On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:35:15 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


And westerners, who complain about all that federal land that they can't use
as they see fit, ignore the fact that it's MY tax money that's paying for
THEIR federal recreation areas, and fire protection, and grazing subsidies,
and so on. Western states get MUCH more money back in federal taxes than
they pay out. And we get the opposite.

Cites for that, please?

In just _1_ instance in _1_ state, CA, illegals suck up more money
(schools, emergency room, etc.) than the feds return to them, Ed.


So you're on the dole, and it's paid for by us. If you doubt it, several
people here can point you to the tax facts. I don't mind this so much until
I hear one of you guys start to bitch that you're entitled to more. That
gets my hackles up. And it makes me wonder, sometimes, if it was smart to
grant you full statehood, and to just give you all of that federal land, in
the first place. And I'm only half-joking about that. d8-)

Yeah, and he's a damned top-poster, too.

-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:35:15 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


And westerners, who complain about all that federal land that they can't use
as they see fit, ignore the fact that it's MY tax money that's paying for
THEIR federal recreation areas, and fire protection, and grazing subsidies,
and so on. Western states get MUCH more money back in federal taxes than
they pay out. And we get the opposite.

Cites for that, please?

In just _1_ instance in _1_ state, CA, illegals suck up more money
(schools, emergency room, etc.) than the feds return to them, Ed.

Do you think that the fact that they are all working under the table,
and therefore not getting TAXED could have an effect on this? I know I
pay way more in taxes than I use in schools or hospitals, since I
haven't been in either one of those in several years. Perhaps we need
to look at ways to get these people on the tax roles? Or, we could
spend billions more of tax dollars to try to keep them out, 'cuz Larry
wants to pick lettuce in the California heat.

Set up a system to tax even Illegal wages, and start running stings on
all the drywall guys who grab their cheap labor at the Home Depot
parking lot every morning. Make it very expensive to employ and not tax
an Illegal and the demand will dry up. they will leave or they will pay
taxes, either way is a win.

Stuart

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:35:15 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


And westerners, who complain about all that federal land that they can't
use
as they see fit, ignore the fact that it's MY tax money that's paying for
THEIR federal recreation areas, and fire protection, and grazing
subsidies,
and so on. Western states get MUCH more money back in federal taxes than
they pay out. And we get the opposite.

Cites for that, please?

Didn't we just go through this a month or so ago? Anyway, here's one tally.
Look at Table 4:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Pu...e-in-2005.html

They base their measures on the Consolidated Federal Funds Report from the
Census Bureau, so they're probably the most consistent, state-to-state.


In just _1_ instance in _1_ state, CA, illegals suck up more money
(schools, emergency room, etc.) than the feds return to them, Ed.

So, what's North Dakota's excuse? Montana's? Idaho's?

As for California, let's confine this to the United States of America. g
They don't do that well with federal tax dollars in the first place. They
can't seem to get any of it right.



So you're on the dole, and it's paid for by us. If you doubt it, several
people here can point you to the tax facts. I don't mind this so much
until
I hear one of you guys start to bitch that you're entitled to more. That
gets my hackles up. And it makes me wonder, sometimes, if it was smart to
grant you full statehood, and to just give you all of that federal land,
in
the first place. And I'm only half-joking about that. d8-)

Yeah, and he's a damned top-poster, too.

-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:51:49 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:35:15 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


And westerners, who complain about all that federal land that they can't
use
as they see fit, ignore the fact that it's MY tax money that's paying for
THEIR federal recreation areas, and fire protection, and grazing
subsidies,
and so on. Western states get MUCH more money back in federal taxes than
they pay out. And we get the opposite.

Cites for that, please?

Didn't we just go through this a month or so ago? Anyway, here's one tally.
Look at Table 4:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Pu...e-in-2005.html

They base their measures on the Consolidated Federal Funds Report from the
Census Bureau, so they're probably the most consistent, state-to-state.

Yeah, we out in the west get a lot of return. My state got less than
yours, 35 cents on the dollar. We get/pay $0.35/$1.16, Joisey comes in
at $0.39/$0.57. (or am I reading Table 1 vs. 4 wrong after 5 minutes
of research?)


In just _1_ instance in _1_ state, CA, illegals suck up more money
(schools, emergency room, etc.) than the feds return to them, Ed.

So, what's North Dakota's excuse? Montana's? Idaho's?

Excuse for what? ND is $1.39 after paying out $2.26.


As for California, let's confine this to the United States of America. g
They don't do that well with federal tax dollars in the first place. They
can't seem to get any of it right.

Too many liberals. (Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, Grey "Brownout"
Davis, Nancy Pelotas, Fiendstein, et al.)

That said, don't be dissin' my old state.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:51:49 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:35:15 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


And westerners, who complain about all that federal land that they can't
use
as they see fit, ignore the fact that it's MY tax money that's paying
for
THEIR federal recreation areas, and fire protection, and grazing
subsidies,
and so on. Western states get MUCH more money back in federal taxes than
they pay out. And we get the opposite.

Cites for that, please?

Didn't we just go through this a month or so ago? Anyway, here's one
tally.
Look at Table 4:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Pu...e-in-2005.html

They base their measures on the Consolidated Federal Funds Report from the
Census Bureau, so they're probably the most consistent, state-to-state.

Yeah, we out in the west get a lot of return. My state got less than
yours, 35 cents on the dollar. We get/pay $0.35/$1.16, Joisey comes in
at $0.39/$0.57. (or am I reading Table 1 vs. 4 wrong after 5 minutes
of research?)

Yike, you're reading it backwards. For every dollar in federal taxes you
pay, you get $1.16 of federal money is spent in Oregon. That's what the
table says. New Jersey gets $0.57 back for every dollar we pay. We're
supporting half the country. g

Take your time, as math teachers used to say, so you don't make silly
mistakes.



In just _1_ instance in _1_ state, CA, illegals suck up more money
(schools, emergency room, etc.) than the feds return to them, Ed.

So, what's North Dakota's excuse? Montana's? Idaho's?

Excuse for what? ND is $1.39 after paying out $2.26.

sigh Hey, Larry, read the column headings -- the second column,
particularly. ND gets $2.26 back for every dollar they put in. Not bad, eh?



As for California, let's confine this to the United States of America. g
They don't do that well with federal tax dollars in the first place. They
can't seem to get any of it right.

Too many liberals. (Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, Grey "Brownout"
Davis, Nancy Pelotas, Fiendstein, et al.)

That said, don't be dissin' my old state.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Just try charting your journey through Table 4.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Yeah, we out in the west get a lot of return. My state got less than
yours, 35 cents on the dollar. We get/pay $0.35/$1.16, Joisey comes in
at $0.39/$0.57. (or am I reading Table 1 vs. 4 wrong after 5 minutes
of research?)

Ah, I see what you're doing. You're combining Table 1 with Table 4. Table 1
is just military expenditures. You want the whole thing -- Table 4, column
two.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:56:37 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:51:49 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:35:15 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


And westerners, who complain about all that federal land that they can't
use
as they see fit, ignore the fact that it's MY tax money that's paying
for
THEIR federal recreation areas, and fire protection, and grazing
subsidies,
and so on. Western states get MUCH more money back in federal taxes than
they pay out. And we get the opposite.

Cites for that, please?

Didn't we just go through this a month or so ago? Anyway, here's one
tally.
Look at Table 4:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Pu...e-in-2005.html

They base their measures on the Consolidated Federal Funds Report from the
Census Bureau, so they're probably the most consistent, state-to-state.

Yeah, we out in the west get a lot of return. My state got less than
yours, 35 cents on the dollar. We get/pay $0.35/$1.16, Joisey comes in
at $0.39/$0.57. (or am I reading Table 1 vs. 4 wrong after 5 minutes
of research?)

Yike, you're reading it backwards. For every dollar in federal taxes you
pay, you get $1.16 of federal money is spent in Oregon. That's what the
table says. New Jersey gets $0.57 back for every dollar we pay. We're
supporting half the country. g

Take your time, as math teachers used to say, so you don't make silly
mistakes.

Um, Ed, I just looked at table 1 again and under the column titled
"Amount Returned to State per Dollar Paid in Taxes", Oregon is $0.35
and we're ranked 47th. I'd call that low return, wouldn't you?

OK, it was table 4 where I made the mistake. I misread the column
title "Expenditures in State per Dollar Paid by State Taxpayers"
as "expenditures by state". Mea culpa.




In just _1_ instance in _1_ state, CA, illegals suck up more money
(schools, emergency room, etc.) than the feds return to them, Ed.

So, what's North Dakota's excuse? Montana's? Idaho's?

Excuse for what? ND is $1.39 after paying out $2.26.

sigh Hey, Larry, read the column headings -- the second column,
particularly. ND gets $2.26 back for every dollar they put in. Not bad, eh?

New Mexico is tops at $3.10!

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:56:37 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:51:49 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:35:15 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


And westerners, who complain about all that federal land that they
can't
use
as they see fit, ignore the fact that it's MY tax money that's paying
for
THEIR federal recreation areas, and fire protection, and grazing
subsidies,
and so on. Western states get MUCH more money back in federal taxes
than
they pay out. And we get the opposite.

Cites for that, please?

Didn't we just go through this a month or so ago? Anyway, here's one
tally.
Look at Table 4:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Pu...e-in-2005.html

They base their measures on the Consolidated Federal Funds Report from
the
Census Bureau, so they're probably the most consistent, state-to-state.

Yeah, we out in the west get a lot of return. My state got less than
yours, 35 cents on the dollar. We get/pay $0.35/$1.16, Joisey comes in
at $0.39/$0.57. (or am I reading Table 1 vs. 4 wrong after 5 minutes
of research?)

Yike, you're reading it backwards. For every dollar in federal taxes you
pay, you get $1.16 of federal money is spent in Oregon. That's what the
table says. New Jersey gets $0.57 back for every dollar we pay. We're
supporting half the country. g

Take your time, as math teachers used to say, so you don't make silly
mistakes.

Um, Ed, I just looked at table 1 again and under the column titled
"Amount Returned to State per Dollar Paid in Taxes", Oregon is $0.35
and we're ranked 47th. I'd call that low return, wouldn't you?

g They didn't do a very good job of labelling things, but take a look at
the title for that table you're reading. The title is "Table 1: Taxes for
the Military and Expenditures by State." They should have said "Taxes for
the Military and Military Expenditures by State." They were a little sloppy.

You're looking at taxes and expenditures for the military only. You want
"Table 4: Total Expenditures by State." If you still question this, take a
look at the "IRS Total Collection" figure a couple of columns across in
Table 4. You may recognize that as the total tax revenue of the US.

All together now...and a vun, and a twoa, and a three...


OK, it was table 4 where I made the mistake. I misread the column
title "Expenditures in State per Dollar Paid by State Taxpayers"
as "expenditures by state". Mea culpa.

Darn, when you do this as a running commentary, I often find I just wrote
something that was a complete waste...like now. Not complaining, not
complaining....

It's actually their culpa. As I said, they were sloppy in writing the
headings for the columns.



In just _1_ instance in _1_ state, CA, illegals suck up more money
(schools, emergency room, etc.) than the feds return to them, Ed.

So, what's North Dakota's excuse? Montana's? Idaho's?

Excuse for what? ND is $1.39 after paying out $2.26.

sigh Hey, Larry, read the column headings -- the second column,
particularly. ND gets $2.26 back for every dollar they put in. Not bad,
eh?

New Mexico is tops at $3.10!

I didn't do New Mexico because of all the illegals there. I figured you'd
complain, so I passed it by.

Now, having said all that, let me point out that someone might argue with
you about these numbers because the Tax Foundation or whatever has a
slightly different set of numbers. It's safe to ignore them. They aren't
sticking to original-source data and they have an ax to grind. And the
relationships are still pretty much the same. At least, NJ comes out sucking
hind tit, as usual.

There are three situations that will get a state in the positive column. One
is to have a lot of very poor people. The second is to have a lot of federal
land or military facilities. The third is to have an extra helping of
defense contractors.

In general, the deep South and the mountain West make out the best. In past
years, California has (IIRC) made out a lot better. And Alaska, of course.
These tend to be the same places that have the greatest number of people who
bitch and moan about how they're getting raped with taxes. In fact, as you
can see, they be the rapists, not the rapees. PV is right: NY state is
taking it in the rear almost as badly as NJ. New Jersey and Connecticut
usually have the two highest per-capita incomes in the US. Thus, we get
screwed.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:02:41 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Ed sed:
Look at Table 4:

Damn, that's where I went wrong. I missed the 4 little words above.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Pu...e-in-2005.html


g They didn't do a very good job of labelling things, but take a look at
the title for that table you're reading. The title is "Table 1: Taxes for
the Military and Expenditures by State." They should have said "Taxes for
the Military and Military Expenditures by State." They were a little sloppy.

Oh, good. It wasn't -all- my fault this time. vbg


You're looking at taxes and expenditures for the military only. You want
"Table 4: Total Expenditures by State." If you still question this, take a
look at the "IRS Total Collection" figure a couple of columns across in
Table 4. You may recognize that as the total tax revenue of the US.

All together now...and a vun, and a twoa, and a three...

If I had never been forced to sit through it with Nana (my mother's
mother), I'd never have recognized the Lawrence Welk reference. Thanks
for the bad memories. cue champagne bubbles


OK, it was table 4 where I made the mistake. I misread the column
title "Expenditures in State per Dollar Paid by State Taxpayers"
as "expenditures by state". Mea culpa.

Darn, when you do this as a running commentary, I often find I just wrote
something that was a complete waste...like now. Not complaining, not
complaining....

No complaint, just a bit of Joisey whine, eh? You could always read
the whole message first, then reply. It's not like I'm a novelist or
nuttin'. chortle


It's actually their culpa. As I said, they were sloppy in writing the
headings for the columns.

I'm relieved. (Sure is nice out. "Yes, I think I'll leave it out.")


sigh Hey, Larry, read the column headings -- the second column,
particularly. ND gets $2.26 back for every dollar they put in. Not bad,
eh?

New Mexico is tops at $3.10!

I didn't do New Mexico because of all the illegals there. I figured you'd
complain, so I passed it by.

Point to Ed.


Now, having said all that, let me point out that someone might argue with
you about these numbers because the Tax Foundation or whatever has a
slightly different set of numbers. It's safe to ignore them. They aren't
sticking to original-source data and they have an ax to grind. And the
relationships are still pretty much the same. At least, NJ comes out sucking
hind tit, as usual.

Bbbut, we gave you all that industry, and... gd&r


There are three situations that will get a state in the positive column. One
is to have a lot of very poor people. The second is to have a lot of federal
land or military facilities. The third is to have an extra helping of
defense contractors.

OR has very few people (mostly poor) + a lot of federal land.
NM has Los Alamos. NM is #1, we're #25.


In general, the deep South and the mountain West make out the best. In past
years, California has (IIRC) made out a lot better. And Alaska, of course.

Isn't it because they have to -pay- people to -live- in the Fort
Stinkin' Frozen Norths of ND and AK?


These tend to be the same places that have the greatest number of people who
bitch and moan about how they're getting raped with taxes. In fact, as you
can see, they be the rapists, not the rapees. PV is right: NY state is
taking it in the rear almost as badly as NJ. New Jersey and Connecticut
usually have the two highest per-capita incomes in the US. Thus, we get
screwed.

Take another look. Judging by the IRS total and tax per capita
figures from D.C., they've got the lion's share of wealthy and/or
income kings. Minnesota and Delaware also pay more taxes per capita
than you and NY do; right up there with CT.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:02:41 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

snip

There are three situations that will get a state in the positive column.
One
is to have a lot of very poor people. The second is to have a lot of
federal
land or military facilities. The third is to have an extra helping of
defense contractors.

OR has very few people (mostly poor) + a lot of federal land.
NM has Los Alamos. NM is #1, we're #25.

But you're still in the positive column. Note that the number of states that
pay more than they get back is smaller than the number who get back more
than they pay. In other words, states like NJ, NY, CT and so on are
disproportionally screwed.


In general, the deep South and the mountain West make out the best. In
past
years, California has (IIRC) made out a lot better. And Alaska, of course.

Isn't it because they have to -pay- people to -live- in the Fort
Stinkin' Frozen Norths of ND and AK?

It's because they've put most of their federal legislative effort into
sucking up everyone else's tax money. That's what they do best. Alaska is a
giant tax tapeworm.


These tend to be the same places that have the greatest number of people
who
bitch and moan about how they're getting raped with taxes. In fact, as you
can see, they be the rapists, not the rapees. PV is right: NY state is
taking it in the rear almost as badly as NJ. New Jersey and Connecticut
usually have the two highest per-capita incomes in the US. Thus, we get
screwed.

Take another look. Judging by the IRS total and tax per capita
figures from D.C., they've got the lion's share of wealthy and/or
income kings.

Jesus. D.C. isn't a state. It's a wall-to-wall city. Including D.C. in those
statistics was just stupid.

Minnesota and Delaware also pay more taxes per capita
than you and NY do; right up there with CT.

If you want to start picking apart the individual states, rather than the
general trends by region, you have a much larger task ahead of you. DE is
home to many of America's corportate HQ's because they designed their laws
of incorporation specifically to be attractive. It skews their true GDP and,
as you'll notice, their per-capita tax revenues. You could argue about that
one for an hour -- but with someone else, please. g

MN is odd. They seem to get everything wrong on taxes. I don't know why.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

MN is odd. They seem to get everything wrong on taxes. I don't know why.

We've got high taxes, freezing cold winters, hellishly hot & humid
summers, nasty mosquitos, and woodchippers we know how to use.

Stay away. Really.

Pete

"Pete Bergstrom" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress wrote:

MN is odd. They seem to get everything wrong on taxes. I don't know why.

We've got high taxes, freezing cold winters, hellishly hot & humid
summers, nasty mosquitos, and woodchippers we know how to use.

Stay away. Really.

Pete

As long as you're the ones who are supporting Alaska, it's Ok by me. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
As long as you're the ones who are supporting Alaska, it's Ok by me. d8-)

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:39:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:02:41 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

snip

There are three situations that will get a state in the positive column.
One
is to have a lot of very poor people. The second is to have a lot of
federal
land or military facilities. The third is to have an extra helping of
defense contractors.

OR has very few people (mostly poor) + a lot of federal land.
NM has Los Alamos. NM is #1, we're #25.

But you're still in the positive column. Note that the number of states that
pay more than they get back is smaller than the number who get back more
than they pay. In other words, states like NJ, NY, CT and so on are
disproportionally screwed.

I'm so sorry, Ed. cuing violins So, what causes that? Progressives?
(avoiding the L word here)


In general, the deep South and the mountain West make out the best. In
past
years, California has (IIRC) made out a lot better. And Alaska, of course.

Isn't it because they have to -pay- people to -live- in the Fort
Stinkin' Frozen Norths of ND and AK?

It's because they've put most of their federal legislative effort into
sucking up everyone else's tax money. That's what they do best. Alaska is a
giant tax tapeworm.

They sure as hell learned how to use oil (or oil barons) as their
ally.


These tend to be the same places that have the greatest number of people
who
bitch and moan about how they're getting raped with taxes. In fact, as you
can see, they be the rapists, not the rapees. PV is right: NY state is
taking it in the rear almost as badly as NJ. New Jersey and Connecticut
usually have the two highest per-capita incomes in the US. Thus, we get
screwed.

Take another look. Judging by the IRS total and tax per capita
figures from D.C., they've got the lion's share of wealthy and/or
income kings.

Jesus. D.C. isn't a state. It's a wall-to-wall city. Including D.C. in those
statistics was just stupid.

D.C. is a statelike entity, oui?


Minnesota and Delaware also pay more taxes per capita
than you and NY do; right up there with CT.

If you want to start picking apart the individual states, rather than the
general trends by region, you have a much larger task ahead of you. DE is
home to many of America's corportate HQ's because they designed their laws
of incorporation specifically to be attractive. It skews their true GDP and,
as you'll notice, their per-capita tax revenues. You could argue about that
one for an hour -- but with someone else, please. g

MN is odd. They seem to get everything wrong on taxes. I don't know why.

They sure have fun with governance, don't they?

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Pete Bergstrom wrote:

We've got high taxes, freezing cold winters, hellishly hot & humid
summers, nasty mosquitos, and woodchippers we know how to use.

Stay away. Really.


Soon you will have Stuart Smalley.

I'll take Michigan over that.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:39:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:02:41 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

snip

I'm so sorry

That's pretty obvious Larry.

JC

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:39:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:02:41 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

snip

There are three situations that will get a state in the positive column.
One
is to have a lot of very poor people. The second is to have a lot of
federal
land or military facilities. The third is to have an extra helping of
defense contractors.

OR has very few people (mostly poor) + a lot of federal land.
NM has Los Alamos. NM is #1, we're #25.

But you're still in the positive column. Note that the number of states
that
pay more than they get back is smaller than the number who get back more
than they pay. In other words, states like NJ, NY, CT and so on are
disproportionally screwed.

I'm so sorry, Ed. cuing violins So, what causes that? Progressives?
(avoiding the L word here)

Conservatives, in the western and southern states. Look at the list: Of the
10 states getting the most federal pork, 7 of them were red states in last
year's election.

They're the ones who bitch about spending and then make sure they load their
own states with pork. This is the basic profile of US politics, Larry, and
it's one of my gripes against conservative politicians. They're hypocrites,
through and through. And don't try to tell me that they're all the same.
They're not.



In general, the deep South and the mountain West make out the best. In
past
years, California has (IIRC) made out a lot better. And Alaska, of
course.

Isn't it because they have to -pay- people to -live- in the Fort
Stinkin' Frozen Norths of ND and AK?

It's because they've put most of their federal legislative effort into
sucking up everyone else's tax money. That's what they do best. Alaska is
a
giant tax tapeworm.

They sure as hell learned how to use oil (or oil barons) as their
ally.

Their "ally"? You mean, their tool of extortion? On top of all the federal
bennies that Alaska gets, they lard the oil being pumped in their state with
big taxes and, recently, "windfall" taxes. It pays every man, woman, and
rugrat in the state several thousand dollars per year, in the form of nice
fat checks. They actually just hand it out to all of those independent,
free-market, small-government conservatives. It appears that they have very
flexible ethical ideas.

And whose pocket do you think that's coming out of? Bwaaaahhaaaaa..



These tend to be the same places that have the greatest number of people
who
bitch and moan about how they're getting raped with taxes. In fact, as
you
can see, they be the rapists, not the rapees. PV is right: NY state is
taking it in the rear almost as badly as NJ. New Jersey and Connecticut
usually have the two highest per-capita incomes in the US. Thus, we get
screwed.

Take another look. Judging by the IRS total and tax per capita
figures from D.C., they've got the lion's share of wealthy and/or
income kings.

Jesus. D.C. isn't a state. It's a wall-to-wall city. Including D.C. in
those
statistics was just stupid.

D.C. is a statelike entity, oui?

Yeah. Like American Samoa, only with big buildings. g

Where do you think all those federal buildings are located, hmmm? How do you
think they manage an average per-capita federal tax bill of $31,250, when
the next highest "entity" is $15,714? Do you think it's all the poor people
in D.C. who are paying those $31,250 tax bills? Think about it. Now, what is
D.C. doing on that list of states, eh? It's a federal district fer
chrissakes! Of course it's getting a lot of federal money. They build
federal buildings and run services and build infrastructure for them in
federal districts. Jeez. g



Minnesota and Delaware also pay more taxes per capita
than you and NY do; right up there with CT.

If you want to start picking apart the individual states, rather than the
general trends by region, you have a much larger task ahead of you. DE is
home to many of America's corportate HQ's because they designed their laws
of incorporation specifically to be attractive. It skews their true GDP
and,
as you'll notice, their per-capita tax revenues. You could argue about
that
one for an hour -- but with someone else, please. g

MN is odd. They seem to get everything wrong on taxes. I don't know why.

They sure have fun with governance, don't they?

Next year they're going to run The Dog-Faced Boy against the Bearded Lady.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:33:43 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
snip

I'm so sorry, Ed. cuing violins So, what causes that? Progressives?
(avoiding the L word here)

Conservatives, in the western and southern states. Look at the list: Of the
10 states getting the most federal pork, 7 of them were red states in last
year's election.

They're the ones who bitch about spending and then make sure they load their
own states with pork. This is the basic profile of US politics, Larry, and
it's one of my gripes against conservative politicians. They're hypocrites,
through and through. And don't try to tell me that they're all the same.
They're not.

I no longer think the Reps are any better than the Dems and I almost
despise both equally, but not quite yet. (Old habits...)


In general, the deep South and the mountain West make out the best. In
past
years, California has (IIRC) made out a lot better. And Alaska, of
course.

Isn't it because they have to -pay- people to -live- in the Fort
Stinkin' Frozen Norths of ND and AK?

It's because they've put most of their federal legislative effort into
sucking up everyone else's tax money. That's what they do best. Alaska is
a
giant tax tapeworm.

They sure as hell learned how to use oil (or oil barons) as their
ally.

Their "ally"? You mean, their tool of extortion? On top of all the federal
bennies that Alaska gets, they lard the oil being pumped in their state with
big taxes and, recently, "windfall" taxes. It pays every man, woman, and
rugrat in the state several thousand dollars per year, in the form of nice
fat checks. They actually just hand it out to all of those independent,
free-market, small-government conservatives. It appears that they have very
flexible ethical ideas.

And whose pocket do you think that's coming out of? Bwaaaahhaaaaa..

All our pockets, except in NJ where it's only coming out of Ed's
pocket. Did I get that right?


D.C. is a statelike entity, oui?

Yeah. Like American Samoa, only with big buildings. g

And much older stone buildings, huh?


Where do you think all those federal buildings are located, hmmm? How do you
think they manage an average per-capita federal tax bill of $31,250, when
the next highest "entity" is $15,714? Do you think it's all the poor people
in D.C. who are paying those $31,250 tax bills?

Bwahahahaha! He make joke.


Think about it. Now, what is
D.C. doing on that list of states, eh? It's a federal district fer
chrissakes! Of course it's getting a lot of federal money. They build
federal buildings and run services and build infrastructure for them in
federal districts. Jeez. g

I thought maybe they were counting the exhorbitant gov't salaries.
shrug


Minnesota and Delaware also pay more taxes per capita
than you and NY do; right up there with CT.

If you want to start picking apart the individual states, rather than the
general trends by region, you have a much larger task ahead of you. DE is
home to many of America's corportate HQ's because they designed their laws
of incorporation specifically to be attractive. It skews their true GDP
and,
as you'll notice, their per-capita tax revenues. You could argue about
that
one for an hour -- but with someone else, please. g

MN is odd. They seem to get everything wrong on taxes. I don't know why.

They sure have fun with governance, don't they?

Next year they're going to run The Dog-Faced Boy against the Bearded Lady.

What, no more wrestlers? Is that fad over?

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:33:43 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
snip

I'm so sorry, Ed. cuing violins So, what causes that? Progressives?
(avoiding the L word here)

Conservatives, in the western and southern states. Look at the list: Of
the
10 states getting the most federal pork, 7 of them were red states in last
year's election.

They're the ones who bitch about spending and then make sure they load
their
own states with pork. This is the basic profile of US politics, Larry, and
it's one of my gripes against conservative politicians. They're
hypocrites,
through and through. And don't try to tell me that they're all the same.
They're not.

I no longer think the Reps are any better than the Dems and I almost
despise both equally, but not quite yet. (Old habits...)


In general, the deep South and the mountain West make out the best. In
past
years, California has (IIRC) made out a lot better. And Alaska, of
course.

Isn't it because they have to -pay- people to -live- in the Fort
Stinkin' Frozen Norths of ND and AK?

It's because they've put most of their federal legislative effort into
sucking up everyone else's tax money. That's what they do best. Alaska
is
a
giant tax tapeworm.

They sure as hell learned how to use oil (or oil barons) as their
ally.

Their "ally"? You mean, their tool of extortion? On top of all the federal
bennies that Alaska gets, they lard the oil being pumped in their state
with
big taxes and, recently, "windfall" taxes. It pays every man, woman, and
rugrat in the state several thousand dollars per year, in the form of nice
fat checks. They actually just hand it out to all of those independent,
free-market, small-government conservatives. It appears that they have
very
flexible ethical ideas.

And whose pocket do you think that's coming out of? Bwaaaahhaaaaa..

All our pockets, except in NJ where it's only coming out of Ed's
pocket. Did I get that right?

Nope. I drive a Ford Focus, remember? g

However, I'm sure many people in the Lower 48 would be glad to know that
some of the money they pay for gasoline is going into the pockets of Sarah
Palin's new son-in-law, and his soon-to-be-born tyke. Too bad they won't
return the favor.



D.C. is a statelike entity, oui?

Yeah. Like American Samoa, only with big buildings. g

And much older stone buildings, huh?


Where do you think all those federal buildings are located, hmmm? How do
you
think they manage an average per-capita federal tax bill of $31,250, when
the next highest "entity" is $15,714? Do you think it's all the poor
people
in D.C. who are paying those $31,250 tax bills?

Bwahahahaha! He make joke.


Think about it. Now, what is
D.C. doing on that list of states, eh? It's a federal district fer
chrissakes! Of course it's getting a lot of federal money. They build
federal buildings and run services and build infrastructure for them in
federal districts. Jeez. g

I thought maybe they were counting the exhorbitant gov't salaries.
shrug

Sure. Some of it is. And lobbyists' salaries. But the fact is that most of
D.C.'s expenses that would be state expenses in a state, are federal
expenses. Thus, their high rate of return on federal taxes.



Minnesota and Delaware also pay more taxes per capita
than you and NY do; right up there with CT.

If you want to start picking apart the individual states, rather than
the
general trends by region, you have a much larger task ahead of you. DE
is
home to many of America's corportate HQ's because they designed their
laws
of incorporation specifically to be attractive. It skews their true GDP
and,
as you'll notice, their per-capita tax revenues. You could argue about
that
one for an hour -- but with someone else, please. g

MN is odd. They seem to get everything wrong on taxes. I don't know why.

They sure have fun with governance, don't they?

Next year they're going to run The Dog-Faced Boy against the Bearded Lady.

What, no more wrestlers? Is that fad over?

A pro wrestler, a stand-up comic...I figure they'll recruit from a sideshow
next.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:55:20 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

And whose pocket do you think that's coming out of? Bwaaaahhaaaaa..

All our pockets, except in NJ where it's only coming out of Ed's
pocket. Did I get that right?

Nope. I drive a Ford Focus, remember? g

That's all you can afford after supporting the States, eh?


However, I'm sure many people in the Lower 48 would be glad to know that
some of the money they pay for gasoline is going into the pockets of Sarah
Palin's new son-in-law, and his soon-to-be-born tyke. Too bad they won't
return the favor.

Oh, I don't worry about that. Your new president will handle that.



Think about it. Now, what is
D.C. doing on that list of states, eh? It's a federal district fer
chrissakes! Of course it's getting a lot of federal money. They build
federal buildings and run services and build infrastructure for them in
federal districts. Jeez. g

I thought maybe they were counting the exhorbitant gov't salaries.
shrug

Sure. Some of it is. And lobbyists' salaries. But the fact is that most of
D.C.'s expenses that would be state expenses in a state, are federal
expenses. Thus, their high rate of return on federal taxes.

Ayup.


What, no more wrestlers? Is that fad over?

A pro wrestler, a stand-up comic...I figure they'll recruit from a sideshow
next.

I figure they already have. FRANKENstein?

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:55:20 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

And whose pocket do you think that's coming out of? Bwaaaahhaaaaa..

All our pockets, except in NJ where it's only coming out of Ed's
pocket. Did I get that right?

Nope. I drive a Ford Focus, remember? g

That's all you can afford after supporting the States, eh?

That's right. They bleed us until we're just a skeleton of our true selves.
(My true self is a Lotus Exige.)


However, I'm sure many people in the Lower 48 would be glad to know that
some of the money they pay for gasoline is going into the pockets of Sarah
Palin's new son-in-law, and his soon-to-be-born tyke. Too bad they won't
return the favor.

Oh, I don't worry about that. Your new president will handle that.

*My* new president? Where are you planning to live, Bulgaria?

Think about it. Now, what is
D.C. doing on that list of states, eh? It's a federal district fer
chrissakes! Of course it's getting a lot of federal money. They build
federal buildings and run services and build infrastructure for them in
federal districts. Jeez. g

I thought maybe they were counting the exhorbitant gov't salaries.
shrug

Sure. Some of it is. And lobbyists' salaries. But the fact is that most of
D.C.'s expenses that would be state expenses in a state, are federal
expenses. Thus, their high rate of return on federal taxes.

Ayup.


What, no more wrestlers? Is that fad over?

A pro wrestler, a stand-up comic...I figure they'll recruit from a
sideshow
next.

I figure they already have. FRANKENstein?

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:46:32 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:55:20 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

And whose pocket do you think that's coming out of? Bwaaaahhaaaaa..

All our pockets, except in NJ where it's only coming out of Ed's
pocket. Did I get that right?

Nope. I drive a Ford Focus, remember? g

That's all you can afford after supporting the States, eh?

That's right. They bleed us until we're just a skeleton of our true selves.
(My true self is a Lotus Exige.)

Cute toy.

I'm...let's see...I always wanted a Lotus Europa (but never found out
much about them), always loved the Ford GT-40, a friend let me ride in
his lovely De Tomaso Pantera once, I fell in love with the Maserati
Bora, I thought the Lamborghini Countach was tits, and the Atom looks
like a really dandy toy to tool around in, but I think that I'd be a
Tesla Roadster today. Yeah, that's the ticket.
http://www.teslamotors.com/


However, I'm sure many people in the Lower 48 would be glad to know that
some of the money they pay for gasoline is going into the pockets of Sarah
Palin's new son-in-law, and his soon-to-be-born tyke. Too bad they won't
return the favor.

Oh, I don't worry about that. Your new president will handle that.

*My* new president? Where are you planning to live, Bulgaria?

I'll accept him after we test-drive him for a few months.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:46:32 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:55:20 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...

And whose pocket do you think that's coming out of? Bwaaaahhaaaaa..

All our pockets, except in NJ where it's only coming out of Ed's
pocket. Did I get that right?

Nope. I drive a Ford Focus, remember? g

That's all you can afford after supporting the States, eh?

That's right. They bleed us until we're just a skeleton of our true
selves.
(My true self is a Lotus Exige.)

Cute toy.

I'm...let's see...I always wanted a Lotus Europa (but never found out
much about them)...

Great fun if you're no taller than 5'9". Seriously, I just barely fit.
Exhausting to drive far, 'cause you're almost fully supine. It fits like a
Formula Ford except for the roof.

...always loved the Ford GT-40, a friend let me ride in
his lovely De Tomaso Pantera once...

I liked them until I watched one burn to the ground at a gas station in
Haslett, Michigan.

...I fell in love with the Maserati
Bora, I thought the Lamborghini Countach was tits, and the Atom looks
like a really dandy toy to tool around in, but I think that I'd be a
Tesla Roadster today. Yeah, that's the ticket.
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Very interesting machine. It has, I think, over 1,000 batteries in it. It
sounds like a maintenance problem waiting to happen, but I'll never have to
worry about it at that price.


However, I'm sure many people in the Lower 48 would be glad to know that
some of the money they pay for gasoline is going into the pockets of
Sarah
Palin's new son-in-law, and his soon-to-be-born tyke. Too bad they won't
return the favor.

Oh, I don't worry about that. Your new president will handle that.

*My* new president? Where are you planning to live, Bulgaria?

I'll accept him after we test-drive him for a few months.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

--
Ed Huntress