Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Most don't
This is an old study using a disingenuous metric, lumping in all federal spending and comparing it to federal taxes collected. For the point to be valid, and to call red states "moochers," the metric used would have to be federal AID spent in the states.
There is a red state bias in most of the federal budget outlays due to the red states generally having a high proportion of retirees and military bases.
This is an old study using a disingenuous metric, lumping in all federal spending and comparing it to federal taxes collected. For the point to be valid, and to call red states "moochers," the metric used would have to be federal AID spent in the states.
There is a red state bias in most of the federal budget outlays due to the red states generally having a high proportion of retirees and military bases.
Dont forget FEDERAL LAND, which larger redder states out west seem to have a ton of.
This is an old study using a disingenuous metric, lumping in all federal spending and comparing it to federal taxes collected. For the point to be valid, and to call red states "moochers," the metric used would have to be federal AID spent in the states.
There is a red state bias in most of the federal budget outlays due to the red states generally having a high proportion of retirees and military bases.
Dont forget FEDERAL LAND, which larger redder states out west seem to have a ton of.
You're exactly correct, public goods are considered "payments" to the states. So if the Bureau of Land Management seizes a million acres in Wyoming, closes most of it off preventing public use, the value of the land (not the money paid to federal employees living there working on the land) is considered to be a part of the federal allocation of money for the state.
So Republicans have all kinds of reasons Blue States are "donor states" and Red States are "moocher" states, but none of those explanations mean jack.
They want to pretend the economies, the people in power and the policies have nothing to do with it. It's because there is an "Army Base" in that state. Or because Kentucky, at 90% white, has too many black people in it.
So Republicans have all kinds of reasons Blue States are "donor states" and Red States are "moocher" states, but none of those explanations mean jack.
They want to pretend the economies, the people in power and the policies have nothing to do with it. It's because there is an "Army Base" in that state. Or because Kentucky, at 90% white, has too many black people in it.
So Republicans have all kinds of reasons Blue States are "donor states" and Red States are "moocher" states, but none of those explanations mean jack.
They want to pretend the economies, the people in power and the policies have nothing to do with it. It's because there is an "Army Base" in that state. Or because Kentucky, at 90% white, has too many black people in it.
This is an old study using a disingenuous metric, lumping in all federal spending and comparing it to federal taxes collected. For the point to be valid, and to call red states "moochers," the metric used would have to be federal AID spent in the states.
There is a red state bias in most of the federal budget outlays due to the red states generally having a high proportion of retirees and military bases.
So Republicans have all kinds of reasons Blue States are "donor states" and Red States are "moocher" states, but none of those explanations mean jack.
They want to pretend the economies, the people in power and the policies have nothing to do with it. It's because there is an "Army Base" in that state. Or because Kentucky, at 90% white, has too many black people in it.
This is an old study using a disingenuous metric, lumping in all federal spending and comparing it to federal taxes collected. For the point to be valid, and to call red states "moochers," the metric used would have to be federal AID spent in the states.
There is a red state bias in most of the federal budget outlays due to the red states generally having a high proportion of retirees and military bases.
and FARMERS. Don't forget the freaking farmers. They cost taxpayers a fortune.
This is an old study using a disingenuous metric, lumping in all federal spending and comparing it to federal taxes collected. For the point to be valid, and to call red states "moochers," the metric used would have to be federal AID spent in the states.
There is a red state bias in most of the federal budget outlays due to the red states generally having a high proportion of retirees and military bases.
and FARMERS. Don't forget the freaking farmers. They cost taxpayers a fortune.
Republicans cost farmers a fortune:
Alabama Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
Georgia Crop Losses Could Top $1B
U.S. Farmers Urge Changes to GOP Policies Amid Labor Shortage which could cost 9 billion dollars | TIME.com
and FARMERS. Don't forget the freaking farmers. They cost taxpayers a fortune.
Republicans cost farmers a fortune:
Alabama Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business
Georgia Crop Losses Could Top $1B
U.S. Farmers Urge Changes to GOP Policies Amid Labor Shortage which could cost 9 billion dollars | TIME.com
No one hurts farmers more than Republicans. In fact, the cost of food is so high because of Republican policies. But if you "vote white", that's what you get.
