Thad Cochran, the GOP Establishment, and the Scourge of Red-State Socialism


By any measure, Mississippi has been on the government teat longer and more fully than the kid on that creepy Time magazine cover about attachment parenting. According to the Tax Foundation, Mississippi has never been lower than fourth in the amount of federal taxes paid vs. the amount of federal money received.  In 2005, Mississippi received a jaw-dropping $2.02 in federal money for every $1 of taxes its residents sent to Washington.

By 2010, that had jacked up further still to $2.47. That same year, the Tax Foundation calculates that fully 49 percent of Mississippi's state general revenue comes from federal taxpayers who will never step foot in Morgan Freeman's and William Faulkner's beloved stamping grounds.

That's from my latest Daily Beast column, which denounces the scourge of what I call red-state socialism, "the process by which supposedly conservative states—typically filled with politicians and voters who rail against welfarism in all its manifestations—are gifted massive subsidies courtesy of mostly blue-state voters."

It's not just Mississippi, of course….In 2010, states overall received $1.29 in federal gravy for every dollar residents kicked toward D.C. (such a persistent mismatch between money in and money out exemplifies what I've called Groupon Government and explains massive and mounting debt and deficits). Besides Mississippi, other notable red-state freeloaders included Alabama ($2.03), Alaska ($1.93), and South Carolina ($1.92). "Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid," writes Dave Gilson. "Democratic states, on average, received $1.16." Shame on both sides for bilking the system—and props to places as generous and different as Delaware (which received just 38 cents per dollar paid), New York (72 cents), California (87 cents), Texas (85 cents), and Massachusetts (83 cents).

Few individuals embody the GOP's phony commitment to limited government and spending restraint better than Sen. Thad Cochran, who earlier this beat back a primary challenge from Tea Party favorite Chris McDaniel. Yes, he was in favor of all of Bush's wars, NSA surveillance of citizens, The Patriot Act. Yes, he fought hard to keep earmarking alive because he was an unapologetic supporter of pork spending when directed to his special interests.

As the Tea Party group FreedomWorks has documented, Cochran voted in favor of Medicare Part D, the Bush-era abomination that gave free and reduced-price prescription drugs to seniors (without creating any revenue to pay for such largess!). He pulled the lever on the expensive and ineffective federal boondoggle known as No Child Left Behind, which accomplished nothing except for more federal bureaucracy in K-12 education. He's voted against balanced budget plans put forth by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and others. Cochran loves farm subsidies and high sugar tariffs.

Read the whole thing.

The GOP is so far in the crapper with voters (just 25 percent of whom cop to affiliating with the Party of Lincoln), it may not be able to salvage itself. Certainly if it doesn't kick red-state socialists such as Cochran to the curb, it's got no hope whatsoever.

NEXT: Oklahoma GOP Congressional Primary Loser: "I...Am a Human... I will Never use a Look Alike..."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thad Cochran is most certainly a crap weasel. But the “red states get more federal money” meme is one of the more dumb ones out there. It doesn’t mean what you think it does Nick. Not all federal money is the result of “pork”. Moreover, if a state has a small population, the existence of a single military base or government facility is going to have a greater per capita impact on the state. You can have two identical air forces bases, one in California and another in say Alabama and per capita, Alabama will be getting much more federal money than California. But that doesn’t make Alabama any more or less of a welfare case than California. It just means it has a smaller population.

    Per capita is not the entire story. Why Nick can’t figure that out and trots out this whorey and tried meme is beyond me.

    1. This is just to say you like some federal spending, and maybe that’s what red states are getting at higher per capita rates.

      1. This is just to say you like some federal spending

        Duh, you idiot. We’re not anarchists; thus there is necessarily some spending or action by the federal government that we approve of.

        Do you ever write something that is not banal or tedious? Seriously, who the fuck does the above come as a revelation to? It is a logical consequence of not being an anarchist that one approves of (or tolerates) some level of government spending — no shit, genius.

        1. Do you ever write something that is not banal or tedious?

          No, he does not. Which is why you should disengage.

          1. I do, however, know what an = sign means, so I’ve got that over our officer here.

        2. We get it IT, you like ‘the military culture.’ You want a more muscular, less naive foreign policy than non-interventionist Reason. You agree with admitted Republican John on these issues. That’s the ‘good kind’ of spending for you.

          But guess what? That dollar taken from my pocket from the feds to pay for our bloated defense systems is no different than that dollar taken to pay for, say, the Post Office.

          1. What we like or don’t like has nothing to do with it. Dipshit.

          2. That dollar taken from my pocket from the feds to pay for our bloated defense systems is no different than that dollar taken to pay for, say, the Post Office.

            Hey, Botard got one right, kinda! Both of THOSE expenditures are actually called out in that crusty, 100+-year-old document called “the Constitution” as legitimate expenses for FedGov!

            So – in that sense – good boy, Botard! You’re right – there isn’t any difference! They’re both legit!

            Now, crop subsidies, OTOH…

            1. Alamanian, I’m sure there are cites that support any spending that is constitutionally legit, but I was under the impression this was a libertarian one. Just lurking or something?

              1. Yer bringin’ the derp hard as usual, Botard.

                I support none of this spending. You just like to argue.


                1. You oppose it but just thought you should say it is ‘legit.’ OK.

                  1. I mean, if one opposes spending because they think it’s unconstitutional, that’s all nice and all. But why should that be a criterion that matters to a libertarian? Surely a libertarian would want to see the Post Office done away with, despite the fact that its explicitly allowed for in the Constitution. The same logic applies to defense spending (at least to current levels). Saying ‘oh, that’s different, defense spending is legit’ should matter to a constitutionalist, but why a libertarian?

                  2. You oppose it but just thought you should say it is ‘legit.’ OK.

                    What he personally likes or don’t likes has no bearing on if it is ‘legit’ under a plain reading of the Constitution. Dipshit.

                    1. What I’m saying, dipsh*t, is who cares if it is ‘legit’ in this way? Nick’s article is not about whether the spending is constitutionally legit or not.

                    2. The “he” in my 3:14 comment was Almanian!, not Nick. Dipshit.

                    3. This entire thread is about Nick’s article and his point, dipsh*t.

          3. I kinda admire how Bo can get the boys to dance.
            Dance, boys, dance!

            1. This is no attempt to get anyone to dance.

              There’s nothing wrong with Nick’s statistic other than its one that is thrown around by Team Blue a lot and so many here predictably are either Team Red or just anti-Team Blue that it must be suspect (of course some it might be likely due to the strong sympathy to spending labeled ‘military’ among some).

              If you want to compare state populations being on the government teat or federal presence then Nick’s per capita measure is the best one I’ve seen today. Comparing absolute numbers would be silly: states with large populations and large economies for whom federal spending is a drop in the bucket would be ranked higher than states with larger economies and populations but greater relative spending and presence.

              1. I didn’t say it was intentional. But still they dance.

                1. I apologize for dancing with Bo and it will never happen again.

                  1. If Bo had a brain, he’d take it out and play with it.

                    1. It’s instructive to look at what fires so many posters ire here. In most of the threads which devolve into ‘I hate Bo too’ it begins with an acknowledged non-libertarian conservative like John or Immaculate Trouser attacking a Reason writer like Nick (or Suderman, or Shackford, or Elizabeth, etc) for being too ‘Team Blue’ and then I defend that writer, and then all these posters jump in to agree with the non-libertarian attacks on the Reason writers. Think about that for a minute. If there is not more compelling evidence that, for whatever reason, Team Red sympahizers who don’t believe what Reason stands for and is putting out are rife on this discussion board I don’t know what it would be. The interesting question is, how did this come to pass? Why did the discussion board of a magazine that has long been known in libertarian circles to lean towards ‘cosmotarianism’ become the stomping grounds for so many people who disagree with it?

        3. People like Bo, lacking principles, simply cannot fathom why libertarians say some spending is OK while other spending is not. Other than our personally preferring or liking one over another. That it has nothing to do with “like” simply does not compute.

          1. My principle is this: spend your money on what you want, I’ll spend mine on what I want. What’s yours?

            1. Exactly.

              1. Well, this applies to building the umpteenth military in my SC as much at it does the umpteenth post office elsewhere.

                Red states love to take other people’s money. The fact that they call a lot of it ‘for defense’ is, well, no defense in my book.

        4. Do you ever write something that is not banal or tedious?

          The pecksniffian troll rarely contributes anything of value.

          1. Someone has handed kinnath a line and now he’s gonna use it!

            1. No one gave that to me. I found it on my own. It describes you perfectly. It’s the only thing you’re ever going to see from me again.

            2. I will point out that you’re starting to make joe from lowell look good.

              1. He makes me not miss Tulpa, at least.

              2. “you’re starting to make joe from lowell look good”

                No shit.

              3. I will point out that you’re starting to make joe from lowell look good.

                The Great Arbiter and Purity Test Proctor is getting a bit tedious.

                1. To be more in line with Restoras I should start talking about how majorities of voters should be able to organize their communities the way they see fit. Anyone who says that’s unlibertarian is the Great Arbiter.

                  1. Ah yes, that tired old meme. I’ll give you credit for persistence there, Bo. Of course, the big difference is that I admitted the flaw in my thinking, while you continue to split hair, after hair, after hair, argue about definitions until the definitions don’t work in your favor, and fail to acknowledge that there are few Pure Libertarians here (or anywhere else, for that matter) but instead a group of people with various libertarian leanings.

                    Get over it, and yourself, and you will be happier. You might even make a few friends.

                    As to the Arbiter monicker, if you don’t like it, then stop acting like it. Until then, that is what you are.

      2. Nothing I said has anything to do with the relative desirability of spending. You completely miss the point. The point is that “per capita spending” doesn’t mean anything. There is a given amount of federal spending every year. The government isn’t going to nor should it put all of that spending in one place. Therefore states with small populations are always going to have a higher “per capita” federal spending rate. So pointing to that figure doesn’t mean what Nick thinks it does.

        You are apparently the only person on this board who isn’t bright enough to understand that point. I don’t know how to put it any more plainly for you. But I will had, the point has nothing to do with good or bad spending, whatever that is.

        1. You completely miss the point.

          And will continue to do so no matter what you say.

        2. It means exactly what he thinks it means. What better measure of being on the government teat would you suggest? Per capita takes population size into account, which you’d have to do, otherwise all states with big populations will look like they have the teat more.

          1. Like I said…

            1. Still waiting for a better measure to be proposed.

              1. Still waiting for you to understand a simple point. Actually, that’s not true. Waiting implies that I think you are capable of understanding, which isn’t the case.

                1. You know, if there is one thing I’ve learned on the internet it is this: when someone keeps replying to you that they know the answer, that you don’t, but they are not going to explain it, they are usually bluffing and do not know.

                  1. You know, there is one thing I’ve learned on the internet it is this: when some simple point has been explained to someone over and over and over and they still don’t get it, it’s better to just mock them than to waste time trying to explain yet another time.

              2. Per capita transfers either to the state or private individuals.

                even there however, how does one calculate farm subsidies Agribusinesses get? Do they somehow get allocated to each individual field, or does all the subsidy belong to the HQ?

              3. Easy, then I want to look at dollars per capita of spending. You like net dollars, subtracting the federal taxes paid. That almost seems intuitive except for the little fact that money “returned” to the state almsot certainly does NOT go back to the taxpayers that paid their fair share.

                What I care about more is the absolute level of spending. Interestingly, that metric shows that HI kicks the living shit out of MS, exceeding $1000 per capita more in federal spending than MS in all but a handful of of the last 35 years.

                Still waiting for you to tell me why an extra $1000 per capita in HI is different than MS.

          2. Federal spending is determined by population. it comes in various chunks. Sometimes it comes in big chunks like military bases. Other times it comes in small chunks like social security checks. Since it isn’t spent on a per capita basis, measuring it that way is misleading and pointless.

            What state’s “per capita” receipt of federal funds doesn’t tell you anything other than federal spending goes further in states with small populations than it does in states with large populations, at least if you only use that state as the measure. That is it.

            1. Since it isn’t spent on a per capita basis, measuring it that way is misleading and pointless.

              Well said. Not that Bo will understand, but well said.

            2. The spending goes to the people in that state. That’s why when there is noise about shutting down a military base everyone in that base’s region goes so ballistic. That’s why their congresscritters fight to keep it open.

              What it tells you is that there is more spending going on per person in those states, more of a federal presence. I don’t see how one could have a better measure of federal presence than that.

              1. How about absolute dollars spent in a State? Because as has been pointed out to you six times now, a $10 million dollar military expenditure means a lot more in Columbia than in the District of Columbia.

                1. And means a lot more to Columbians than in DC, which is kind of Nick’s point.

                2. That’s just ridiculous. By such a criteria a state with 10 million people that got 10 million a year of federal spending would, what, be more on the government teat than a state with 100 people that got 1 million? Who in the world would think the former state is more on the government teat or has a larger federal presence than the latter?

              2. No, no, NO, NO, NO!

                Again you are counting “net” dollars and not total dollars spent. So there is MORE spending in a state like HI PER PERSON (AK is pretty consistently 1 or 2) than there is in MS. The reason that MS ranks so low in your favorite metric isn’t because they are the highest “earners” but because they rank 50th in taxes paid. Go to a national sales tax or flat tax and that would change.

          3. Federal spending is NOT determined by population I should say.

          4. I don’t totally agree with John, but I do think you are missing his point.

            If you take the same contemplated military base and build it outside Columbia SC vs. building it outside Los Angeles CA, the per capita spending at Columbia is going to be much, much higher than the per capita spending at Los Angeles.

            While it’s true that Red Teamers have considerably less heartburn about federal money coming into red states vs. blue states, John is correct to point out that Nick is overplaying the meme.

            1. I get that second paragraph, but given the point Nick is trying to make I don’t see why it matters at all. How does it undercut Nick’s point that SC has a greater federal presence or is more on the teat than CA (using your hypothetical).

              1. I don’t think it necessarily undercuts his point, but as you notice it is presented in a manner that is too simplistic to persuade people who don’t already agree with it, which makes it then have the exact opposite of its intended effect.

              2. Because per capita federal spending doesn’t tell you who’s actually on the teat.

                That military base gets a lot of federal spending that never leaves the base.

              3. What you refuse to understand is that a fee for a necessary service is not being on the teat.

                We can argue all day about what portion of the military budget is unnecessary pork but clearly There must be some military bases somewhere, along with IRS offices, Social Security offices, etc. Those offices/bases/whatever will not be spread evenly across the states by population. The problem with a simplistic measure of spending per GDP is that it considers all spending to be equally wasteful. Further, it assumes that all of that spending somehow benefits the local communities.

                However lets take that giant new NSA data center in Utah. Sure there will be a handful of jobs in the local community from it but most of the workers there will be imports just on the basis of skillset alone (there is not exactly a huge population of unemployed IT workers in and around Salt Lake) and it certainly isn’t benefiting the locals in any other way however every dime spent on that facility counts against Utah’s “per capita federal spending”

                1. Those people who work at that Utah facility relocate to and live in Utah, right? They are locals.

      3. Actually that is not what he is saying at all.

        If you conceed that a federal government is a necessity then obviously some level of work must be legitimately performed by that government. Whatever that work is it must be performed somewhere and the monies spent on that work are categorically different from direct transfers, welfare, and pork barrel projects.

        Take the IRS, clearly they have to have processing offices somewhere. The fact that said office is located in State A as opposed to it’s neighbors b, c, and d does not mean that state A is actually recieving more money from the feds than it’s neighbors even though the operations cost of the office happens to be being spent inside it’s borders.

    2. Yeah, if you are really addressing “welfarism” and “subsidies”, you might want to use numbers based on, I dunno, “welfare” and “subsidies”.

      Which are a subset of total government spending.

      1. A lot of things that aren’t explicitly welfare or subsidy really are, though. Military bases are a good example of this. Congress people lobby to keep them or build them in their states because it brings money and jobs, not because of some military necessity for a base to be in that particular spot.

    3. It’s just an intellectual shortcut to get in a few (well deserved) shots on TEAM RED for not being nearly as small-gov as they claim to be. Obviously it’s a bit dishonest, but the overall concept that TEAM RED is filled with crap weasels is the point.

      1. At the risk of sounding like Obama ’04, there are no “red” states.

    4. The other side to the Meme is that Blue States “pay more” in taxes…which completely ignores cost of living and income differentials. I am tired of this Meme and echo John’s call to end it.

      1. People that make more don’t pay more taxes then?

        You guys will do some neat stretching to defend Team Red.

        1. You’re really Shriek, aren’t you…

          1. You’re welcome to defend that silliness if you would like.

            If blue states paying more taxes per capita can be dismissed because they make more money, then should we dismiss the idea that the wealthy pay more taxes per capita, because they do because…they make more money.

          2. I find Shreek to be more tolerable than Bo.

        2. People that make more don’t pay more taxes then?

          I said that they do. Do you read English?

          1. So why does this undercut the meme you mention?

            1. We’re talking about ratios. You know what? Other people get it, and I’m not going to bother humoring you.

        3. People that make more don’t pay more taxes then?

          What’s worth more, Bo? A 2,000 square foot house that costs $200K, or one with the same features that costs $500K?

          The point is that things like cost of living are related to the level of taxes being paid. Blue Teamers like to cite the absolute numbers without considering the economic factors that play into the figure itself. Who’s really economically better off–someone who makes $125K a year but lives paycheck to paycheck due to the cost of food, gas, housing, etc., or someone who makes $50K a year but can afford to save 10-20% of their paycheck every month because they don’t have those same burdens?

          Regardless, it’s rather amusing that Blue-staters whine about subsidizing Red State welfare when many of those red states have higher proportions of lower-income minority populations than the former; most of the whining tends to come from SWPLs safely ensconced in their various whiteopias who wouldn’t dream of living in a majority-minority neighborhood or town.

      2. The other side to the Meme is that Blue States “pay more” in taxes…which completely ignores cost of living and income differentials.

        I am not disagreeing, I just don’t understand. Could you elaborate?

        1. I don’t think he can, not sensibly.

          1. STFU this is the adult’s table.

          2. Well, Bo, its like this.

            We have a progressive income tax structure. That means that the more you make, the more you pay (in a non-linear/disproportionate fashion).

            Areas with higher cost of living also have higher incomes. That means that those higher incomes pay a disproportionate share of taxes.

            With me so far?

            High-cost/high-income states tend to be TEAM BLUE states. They pay a disproportionate share of taxes to some degree simply because they are high cost/high income states.

            Unfortunately, I can’t draw this for you in crayon in the comment section. I hope this helps, though.

            1. And why does this matter to the argument of who funds the government more?

              See, take everything you said about Blue states, that they have higher average incomes and so pay higher average taxes.

              The same is true for wealthy people in general, no? They pay more because they make more. So do you think the ‘meme’ that the wealthy already pay most taxes should be similarly dismissed?

              1. And why does this matter to the argument of who funds the government more?

                If that’s the simple question… it doesn’t matter. Obviously, the point of the question is to see who are the “scum suckers using up all our tax money.”

                The answer lies much more on cost of living than on wealth. When your median income is sitting in 35% income tax territory (San Fran), then obviously you’re going to pay in more than an area whose median income is sitting in 20% territory.

                It has nothing to do with TEAM BLUE IZ BETTARR, and everything to do with cities tend to have higher cost of living and also tend to attract progressive thinking.

            2. Areas with higher cost of living also have higher incomes. That means that those higher incomes pay a disproportionate share of taxes.

              No, their taxes are just a pass-through.

        2. When you are looking at which states receive the “most” government spending and you take it as a ratio, it makes little sense to not account for adjusting for cost of living.

          When adjusted for COL, Maine is the poorest state in the Union, for example.

          1. So, in other words, like John said, it’s really easy to “goose” a Red State’s government receipts when you build a 10 million dollar base in Louisiana. You can’t “goose” NYC in the same way.

            1. To be fair, “pork” and “military base” are not mutually exclusive. So the reality is even more complex than anyone has suggested.

              1. That’s true, but the most useful indicator, given that the Federal Budget is ***fixed***, is to determine on a absolute dollar scale which state gets the most money. California is probably number 1.

                1. What do you even think you are measuring with such a criteria?

                  If you had a state with a GDP of 20 million dollars and a population of 10 million and the federal government spent 1 million dollars there and another state with a GDP of 1 million dollars and a population of 1 million and the federal government spent 1 million dollars there, you’d have to rank them the same (I won’t say = ;)). What do you think you’d be ranking them the same in?

                  1. Troll lollollollollollollollol

    5. There are other issue, as well. Spending in a state is not necessarily the same thing as spending for a state. If I build a ROADZ!!! between NYC and LA, they will be the primary beneficiaries of it. That said, I will also be spending for construction in KS, OH, etc.

    6. It is worth pointing out that military bases can be and often are kept open as pork or welfare projects for the state they are in rather than out of true military necessity.

      1. This is an undeniable fact, and has been for decades. Sherman once rejected the establishment of a base near Denver because he realized that the citizens were just looking for an infusion of federal dollars in the economy through supply contracts and the like.

        Senators and Reps regardless of party get awfully chippy over things like unit and platform reassignments and inactivations because of all the jobs and money associated with having those personnel in the state, irrespective of whether they have actual military value or not.

  2. Creepy or strangely arousing?

    1. Why not both? It does have certain beneficial side effects.

      1. I guess I’m not seeing it. But then I guess I’m not a turkey neck guy.

        1. the silver fox doesn’t do anything for you?

  3. Isn’t that how stimulus is supposed to work though? You give government a dollar and they somehow magically turn it into more than a dollar.

    Someone should ask Tony or asshole (no, the *other* asshole) about the discrepancy.


  4. What do all that federal tax dollars go to? Besides just buying votes.

    1. “Enact this policy and we’ll pay for it! Then when it’s too entrenched to repeal, we’ll stop! And then do it again! And you fall for it every time, just like Charlie Brown kicking a football! Suckers! Ha ha ha ha ha!”

  5. This is a simplistic – and wrong – way to look at the issue.

    The 4 states mentioned in the article are, in Democrat-speak, poverty-stricken. They were all Dem-controlled at the point where they started getting more money than they took in.

    IOW, the Democrats WANT to shovel money into these states. Why complain about the GOP for taking the money the Dems want to force onto them?

    Let’s not forget that the Dems were forcing this money onto these states when they were Dem-controlled states. You’ve got Dems shoving ag subsidies on everyone, and the rural areas getting these subsidies aren’t voting Democrat in these states anymore. Why blame the GOP when the Democrat vote-buying programs don’t actually buy them those rural votes anymore?

    Secondly, ALL of these so-called GOP states are Dem-controlled in their largest cities – which is where the bulk of the Fed money is going. It is downright stupid to suggest that the GOP is getting the advantage of this Fed money when the whole point of these programs is to keep the Democrat-controlled cities voting Democrat.

    Yes, the GOP are phonies. But not because of this.

    1. getting more money than they took in.

      oops: getting more money than they sent out.

    2. Good points, Finger.

      To do this right, you should look at geographical areas that actually vote TEAM RED (say, by county, perhaps), and then run the numbers on, what was it? Oh yeah, “welfare” and “subsidies” v. taxes paid.

      I’d actually be interested in the results of that. This bullshit meme? Not so much.

  6. That kid is going to have severe relationship issues.

  7. Love the alt-text, but it should have suggested that the boy’s father were also his uncle.

  8. My earlier quibble aside, this is the kind of story that makes me wonder what the hell the point of my continued fight within the GOP is. Cochran went out and recruited Democrats to vote for him with claims of racism and support for food stamps and pork spending. Now he’s going to insist that all those people who he enlisted those Democrats to fight need to support him or else the Democrats he enlisted will wind up getting elected. This case is Mississippi. But, it could easily enough be anywhere else.

    1. The point is to take control of the GOP and eliminate at least some crap weasels even if we can’t take control. For further reference: Cuntor, Eric

      1. Except it’s a losing proposition for libertarians. There’s at least some reason to think that the lesson coming out of comparing Cantor and Cochran should be that if Cantor had been a more worthles shit, he’d have won the election.

        1. Was crossover voting allowed in VA like it was in MS? If so, Cantor could have used Dems to win.

          I think the Cochran fiasco is a lesson that the primaries should not be open to anyone, just registered members of the party (plus maybe registered independents).

  9. Related headline at NY Times mag:

    “What’s the Matter With Eastern Kentucky?
    Coal country is the most disadvantaged part of our nation. Why have decades of federal intervention failed?”

    You gotta love the Times. Apparently they had to search the entire country before finding that federal intervention doesn’t work for poor people in KY.

    1. Why have decades of federal intervention failed?”

      I’m gonna take a shot in the dark, here:

      Because we just haven’t spent enough or sent enough bureacrats there to “help”?

    2. Remember the Times employed a guy named Fox Butterfield for decades. Butterfield’s claim to fame was writing a yearly article asking how it is that the crime rate keeps going down while the prison population increases.

      The Times isn’t real big on thinking.

      1. Speaking of Fox Butterfield, I’m just pissed that the WSJ began putting The Best of the Web behind their paywall this week.

    3. What? You mean federal welfare programs in eastern KY hasn’t inspired a wealth of new industries to arise there?

    4. Coal country is the most disadvantaged part of our nation. Why have decades of federal intervention failed?”

      Let’s start with the Democrat hatred of coal, which forces these people into deeper poverty.

  10. Yeah, whatever. This is why I’m not voting for any national offices any more. I’ve decided to still vote for local and some state positions.

    The rest – fuck it. I want out of the US, because we’re at another time “in the course of human events” etc. etc.

    Fuck every TEAM player.

    1. Fatalism + narcissism = every vocal non-voter ever…..way,18397/

      1. Wow, we’re 2 for 2 on agreement. Fatalist narcissists seriously are the worse.

      2. Cytofascist pays us a visit! Sorry I missed this earlier.

        I know you love Australia, where you *must* vote, under penalty of gummint.

        Not me. You wanna vote? Be my guest. I don’t.

  11. That same year, the Tax Foundation calculates that fully 49 percent of Mississippi’s state general revenue comes from federal taxpayers …

    Besides Mississippi, other notable red-state freeloaders included Alabama ($2.03), Alaska ($1.93), and South Carolina ($1.92)

    By the first metric Alaska is the best at only 24%.

    Using the latter metric, Alaska becomes a “red-state freeloader.”

    This shit is useless.

  12. What’s easier than getting libertarians to fall over backward defending Republicans. No seriously, I’m asking.

    1. Answer: Getting “libertarians” to fall over backward defending Republicans.
      So what do I win, Tony?

      1. A free trip to Guinea, where a libertarian approach to infectious disease is making a paradise on earth.

        1. Deal. I’m a professional, after all.

        2. Why not Detroit, where the statist approach to managing cities is making a paradise on earth?

          1. Eh. I’ve been to Detroit.

          2. Capitalism killed Detroit. Or is there something about libertarianism that guarantees that car companies never go out of business?

            1. How did capitalism kill it.

              Seems to me that there are tons of cities that have survived transitions between major businesses.

              Even those that have faded from their earlier glory have been able to make the transition without the mass abandonment that Detroit is seeing.

              The contrast is even starker when you realize that most of the municipalities *around* Detroit aren’t seeing this sort of devestation.

              I’d say that is was cronyism and an overly powerful and inflexible public sector union.

              Ever increasing taxes to support political favors, high regulatory burdens, decreasing value in services received/taxes paid drove out the inhabitants while an inflexible union wouldn’t allow the city to decrease their pay/benefits in light of this new reality.

              1. If liberal policies tended to kill cities then San Francisco and New York would be shitholes instead of globally important centers of wealth and culture. People single out Detroit because it’s code for black. That’s all there is to it.

            2. Capitalism killed Detroit.

              Yes, and the CIA killed Lincoln.

            3. Whatever else happened in the world economy, had Detroit’s city government not imposed the taxes it did and run up the deficits it did it would have been in a better position to weather the storm.

            4. Wait, capitalism killed Detroit but ___ made SF and NYC “globally important centers of wealth and culture”?

              1. Also, congrats on being an even bigger yankee elitist bigot than I thought.

    2. There you are buddy.

      Come and explain how this ‘stimulus’ (where money is taken from one group of taxpayers and given to another group that the government deems ‘more worthy’ of that money) *isn’t* generating more wealth than is being redistributed.

      1. Without federal dollars some of these poor red states would be economically devastated. They’d be even less educated than they are, have less infrastructure, and their people would be spending even more time standing around contemplating their cousins’ bosoms instead of why they just can’t seem to make it without either mass free labor or donations from liberals up north.

        Now you tell me why the high taxes and bigger governments of blue states seem to correlate with better education, infrastructure, and well-being?

        1. It’s a good thing it is impossible to prove all of those assertions.

        2. Except, as you just pointed out – they don’t.

          You’re explanation is that the federal government, by redistributing money, prevents that from happening.

          *If* that’s the case, still – where’s the multiplier? If there’s a multiplier, then why do you blue staters bitch about the red-staters getting your money? You still come out ahead, right?

          1. You’re not getting it. Blue states are net givers yet still manage to come out ahead on every measure. Red states are net takers and still manage to fall behind.

            Why can’t rural conservatives win at capitalism without slaves or welfare?

            1. I’ve been to the northeast buddy, there isn’t a lot of wealth and education to point at in those cities.

              1. Christ, now we have Tony too? Pls stahp.

          2. In any case, what you’re saying still doesn’t answer my question – where is the multiplier effect?

            Why is moving money from blue states to red states a net drain on the economy?

            Why are we not seeing the blue states getting an ROI on their ‘investment’?

            1. Why is it a bad investment? Who knows how bad they’d be doing without the donations. There are degrees of shithole.

              1. If you’re just giving money away, that’s ‘charity’, not ‘investment’.

                I understand your confusion as the president likes to give money to his cronies while calling it ‘investment’, but in an investment you actually expect to make your money (and more) back.

                1. Though I suppose, by that standard, it *is* an investment.

                  For the president.

                2. The investment is returned by not having the South turn into a third-world shithole. This is highly worth it, because third-world shitholes are where things like disease and terrorism spread. That they are net takers is a symptom of their problem, which wouldn’t go away if the money dried up.

                  1. So, why don’t you send that money to Mexico instead of the ‘south’?

                  2. The investment is returned by not having the South turn into a third-world shithole.

                    You’ve apparently never been to some of the major cities in the South.

                    That said, the people in the South are far more polite and sincere, regardless of race, than the typical SWPL shitlib.

        3. Without federal dollars some of these poor red states would be economically devastated. They’d be even less educated than they are, have less infrastructure, and their people would be spending even more time standing around contemplating their cousins’ bosoms instead of why they just can’t seem to make it without either mass free labor or donations from liberals up north.

          Shorter Tony:
          You don’t live the way I think you should, so as your better I’ll throw you a few dollars and tell you how to behave.

          1. Shorter conservatives: You don’t live the way I think you should, so I’m going to take your money and then bitch about socialism.

          2. Tony is a state-power fellating old school progressive. It isn’t worth yours or anyone else’s time.

    3. Since Democrats and liberals operate almost entirely on false premises and employ faulty logic to attack their enemies, it is only natural that libertarians find themselves defending Republicans at times from unfair attacks on fiscal matters

      Notice how no one here defends retards on the right like Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. Because Kulturkampf is where Republicans are wrong most of the time.

  13. That kid will be Lord of the Vale one day.

  14. In 2005, Mississippi received a jaw-dropping $2.02 in federal money for every $1 of taxes its residents sent to Washington.

    Perhaps Mississippi’s demographics has something to do with it.

  15. Am I the only one who really doesn’t give a shit about this? You could have told me the exact opposite findings and my stance would be the same: the feds are spending too much money on too much shit they should not be doing. Was the great insight that people vote for Republican pork barrelers? No shit. Hence the migration of people wishing to have a modicum of ideological consistency away from Team Red.

  16. Certainly if it doesn’t kick red-state socialists such as Cochran to the curb, it’s got no hope whatsoever.

    And so who does the tea party decide to put up against him? McDaniel, a guy who gives keynote addresses at neoconfederate conferences and favorably retweets white supremacists. Maybe if you tried running people who aren’t obvious bigots or crazy people, you’d have better luck.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.