly wouldn't help someone bleeding on the street.

I've lived in both red and blue states and what I've found in general is that people are people wherever you go. I will say that the blue states seem to be more willing to help those in need and less concerned with ethnicity and how people live their lives. And there seem to be a shitload fewer racists too.

-

I'd rather live in America, thanks, where people DO care about each other.

Oh please stop with your "but muh freedomz" trope. It's a crashing bore, and whatever trailer-park red state you're living in probably wouldn't even have roads and water if not for all the money you fake patriots shamelessly suck from the blue states. Think I'm kidding? See for yourself:

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

If all those numbers and charts are too complex for you, the takeaway is that:

Blue states subsidize red states in nearly ever single instance.
Blue states are less dependent on the Federal government than red states in almost every case.
Blue states contribute far more to the government than red states in nearly every instance.
Blue states have a higher standard of living than red states.
Blue states receive less assistance (food stamps, TANF, etc) from the government than red states.

Feel free to live in your fact-free Freedom Compound while you bleat about the gubmint, and remember that when you and your parasitic pals are out buying new wheels for your house.

States that tend to vote Republican receive more Federal aid than states that tend to vote Democrat: 2017's Most & Least Federally Dependent States

That's not quite the same as rural vs. city, but I think your assumption is on the right track.

Too bad Texas is suffering from a failing education system

Well, California's school system is worse.

link

Let me google that for you

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

By the time you take all that stuff into account the US is likely to be *way* further down the list. Property tax isn't high in the US (typically around 1.5% of the value of the property, which is similar to, or lower than council tax rates in the UK). Sales tax is typically extremely low (typically less than 6%), compared to the UK's 20% VAT. Taxes on fuel are typically extremely low 18.4/gal, compared to the UK's £2.19/gal (273/gal).

Property tax in the US can be misleading. The average in Texas is supposedly 1.9%, but many communities have municipal utility districts added on for things like hospitals, fire stations, water supply, sewer, flood mitigation, schools, etc. The effective rate in the neighborhood I live in is between 2.5 and 3% of the assessed value, which is close enough to market value for discussion purposes.

If you rabid net-neut proponents don't watch it, we're going to end up with ISPs that bill by the byte.

This is an incredibly common result of touchy-feely regulations. Remember the days when if your credit was good enough you could get a prime-plus-a-point-or-two credit card, and even with just ok credit you could get 10% or less? The CARD Act sent that the way of the dodo bird -- average introductory rates are now pushing 20%. Remember how Dick Durban was going to stick it to the banks by forcing them to not charge "exorbitant" transaction fees? Banks just found other ways to make up the fees that disproportionately impacted lower-income people.

What in the world makes you think this latest moral crusade is going to end any differently?

The overall tax rate is actually higher in Illinois than in California (for the average citizen). California has higher income and sales taxes, but Illinois has substantially higher property taxes, placing its overall tax burden just above California. The rankings change a bit if you include local taxes (county and city), but Illinois still taxes more than California.

"That makes California smart."

Haha but seriously I'd agree with you if only you weren't 100% wrong.

California is ranked in the bottom 5 out of 50 States dependent on the federal government. The red states sponge off of blue state's labor. Some red states get more than double what they put in. States like mn subsidize Alabama.

There is no 'fair share' now. California as an entire state pays more taxes than it receives in support from the Government, is that fair?
It's ironic that the states that complain the most about handouts and corrupt government and always vote republican are the states most dependant on the government.
https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

Have you seen the California budget lately? No, CA does not give more than it receives.

Yes, California still sends more tax money to the Federal government than it gets back in benefits.

By government-dependency rankings, it is near the bottom. 2016 numbers:

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

You'd better do some research. California is one of ONLY 3 states to give more to the US federal government than it receives. Without California's MASSIVE tech and Agricultural industries the US GDP will take a double digit drop, creating an economic hit similar to the great depression and the banking crash. If California were a nation it would rank 6th in the world GDP.

https://www.google.com/#q=stat...
https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

All that said I can't argue the wacko part, nor would the US government even begin to allow one of the states to succeed from the union. That was established a long time ago by the confederate states, Texas, and Utah.

Before you and your state walk off, check to see if your state gets more revenue from the Federal Government than you contribute. Then, if your state is high on the list, figure out how to feed yourselves if you decide to abscond.

California, where I live, is low on the list and I get the feeling that we're carrying a lot of the country with our taxes. Red states tend to be more dependent upon the Federal Government than otherwise.

Uber carries commercial insurance only when the customer is picked up. They don't bother when the app is just on and they're trolling for business. Which means they are uninsured at that time.

Incorrect. The polices described.
Not logged in: not working, personal insurance.
Logged in: attempt personal insurance first, then 50/100/25
On way to pickup: $1M commercial
During ride: $1M commercial

Uber just left Austin because Austin insisted they perform the same background checks that taxi drivers get. Only UberBlack has those checks.

Hmm.. I'll note that every city, much less state, regulates taxis differently. Most areas don't require a fingerprint background check.

Just like working states pay for California here in the US.

By which you presumably are referring to something other than the amount of money paid in various states to the US federal government and amount of money paid out in various states from the US federal government, given that the net flow is from California to Uncle Sam.

I already have, but here we go again:

http://mercatus.org/statefisca...

https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

(Note that many education rankings consider amount of funding or student/teacher ratios as part of the score; that really isn't valid, but even that doesn't rescue California's poor showing.)

Everything is cheaper here.

I hear this a lot, and while I'll take your word for it that it's true in practice, I'm not convinced it's true in principle. There are a lot of federal and state subsidies to rural areas -- both direct and indirect. E.g. the only reason there's any telecommunications services out there is the Universal Service Fund -- a transfer from urban/suburban to rural areas.

I've seen it argued that the subsidies go the other way: the federal government sends more money per capita in direct subsidies to urban and suburban areas than rural areas. That ignores state subsidies (for schools, roads, etc.), but more importantly, spending per capita is not the right measure. The measure should be the ratio of government subsidies to government tax receipts from an area -- because that covers the implicit subsidies as well. I haven't seen this broken down on a country by county basis, but if you look at a state by state basis, rural states get some serious subsidies. E.g. Mississippi (the state in TFA) gets $2.34 in federal spending for every $1 it pays in tax revenue. It's $1.81 in Indiana. In contrast, it's $0.48 for New Jersey, the most densely populated state, and $0.54 in your home state. (Source) I don't know if you benefit directly from this, but you definitely benefit from others who are subsidized.

In other words I think the cost of living in rural areas is artificially deflated, and if the federal tax code and subsidies get tweaked, there could be a "giant sucking sound" in rural parts of the country.

My bad this is a better article. Not every state is covered, but some are. https://wallethub.com/edu/ride...

https://wallethub.com/edu/ride...
citation for Uber's insurance.

https://www.uber.com/safety

Uber uses background checks in the US, not sure about other countries.

"Failed state" California sends more money to the federal government both in total and as a percentage of what it gets back than "flourishing Texas", although neither of them are net takers. http://wallethub.com/edu/state...
Rhode Island is not a net taker either. That isn't exactly what you were trying to measure but if Cali didn't have to subsidize a bunch of other states then its finances would look better, which by the way is in surplus for 2015.

I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do.

As for the big government democrats, maybe you need to do just a little smattering of research before continuing to use a stupid talking point that is basically propagandized projectionism utilized by con men preying on the willfully ignorant conservative base.

The largest state governments by percentage of population are red states: http://247wallst.com/special-r...

.... red states that siphon more money from the federal coffers (takers) than blue states (makers) who have to subsidize them so they're not even worse shitholes than they already are: http://wallethub.com/edu/state...

... perhaps following the path republicans in the white house that have increased government jobs more than democrats in the white house have, while failing to come close to the private sector jobs that are created under democrats: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://politicsthatwork.com/de...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK, and actually harm this country, all the while lying through their teeth about the disasters they've created. Clinton had to work to clean up after Reagan (Bush Sr. started that cleanup, and the GOP threw him out), and Obama has had to work to clean up from Bush Jr. Red states are leeches off the federal coffers, while blue states have to dole out money to help the sad sack red states who apparently don't have bootstraps of their own. All the while republican politicians lie like bitches so they can HAVE POWER.... instead of actually govern the country for the betterment of everyone.

" let educational professionals decide how best to invest that money"

That's a bad idea if there ever was one. The quality of schools in the US has been steadily declining ever since the federal government started sticking its nose in. More and more bureaucracy, regulations and administration. Less and less effective teaching.

You know, if federal control of schools were any good at all, the schools in Washington D.C. would shine. Instead, despite their huge budget (second highest in the country), D.C> schools are the worst in the country.

Send all of the "educational professionals" to flip hamburgers. Return schools to state and local control. Hire teachers who hold degrees in the subjects, instead of in education (this might be important). Some places will be disasters (but they already are). Others will finally be able to do something about fixing their schools. Without all the federal regulation, it'll probably cost a lot less, too...

... do some other things first. Arkansas is ranked 44.

So your point is that instead of improving their schools, they should focus on improving their schools?

... do some other things first.

Arkansas is ranked 44.

I live in America.

The numbers describe the actual situation and that is, the number of uninsured has dropped under the ACA.

You see, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. And the facts tell the story without any doubt: Obama got his citizens more access to healthcare. Anyone's claims otherwise are utterly without foundation.

It is unfortunate that many gullible people trust the right-wing agitprop that spreads false data and assertions. But we're well into this now, and the facts are well established. Eventually, as public awareness grows, Rush and crew will find something new to lie about. So it goes.