Ironic how the small taxes/small government crew are the first ones to feed at the government trough:
1. From the New York Times -- a birdcage liner with a documented history of lying 2. Article written by a former Gore speechwriter. Partisan shill. 3. There are a multitude of other variables underlying who is a giver and taker. Much more than the implied foul-play that the author puts forth.
1. gratuitous bash --- double yawn 2. gratuitous bash --- triple yawn 3. elaborate on the study and the various inadequacies thereof, lest ownership of you by me will vest within the hour.
Uh Sam, to help your economic-deficient mind out, here is the biggest flaw with your article. If you look at rimjobber's map, you will see that the states that are labeled "givers" have a virtual monopoly on large urban centers. Clearly these urban centers are likely to pay more in taxes than rural areas. Economies of scale enable less tax dollars to go farther in urban areas as opposed to rural. Urban dwellers are much more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. As would logically follow, Gore won more of the urban areas and hence more of the givers. ARTICLE DEBUNKED Texas is the sole outlier in this, which can be explained out in part by being Bush's home state as well as the rural/urban polarization in Texas.
Whether you define the Republican powerbase on a geographic basis or a demographic basis, the conclusion is still the same: the republican constituents are subsidized by the rest of us. This claim "Economies of scale enable less tax dollars to go farther in urban areas as opposed to rural." is surely a joke; as it fails to account for, inter alia the higher cost of goods & services in urban areas, and assumes that the same government services are provided uniformly between rural and urban areas. That is simply not the case. FALSE DEBUNKING CLAIM DEBUNKED BTW, the National Tax Foundation, that provided this data, is far from a left wing group and seem to be more aligned with right wing goals, in my opinion.
Sam, let me make it very simple with an example: Take transportation dollars for instance. A road built in Chicago is used by 1,000 people. It costs $100,000 to build the road. Each person gets $100 of use. A road built in San Angelo, TX is used by 10 people. It costs $50,000 to build (taking into account your little cost of living objection). Each person gets $500 of use. ARTICLE DEBUNKED I honestly don't know why you are having trouble grasping the crux of my argument. Is this typical stubbornness and curmudgeonry or are your truly having difficulty with this subject matter?
Let's break it down so that you can understand it: Army base is built outside Montgomery, Alabama An army base is not built outside New York, NY That's where you messed up, as I intially pointed out, you are still pretending that the government provides the same amount of largesse to each citizen....a fatal flaw. Here's the link to the entire study, back to the drawing board http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr124.pdf BUNKY
Sam, this is the last time I will address the issue. I have satisfactorily debunked the article with my critique of the urban/rural breakdown of the red/blue states. I will give you one more try at attempting to understand this very simple premise: Urban areas tend to vote democratic. Urban areas pay more in taxes because they have far more wage earners than do rural areas. (really the argument could end here, but I will continue) Urban areas can not receive a dollar for each tax dollar paid because of the high fixed costs of infrastructure in non-urban areas. These costs can be shared in urban areas, thereby reducing the required amount of dollars spent in these regions. Now do you get it?
Address my counterexample, or risk ownership. You just repeated your last post, you have had TWO chances now, and you've got two strikes Address the contention that non-urban areas, and non-urban states, receive a disproportionate level of government goods and services on a real basis rather than just a dollar basis. you get one more chance, if you miss again:
AH, so you recognized that non-urban areas do in fact receive more goods and services on a real basis than urban ones do...thus conceding my point: Republican constituents are takers and Democratic ones are givers that subsidize their welfare dependent brethren I didn't recognize it through the camouflage, I guess that was a good way to hide your embarassment at having capitulated. CONCESSION ACCEPTED
Sam, at this point I can only scoff at your economic amateurism! You have utterly failed to grasp a very simple concept. Arguing with someone who is incapable of applying critical thought to a piece of analysis is an exercise in futility. I shall not go down that road! You have proven that you do not understand economies of scale. Congrats.
