Hey guys I'm a conservative, but I'm a bit confused. We talk about fiscal responsibility...

Hey guys I'm a conservative, but I'm a bit confused. We talk about fiscal responsibility, but in reality liberal states contribute the most tax dollars to the US federal coffers, and conservative states consume the most. Can someone explain this?

Sooner or later, you will have to tell your dad you suck cock.

>Sooner or later, you will have to tell your dad you suck cock.
Maybe I'm unintelligent, but I don't understand how this is an explanation of this strange financial phenomenon. Does it have something to do with the topic that I'm not understanding?

(((the ironic thing is that even though I didn't even explicitly make my point, you already knew what it is - that's all you need to know about your position user)))

uhhh suck dick much?

What is national parks, and lower population for a thousand?

>that hat

FIND THE HIGHEST PLACE and JUMP from it

>liberal states contribute the most tax dollars to the US federal coffers

because that where all the fucking bloated gov spending and wastage is you dumb tard

So you deserve to be more wasteful with money since you have a lower population?

And national parks take a pitifully small portion of federal budget, that doesn't make up the gap

>I'm a conservative
>liberal talking point!!!!!

LEFT CANT MEME LOL
E
F
T

C
A
N
T

M
E
M
E

L
O
L

Retard that's literally the exact opposite of true. Wastage means spending more than you contribute. Conservative states spend more than they contribute, liberal states spend less than they contribute, holy shit

>Hey guys, I am like you a hip American teenager person, rocking and rolling in my most excellent basement, and yet, when I stop to think of it, I guess that our political values are actually dumb, and the smart and fresh thing to do is to support Hillary Clinton. Know what I mean, you guys?

Population you daft cunt

i can answer you OP.

the main answer is white, working populations rather than largely black and minority populations you find in most red states.

whites vote for liberalism and multiculturalism when they don't live around any minorities. eg vermont being 98% white and electing a multicultural socialist

also they tax extremely highly, it's not rocket science. holy shit. most of the biggest entitlement programs are federal so they don't have to worry about that shit. because federal government handles everything state spending doesn't generally need to be high anymore. so now you have a working white population without a major welfare and entitlement drain AND they're collecting huge taxes.

also a lot of states become liberal BECAUSE they are already enjoying a high standard of living. this is a general tendency. things get really "good" and "easy", and people just generally are more likely to vote left wing. so there's a cause and effect dynamic at play here.

also:
>claiming you're "conservative" to come here and shill liberal propaganda
uh huh sure

Hey OP are you singel?

Did I write anything in support of Hillary Clinton?

Why is that an excuse for you guys?

Are you singel OP?

>the main answer is white, working populations rather than largely black and minority populations you find in most red states.
just so you know what im talking about here, pic related. this is generally the primary cause of what you're seeing, although your data is a little out of date being from 2005. texas for example is now much more multicultural

Fuck I fell for the bait

OP are you singel?

Doubt this includes entitlement spending, defemse spending which is like 2/3rds of fed budget so include that then let me know your results :)

It's the racial makeup of the states. Whites actually go to work and pay taxes. Mostly white states generally tend to be the most blue states too. Put those together and you have your data. It's no reflection on the economic viability of left wing policies though or anything when you know the whole story behind it

DEBUNKED LONG AGO
Fuck off, shill.
sage

>What is population density guys I'm not a liberal really I swear

>Hey guys, do you use Brylcreem? I do, and, boy, shucks, let me tell you, brother, whew, shucks, as a conservative there's nothing I prefer to ignite and inhale. That's strictly as a conservative, you understand.

>unsourced infographic
>axis not even labeled
so this is the power of republican education...

Hey OP

another thing worth mentioning is that states often have opposite party governernorship and representation. so for example, massachusetts is blue there and is listed under "voted for obama" but he was literally the governor of massachusetts and ran the state for a long time and is one of the people most responsible for making it "profitable". this is the case in a lot of these. like most lefty data its just terribly one sided and seeks to oversimplify a situation with a lot of different factors

>>Stupid fuck libtard doesn't know how to reverse look-up

Hey OP, if I pay you, will you go to /sci/, introduce yourself as an inner city public school math teacher, and then demand to know why you aren't supposed to divide by zero?

sorry i mistyped. meant to say "romney" was literally the governor of massachusetts even though its listed as "voting for obama" catch my drift? the president doesnt run individual states, the state reps and governors do and states have a tendency to vote one way in the presidency and another for their local needs

Yup you got me. No answer.
At least Donald Trump is God Emperor.

OP are you there?
Are you there and ... singel?

>Hey goys I'm a conservative
Post BS chart from 2005 when hurricane Katrina hit the south.

It's because dey racis.

Just looked into this today - the "math" is skewed to ignore writing off of state and local taxes, which tends to make the blue states appear to take less. Just another case of progressive bullshit.

please see some of hte comments above dude. this data is hugely rigged
1) the states that are positive contributors are white states
2) this is results of the presidential election, not their state representatives and governors. these have a tendency to actually be the opposite of what the presidential vote is. and withi governors (most relevant here) they're much more likely to be republican.
EG massachusetts is listed as having voted for "obama over romney" but in fact romney was the governor there for a long time and is one of the reasons why the state is so profitable.
3) the federal government subsidizes a lot of the spending for left-wing states in ways that can be easily ignored by people compiling data such as this

i wrecked OPs assertion and now he went and hid

all OPs data proves is that nonwhites are a massive drain on the US economy and should be deported

>>explain
Your jew stats

It's skewed in a lot of ways. Especially when you account for local inflation as in the case of Commiefornia. If you're making about $10 an hour in Arkansas, your overall quality of life is better than what it would be at $20 an hour in Commiefornia. This, and as I stated before, this was made in 2005 when Katrina hit, so it's even more skewed than the current figures.

jew stats is seriously what they are. you have to really try hard to rig the data up in this way and ignore certain key facts in order to make it seem like big government spending, which is known to rack up huge debt, is actually more profitable
see my posts above for more detail if you want. like and others

Nigger welfare.

Yeah, we hiyah now, dis OWAH BLOCK WHITE BOIIIIIII
If you look into the histories of Sweden and Switzerland it's the same, they were massively conservative, homogeneous, traditionalist, industrious, capitalist, and even rather libertarian on many points. As a result of that they became very prosperous. As a result of that they became lefty (Sweden much more so than Switzerland). Then lefties gave themselves credit for the work of nineteenth century patriarchal Christian racists.

this is 100% literally the majority of the answer.
that and the fact htat a lot of the profitable states, while being mostly white, have republican governorships and local officials because the whitest states have a noted tendency to vote dem in national elections and republican in local ones

Yep.

Sage this thread. Do not reply without saging

California used to be *the* place to start a new business, especially manufacturing and technology (well before Silicon Valley). Now businesses and whites are fleeing, and hordes of criminals who do not know how to read are flooding in specifically because they were told they would get welfare. At what point does that add up to Ray Bradbury's LA of the forties and fifties?

im not 100% sure what you're trying to say. certainly in the case of sweden they aren't economically "left-wing" as the left will try to tell you. they finance their huge social programs through massive wealth inequality. they have FAR lower taxes on the top decile than we do in the US and they tax the shit out of the middle class.
Bernie Sanders is basically full of shit when he says "we should be more like sweden". their economic model is the opposite of his. they also have an extremely high degree of economic freedom, which is something else the left hates.

and switzerland, which is doing even better than sweden, is obviously and indisputably an example of pretty far right-wing economics

oh yeah and also sweden is white

OP! Are you singel OP?

Fpbp

OP show me your foots OP please I become your repist

because they have cities with a fuck load of tertiary industry, but the red states have the majority of the primary and secondary. In a world where primary and secondary industry is getting fucked with globalist policy, the service industry is destined to outperform it.

srsly OP has california listed as a positive earner, yeah, first of all there was a very famous budget crissi there a few years ago, second of all they have a massive fucking homelessness problem there, bigger than anywhere else in the country. they are "earning" because hollywood and mainly silicon valley is set up there and is bringing a ton of money into the state. but those businesses set up and chose california when it had different policies and a different population. no way they would today and eventually they will flee, leaving the state totally broke.

anyway the main reason for OPs data remains the fact that the white states work and have less of a welfare drain. so the whitest states are positive earners. that's all there is to it. it has nothing to do with "republican vs demoncrat". it's well known all of the "red states" are ironically the ones with high minority populations. see

Red states have a far lower cost of living because of the lack of state welfare and taxation. Everything in CA is inflated which is why they pay more and get back less. Literally why its a liberal wasteland.

>Hey guys I'm a conservative, like ya do, ya know, [COUGH COUGH COUGH], but I'm a bit confused. We talk about [Sun Ra music pays] fiscal responsibility, we talk about locker room fellatio, we talk about using creepy YouTube videos to teach learned helessness in children, but in reality liberal states consecrate human relations, it's a turf war, on a global sale; I'd rather hear both sides of the tale. Can someone explain this?

people who live in states with high state income tax deduct that tax from their federal tax. something that is in Trumps tax plans, hence why all the liberals are freaking out.

OP I am wondering something
...
do you feel in charge?

>be california
>one of the highest earning states
>home to the most poverty, welfare and homelessness in the union.
liberals call this a "success of their economics" because its paying in positively to the federal government?
ok, aside from the fact that it had a republican governor during the time OPs data was collected (Arnold Schwarzenegger, who sucked too) it's essentially a place where you're doomed to human slavery to the upper classes if you go there.
Commiefornia is essentially a canary in the coalmine. it shows exactly how the elites are going to structure our economy and how they're going to drive us into poverty and homelessness and total subjugation. it's no "success" just because the federal government pays google and other silicon valley businesses massive subsidies to stay put and keep pumping their tax bucks (many of which they received from the government) back into the government

Sage

Kikes outsourced the jobs and all the capital from tech and globalization is horded in NYC and CA.
So basically the people sucking the country dry have to throw in a few extra shekels by virtue of Jewing the entire country which seems fair to me. Meanwhile those same states like CA have a 1/3 of their population on welfare and are getting subsidized through the SALT deduction on faggot luxury homes.

This also completely ignores that historically the NE has always been more heavily industrialized and wealthier than the south so the control in this commie meme is completely fucked up. I'm not sure if I even believe these figures and kind of assume it's some gerrymandered kikery anyway.

Besides if leftists love taxes so much they should be happy to pay more right faggot?

lefties really do just see shit that on the surface seems to prove their points and they just believe it blindly. consume it like animals, refusing to think, question or critically examine