If Red States receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes, who is paying the tax?
Answer: people with higher incomes.
Do you think it is a coincidence that states with higher per capita incomes are so-called Blue States? Conservatism is correlated with lower per capita incomes; which one causes the other, I cannot say, but it doesn’t make much difference. States with lower per capita incomes are arguing the rest of the country should be conservative like them, and the question is why?
Are you taking cost of living into account? I don’t know the answer but am curious. The cost of living in Mississippi is much lower than in New York.
The cost of living is driven by the per capita income, not the other way around. There are many rich people in Red states, but they benefit by perpetuating the myth that conservatism is good for everybody. What passes for modern conservatism is a brilliantly clever ruse to redistribute wealth from the lower class to the upper class, and bamboozle them in to liking it.
“Thank you Sir, may I have another?” Masterful.
Is that all you think that Microsoft needed to become successful? Didn’t it need a large base of consumers with enough money to buy personal computers? Didn’t it need a transportation system suitable to efficiently move its product? Didn’t it need a communications system suitable to advertise and coordinate production and distribution? The America that existed before Gates made his first dollar provided all those resources for him.
It’s a bit more important to Microsoft that all of those things continue to exist than it is to most people.
I don’t recall being offered any such option. What I mostly recall was being told that was the way it was, or even that that was the way it was supposed to be. As you may have noticed, I have quite a few criticisms. Foremost amongst these is that we grind up valuable and useful resources to produce loud, shiny crap and sixteen varieties of cat food when cats simply don’t give a fuck.
But no, I don’t recall any options being offered to sign up or not to sign up.
Of course you are saying the poor pay taxes. Thats what I said. I don’t recall anything about where they go being relevant.
You are now trying to make a completely unrelated point. I simply showed that the talking point you got from your liberal blog is misleading.
To say that “conservatism is correlated with lower per capita incomes” is another oversimplification. For example, based on the 2008 Elections exit polls, it would be more accurate to say that voting for Obama strongly correlates with low income (less than $50,000/year) but also somewhat correlates with high income (more than $200,000/year).
The whole idea that you can find a demographic difference related to people’s political persuasions and use it to create some recommendation for the society as a whole is not worth discussing, unless you want to claim that everybody should be more conservative, because, for example, it is well-known that conservatives are much happier than liberals (General Social Survey data) and that religious conservatives are more charitable than others (Who Really Cares: America’s Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, Arthur C. Brooks).
Interesting that you pick that example, since the facts are quite in opposition to your point. In the 60s IBM had a near monopoly on computing. Their market dominance was reinforced by their business model of ‘bundling’ software with the hardware; i.e., you could not buy the operating system and other software without buying or leasing the computers themselves. Corporations had such a large installed base of programs that it was unfeasible to switch to a vendor other than IBM. Gene Amdahl decided to leave IBM and create pug-compatible mainframes that were more powerful and economical than IBMs, but he could not succeed without the government forcing IBM to unbundle the hardware and software. That allowed businesses to buy MVS from IBM and the mainframe from Amdahl, and continue to run their existing software.
When IBM created the PC they also needed to unbundle the software, which is why they allowed Bill Gates the rights to sell DOS separately from the PC. This led to the multi-billion dollar success of Microsoft as well as to the fortunes earned by PC clone makers such as Dell and Compaq. It also allowed application developers to write one version of the software that ran on multiple manufacturers platforms.
Now note that this is entirely separate from the money DARPA (and its predecessor ARPA) spent to develop the internet, or the research done at the government regulated monopoly ATT’s Bell Labs where small contributions such as the transistor, information theory, Unix, and the C language were created.
Of course we could go on and on. The computer lab where Bill Gates and Paul Allen used to sneak out to at night and use was at a public university. Silicon Valley is the result of a concentration of engineers in the top-rated California university system that existed until conservatives destroyed California with Proposition 5.
Oh, and by the way, COBOL was developed by the Navy.
No, it’s that conservative governing principles are correlated with poverty. By almost every measurement (wealth, health, education) conservative states are less well off than more liberal states such as you’ll find on the west coast, new England, and the upper midwest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1280682006-m89wKkXRg292gmYuxK7irw here is an article explaining that on 4 occasions past republican admins, have bent the tax law and governance in favor of the rich ,doing great harm to the country. The neocon attitude that runs the repubs is elitist. they believe all wealth and power should reside in the few who will run the country best. All it proved is the rich are as corrupt and selfish as street thugs. They are greedy and never have enough. The bankers looted the country, convinced us they should be in charge of repairing the damage they caused and then proceded to loot that money too.
The tax cuts did enormous damage to the country. They helped cause a huge debt problem. Yet the rich still want more. They are Scrooge McDuck rich, swimming in pools of money . Where are the jobs they were supposed to create., in China?
Poverty entrains pessimism, and pessimism entrains conservatism. When you offer an agenda of change to an optimist, he thinks about how much better things can be. When you offer change to a pessimist, he thinks about how he will lose what little he has.
Of course where they go is relevant. Paying state tax does not entitle you to federal benefits. I assume you have some point but I don’t see it.
The GOP Plot to Screw the Economy and the Middle Class | HuffPost Latest News Here is an article describing whey The Bush policies did to the economy. The graph in the middle shows the impact of several policies. The war is a yellow strip at the bottom, a continuing drain. The thin strips at the top show the stimulus and the and Tarp and Freddie and Fannie. The wide thick blue bar is the Bush tax cut. It is a huge problem for the debt.
Greenspan the right wing,libertarian guru of the past said absolutely not to the continuation of the Bushian tax folly. They asked him if the tax cut would stimulate jobs and business. He said, " they do not". So now the righties have to turn on Alan, their old friend.
First, the urban/rural split is so much better explanation, that only one-track partisans would try to claim otherwise. Per capita income in urban areas is $41,953 vs. $31,108 in rural areas (USDA) and the difference in Democratic vs. Republican support was 25% in 2004. Hugely significant differences.
Second, even if we accepted that differences on the state-level are important and mean anything as it relates to the policy and if we made an assumption that there could be a cause-and-effect relationship, we would need to look at the changes in income starting from a given baseline, not at the current level of income. I did some quick data analysis for you. I took the lists of red and blue states from Red states and blue states - Wikipedia and the per-household income statistics broken down by the state in 1989, 1999, and 2007-2008 from the Census. From 1999 to 2007-2008, the average per-household income decreased by 5% in the Democratic blue states and it decreased by 3% in the Republican red states (current dollars adjusted by CPI-U-RS). From 1989 to 1999, the average per-household income increased by 39% in the Democratic blue states and by 46% in the Republican red states (current dollars, spreadsheet available upon request). So, the differences are +2% and +7% in favor of the Republican states and therefore this would be the correct claim: conservative governing principles are correlated with increasing income for the residents of that state.
That is a particularly apropos example; the patent office is being bled white of talent because its salaries are simply not competitive with private patent law. This is in part the fault of the one-size-fits-all civil service model, but mostly the fault of facile civil-service bashing of the sort in which Huerta88 is indulging. (Might want to lay off that while you still only need glasses and need only weekly applications of Nair to the palms.)
[quote=“erez, post:336, topic:547945”]
I wonder who the president was then?
And who was President when things improved?
He has a staff of well connected ,powerful lawyers that will rain judicial hell on you if you dare to defend something you own or invented from Microsquish. He has destroyed many small companies. What they did is not pretty.
That may be true, but it wasn’t really the point of my post. It just seemed that some posters in this thread had an “us vs. them” view of government spending; that welfare and unemployment spending was unfair because the benefits went to only a segment of the population. I wanted to provide a counter example; the intellectual property apparatus (analyzing, granting, and keeping track of patents, judicial resources to resolve disputes, even diplomatic-level threats against sovreign nations) that the government pays for in the interest of Bill Gates.