Hope And Swag

After the 2004 campaign, Paul Krugman – the most overrated economist in history – posted a famous column in which he claimed that “red” states got more tax benefits than he paid out.

Like the dutiful trained chimps that most of them are, leftybloggers have been uncritically repeating this slur for the past five years, ignoring the fact that Krugman – being more motivated by politics than fact – omitted some key facts; western states have immense proportions of federally owned land, and lots of military bases, which are certainly “tax inflows”, but hardly direct entitlements.  Of course, western farm states get plenty in farm program subsidies – and conservatives have been fighting against these since, roughly, they started.  Krugman also neglected to note that per-capita incomes are much lower in the same states that he slurred – which means the trained-chimp leftybloggers have been unwittingly protesting against progressive income taxation, not that most of them are bright enough to know it.

How does non-farm entitlement spending break down?  I don’t know – yet.

But we have a hint, here; counties that backed Obama get twice as much “Stimulus” money per capita as red counties:

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.
The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

Well, I suppose loyalty is a good trait – right?

12 thoughts on “Hope And Swag

  1. Oh yeah, definitely. When you take out farm subsidies and welfare checks paid to people living in trailers and funding for anti-bestiality education programs, sure, the Red States aren’t quite the deadbeats they would otherwise appear when you don’t completely distort the figures. Totally with you on that. Do let me know when you’ve managed to kill those farm subsidies, ‘kay? Cause somehow it didn’t happen in the six years the Republicans had both houses of Congress and the White House.

  2. Cause somehow it didn’t happen

    Yep. That does suck.

    anti-bestiality education

    Envious?

  3. If Clownie had bundled enough contributions for Obama he might have won himself an ambassadorship. Just imagine, His Excellency Mr. Angryclown, ambassador to San Marino.

  4. Anti-bestiality education programs? That’s just stinkin’ thinkin’ clown.

    We got Senator Scumbag in da house now and he says teh intertubez are da bomb for teaching the kiddies all about the joys of bestiality. I guess Scumbag Jr. is probably “in the saddle” right now since the folks are out of town.

    Hopey/Changey, remember? Get with the prograrm.

  5. “After the 2004 campaign, Paul Krugman – the most overrated economist in history”

    Yeah, damn that Nobel Commitee – what the hell do they know as compared to neo-con partisan propogandists.

    Whether those states meet your definition of tax in-flows is frankly simply your decision of parsing words. Pick the facts you like, change the argument – that’s all this seems like.

    The reality is that many western states have either a. many military bases and/or b. public lands and/or c. are Alaska and get HUGE payments to citizens based on public build programs (the pipeline) creating tax revenues – in fact, it’s the closest thing to a socialist dole state in the country.

    Pick your facts as you like, red states (like NoDak) still top the list.

    However, let’s play your game a little – my method of measurement is – if we took entitlements out of the dole list because there is NO choice on them without vastly changing entitlements laws and is therefore something we CAN’T change easily – then the Red states become VASTLY more funded than blue states based. See, we can pick the facts too, and it neither makes Krugman wrong – in fact he’s been right FAR moreso than your conservative economists over the past 8 years – nor does it make your facts worthwhile or worthless.

  6. Read an article on why North Dakota got more free money per person than Minnesota:

    Light population density (can’t do much about that)
    Interstate freeways (should we cut off I-94 at Moorhead?)
    Military bases (they can’t all be in California)
    Old folks (well, do we kill them?)
    Farm subsidies (I say kill them)

    Now, I’m all for having a 1 to 1 ratio…tax pmts to free money. I pay a fair amount of taxes, but get virtually nothing in return (outside of roads, trains and being protected by national defense).

  7. Yeah, damn that Nobel Commitee – what the hell do they know as compared to neo-con partisan propogandists.
    Yeah! They gave Jimmy Carter a Peace Prize for Bush invading Iraq! The most objective organization in the world!!!

  8. Nobel gave Yassir Arafat a peace prize.

    Look – everyone knows Krugman is an expert – IN HIS AREA.

    Outside his area? Like, in this particular area? He’s no more knowledgeable than a slobbering drunk with a serious head injury.

  9. he’s been right FAR moreso than your conservative economists over the past 8 years

    Only if you pick your “facts” VERY carefully.

  10. Yeah, damn that Nobel Commitee – what the hell do they know as compared to neo-con partisan propogandists.
    I absolutely guarantee that Peev wrote this comment without knowing what the Nobel committee awarded Krugman his prize for.
    It was a very narrow examination of why, in a globalized economy, it can still sometimes be cheaper to make stuff in high wage countries for local consumption.
    in fact he’s been right FAR moreso than your conservative economists over the past 8 years
    No, he has not peev. A magic 8 ball would make more accurate predicitions than Krugman because a Magic 8 ball is not pushing an political ideology that has destroyed more wealth than all the bust cycles of capitalism put together.
    The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance.To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
    Thats Krugman in 2002. What a freakin’ genius.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?scp=4&sq=krugman%20mcculley%20bubble&st=cse

  11. It’s the government bubble that we really need to worry about. Yep, been sayin’ it for years…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.