Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not puzzled, just amazed that so many people don't have a clue how socialism is really defined. Those of us who do understand its meaning don't see a slippy slope to a world of Marxist/Lieninist society here in North America. What I personally do see is a bunch of yahoos who want to take control of the government away from the voters and give it to themselves through a civil war that will not have any where near the support that they see in their dreams.
Oh yes, but aren't they fun? I mean they have tea, and the p-a-r-t-y!
Nice map. So, "Strong GOP" from your map gives us:
Alabama - consistently takes Federal money.
Georgia - close to break-even, good for Georgia.
South Carolina - consistently takes Federal money.
Oklahoma - consistently takes Federal money.
Kansas - consistently takes Federal money.
Missouri - consistently takes Federal money.
Indiana - only recently started taking money, robust contributor until about 1999.
Idaho - consistently takes Federal money .
Arizona - consistently takes Federal money.
Utah - consistent recipient, although not so much in later years
Ohio - close to break-even.
Damn, those are some economic powerhouses you've picked to associate with.
Don't most states take Federal money? They give the Fed money, in taxes. So it would stand to reason that they would take back the money.
We'll just agree to disagree. As for me, I can't imagine I'd actually take up arms in such a situation. I'd probably be one of those folks giving food and shelter to those in need.
Don't most states take Federal money? They give the Fed money, in taxes. So it would stand to reason that they would take back the money.
Sure, it's a matter of whether you're a net contributor or not. Alaska, for instance, gets about $1.80 from Washington for each dollar they put in, so they profit highly from the arrangement. California, on the other hand, gets only about $0.80 back for each dollar - the rest is redistributed to other states. In other words, other US states benefit hugely from California being in the union.
Surprisingly (for some), the list of states who take much more from the Federal coffers than they provide tends to be heavily populated by deep-red states.
Sure, it's a matter of whether you're a net contributor or not. Alaska, for instance, gets about $1.80 from Washington for each dollar they put in, so they profit highly from the arrangement. California, on the other hand, gets only about $0.80 back for each dollar - the rest is redistributed to other states. In other words, other US states benefit hugely from California being in the union.
Surprisingly (for some), the list of states who take much more from the Federal coffers than they provide tends to be heavily populated by deep-red states.
These numbers say something, but in and of themselves they don't mean all that much. It's important to look at how those tax dollars are actually being spent, before simply concluding that the United States would be better off without Alaska, for instance. Why does Alaska get so much money back? Is the money being spent on national defense? With so much land mass, and much of it coastal, isn't it worth it to defend our country? Could the sparse population be a factor? With so few constituents to pay into taxes for basic infrastructure, how could the state support a communications network for instance, a communications network that's important to the nation because it, in turn, supports the oil industry and national defense programs?
Instead of quoting the numbers as some kind of end-game response, the numbers should open a line of enquiry for people.
That statement doesn't qualify as a supporting document. Was it two billion or 200 billion? The last I heard there were approximately 1,800 health insurance companies in the US. So if it were two billion dollars of "evil" profit, that averages out to a little over 1 million dollars of profit per company. Don't these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to make a profit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa
and those profits are figured after paying tens of millions to executives.
I'm sure they are all audited by internal and external accountants which means they follow standard accounting practices which means profit is money left over after bonuses are paid. I don't think things have that much since my college and grad school accounting classes.
Using my 1,800 insurance companies above, let's say they had 25 executives each. If they paid out $50,000,000 in bonuses then it would mean that each averaged a little over $1,000 each. I'm not high enough in the ranks of my company to even appear on an organizational chart and my bonus was significantly higher than that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
