is that your way of conceding you're too stupid to google easily available information that doesn't fit your narrative? well, here you go: now admit you were wrong, reject this kind of socialism, and insist that the red welfare states should not be bailed out by the blue economic powerhouses anymore:

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/oct18/101718.htm
https://rockinst.org/issue-area/giving-getting-new-yorks-balance-payments-federal-government-2/
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf
https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2020/federal-budget-fiscal-year-2018.pdf
https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1-22-20-Balance-of-Payments.pdf

you obviously did not get his point at all. You are just trying to degrade his statement with whatever you can find. as shown your points are not even valid and you are just revealing your absolute pre-stance against other politcal opinions by just denying everything, that is not in your comfort. This is a prro attitude which prevents konstructive discussion in general.

This post was edited by derDrops on May 2 2020 03:35am

Well, despite all those lefty links... I just looked up Federal taxes paid by sates, and population by states.

Looks like the states with the highest populations pay the most taxes. Which is pretty much how I would expect things to be. I'm struggling here to see your or Cuomo's point.
States with more people would naturally pay more taxes. They also get more electoral votes.

I don't see your point.


States with higher populations also get much more in taxes from that population... where are those taxes going?












/e The one thing I definitely understand is that the loudest complainers are some of the blue states. Those blue states who also have the most sanctuary cities. Maybe they can't afford to maintain those sanctuary cities.
Maybe all that moaning about how illegals are taking from the rest of us... is being proved out, right now, by which states seem to think they NEED bailed out.

This post was edited by Ghot on May 2 2020 04:57am

The chart you posted is completely useless

Hardly. It's up to each state to collect what it needs from it's population. This is how it's set up to work.

that's because you're dumb. we're looking at balances here, it's really not rocket science.

new york (and blue states in general) put in MORE than they get back, kentucky (and red states in general) RECEIVE more than they contribute. how hard is that to understand? population is basically irrelevant to that point - this translates 1:1 to the individual: each new yorker gets back less than a dollar for each dollar they contribute, while each kentuckian gets more than a dollar back for each one they contribute.

let's put it in terms you might understand: all the states come together to bake a huge federal pie. new york gives 20 eggs, and kentucky gives 4 eggs. when it comes to eating the pie, however, new york only gets 17 slices, while kentucky gets 7. you see how the ratio has changed? THAT is the point here. sure, kentucky is smaller and therefore it's expected they can't give as many eggs as new york - BUT in a world without 'socialism', they should only get 4 slices of the pie, while new york gets 20 - but that's not what's happening.

gosh, i really hope you're just pretending to be that daft, because you don't want to concede that red welfare states are constantly being bailed out by blue states - and not because you genuinely don't understand basic statistics.

holy shit...

Dude, for like the eighth time, the ratio of what a state puts in to what a state gets back... is that STATE's problem. It's not the responsibility of the FED to "carry" the states that can't manage to balance their check books. :/

/e What's next? If a person in a state can't balance their checkbook, do you think the state should bail them out? This is NOT a socialist country. It doesn't function like one.

This post was edited by Ghot on May 2 2020 05:25am

you're kidding me, right? that's not a matter of being unable to "balance" their checkbooks, it's a matter of which states NEED the help and which states are able to support them. that's the whole point of the discussion. it's textbook socialism and republican states are the main beneficiaries of it.

if states like NY and cali could simply refuse to constantly bail out kentucky and other red welfare queens, if this ACTUALLY was just up to the states, then bitch mcconnell's leeches would be even worse off than they already are. no wonder you're a trump guy, you genuinely don't even understand the most basic concepts...



This post was edited by fender on May 2 2020 05:26am

New York produces things that can be produced anywhere in the state. As I said before, New York no longer needs huge cities. They need help because the refuse to adapt.


/e NY produces agriculture items, gems, art, finance and media. There is absolutely no need for a city like NYC in this day and age. All their current problems are being caused by the fact that NY has 8.4 million of it''s 19.4 million population living in one teeny area. I explained earlier that this is no longer necessary. With the advent of aviation, it really doesn't need to have 1/3 of it's population in a port city.














This post was edited by Ghot on May 2 2020 05:33am

let's put it in terms you might understand: all the states come together to bake a huge federal pie. new york gives 20 eggs, and kentucky gives 4 eggs. when it comes to eating the pie, however, new york only gets 17 slices, while kentucky gets 7. you see how the ratio has changed? that's 'socialism' - and red states are the ones that benefit from it.