ParkieDem
ParkieDem's JournalOK, I wholeheartedly agree with the purpose and premise of this argument ...
... but I could poke a bazillion holes in many of the points made here.
First, I agree with the general idea - we distribute tax revenues on a somewhat unequal basis, but that's required in order to get broad-based benefits from our tax system. And people who complain about that are either misinformed, misguided or mean-spirited.
But using state-by-state comparisons to argue red-state hypocrisy is way too generalized to be considered a coherent argument.
First, let's look at the map. You can find plenty of "blue states" that would Rand would consider "moochers." Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Maine, Vermont, etc., are all "blue states" that accept a lot more in taxes than they pay out. Meanwhile, "red states" like Texas and Utah are paying more in taxes than they receive. Based on the map, the argument isn't nearly as clear-cut as the author would like us to believe. Going further into detail, the only four states that get "double their money back" are relatively small. Two are very "red" (MS and AL), but the other two aren't as clear-cut (NM and WV). And many states have a ratio somewhere between 0.9 and 1.1, which, in the scheme of things, is pretty close to parity.
As an aside, after the 2008 election, it's hard to tell what is a "red state" and a "blue state." Is Nevada red or blue? Its Senate delegation is split, and it went for Obama in 2008 but Bush in 2004. It's a big "parasite" state, according to this analysis. Same with Virginia. I tend to think of it as "red," but it's got two Democratic senators and went for Obama in 2008. It's a "producer." Maine, another big "parasite," has voted consistently for Democrats in presidential elections but has two Republican senators. Is it "red" or "blue?"
Second, simply claiming that the "producers" are concentrated in "blue" states or cities still tells us nothing about how these "producers" actually vote. Mississippi and Alabama may receive more federal money because they have large pockets of poverty - poverty that very well could be exacerbated by their conservative sate-level policies. Likewise, New York pays out quite a bit in taxes because it has loads of wealthy Wall Streeters - and these people may in fact be (and probably are) die-hard right-wing voters.
Third, the author claims that red-staters "can't complain" if their economy depends on a dam, air force base, national park, etc. He also suggests that these people shouldn't claim their mortgage interest deduction or other tax breaks. Well, believe me, few of the conservatives I know would have a problem with this (and here in Texas, I know plenty of conservatives). Their central argument is that these types of deductions, programs, etc. should go away - and that the economy would be better off long-term without them. I vehemently disagree, but this is their argument. What Alternet is doing here is the same thing the right-wing is doing when it calls on Warren Buffett to just "write a check" to the government if he is upset about his taxes being too low.
I could go on, but this gross categorization of people into producers, parasites, red states, blue states, etc. is just annoying, whether on the right or the left.
Most Members of Congress in the top 10% (showing each member's net worth)
Someone recently posted this graphic, based on a UC-Santa Cruz study, showing how many members of Congress fall in the top 1%, top 10%, etc., based on net worth:
I was wondering if there was a breakdown of who was where, and turns out, USA Today has this info. I thought it was interesting:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/congress-wealthy-1/51216626/1
Basically, 57 (or just over 10%) of Congress is in the top 1%. A majority of Congress is in the top 10%, and just about all are in the top 20%.
The two "least wealthy" members of Congress - one Democrat and one Republican - are both over $3 million in the hole.
Just though it was worth sharing ...
Perkins is common in the South, I think.
Isn't that where Tiger Woods met one of his lady-friends? Wasn't she a waitress?
I was thinking along those lines.
Isn't adultery grounds for divorce (in fact, the only grounds) in the Catholic church?
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Jun 1, 2009, 02:51 PMNumber of posts: 494
