War Between The States Solved? Your Opinion

"The blue states would get the luxury of supporting these Territories with goodies through their taxes."

Blue states would get the luxury of no longer having to support red states.

According to figures from the IRS, over the three year period from 2007-2009, states that voted for Romney received an average of $1.25 in federal monies for every $1 they paid in federal taxes. Blue states averaged $1.03. Of the top ten mooching states, seven were red, three blue. Of the bottom ten, seven were blue, three were red.

Here are the top ten moochers, how much they paid in federal taxes, and how much they received in federal monies (both in billions):

MS 11.06 31.27
WV 6.58 18.51
NM 8.8 24.5
HI 7.63 18.2
AK 4.57 10.25
AL 22.94 50.59
SC 19.56 41.74
MT 4.46 9.48
ME 6.38 12.76
KY 23.8 46.61

Here are the bottom ten:

TX 220.53 202.04
AS 27.1 24.77
CO 44.05 39.61
RI 11.5 10.2
NE 18.87 15.5
NY 222.6 175.37
IL 128.82 101.39
CT 51.11 37.78
NJ 115.92 71.53
MN 75.79 40.7

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

Note the same was true in 2005:

http://content.ksg.harvard.ed...

And in 2000:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/ta...

"'page not found' for the research"

So instead of addressing the data, you look for an excuse to ignore it. Here's the link (which took me about ten seconds to find) to the '04 report, which looks at data from FY '03:

http://taxfoundation.org/arti...

Here are the blog entries for their '06 (looking at FYs '94 and '04) and '07 (FY '05) reports:

http://taxfoundation.org/arti...
http://taxfoundation.org/arti...

And here are links to the complete data sets for their '04 and '06 reports:

http://taxfoundation.org/site...
http://taxfoundation.org/site...

"Is a blog and no research noted."

Well, sure, if you ignore the graph and references to the TF underneath it.

"Daily BEAST? REALLY?"

Yes, really. Skip the ad hominems and deal with the data. If you think the DB faked the numbers then disproving them should be trivial. Go ahead; I'll wait.

"Each and every one has an agenda. Each is anti Tea Party. Each is anti-Republican."

{GUFFAW} And *pro*-Tea Party/*pro*-Republican is NOT an agenda?!

As I said, if all you've got is ad hominems, then you've got nothing. If you think the sites I've linked to are fudging or faking numbers to fit an agenda, exposing their fraud should be a walk in the park.

Got any better numbers?

You commit ad hominems when you accuse (without evidence) sites of bias for the sole purpose of attempting to evade the message.

"THAT website is NOT a branch of the government."

And your point is only government websites can be unbiased? BS. But fine. Google "consolidated federal funds report for fiscal year" and tack on whatever FY you're interested in. There. Now I've done your homework for you.

"It's not impartial or bipartisan. AND solicits DONATIONS. Obviously another site with an agenda."

Are you accusing the Tax Foundation of liberal bias? Seriously?! Now THAT's funny. If anything, it leans right. From Wikipedia:

"[I]t has been described as having a 'pro-business leaning' and it has ties to various conservative groups."

You can't even get your ad hominems right.

"you don't happen to delve into WHAT those states mean"

I note you haven't, either. You simply ignore them.

What the data mean is simply this: the conservative assumption that Obama is all about redistributing hard-working conservatives' tax money to liberal leeches is wrong; if anything, wealth redistribution flows the other direction.

"Or offer any explanation as to WHY those stats appear as they do"

That's easy enough: blame a progressive federal income tax. Blue states tend to be richer than red states, hence they pay more federal taxes.

"Don't climb on the high horse when you are more than guilty of the charge you level against me."

I charged you with committing ad hominems. If you think I've committed an ad hominem in this discussion, I suggest you don't know what ad hominem means. In any case, before I can ignore any of your data, you have to actually provide some.

"You cherry pick data from biased sources."

Prove it. Show me the data I've ignored. Discuss numbers, don't hide behind accusations.

"Get objective data - I'll entertain it."

Horse hockey. I gave you objective data. Lots of it. Instead of addressing it, you just want to play shoot-the-messenger.

"I'm not going to do your research for you."

{Chortle}. You haven't even done YOUR research. I did mine. Read my previous posts.

Again, if you think the numbers I've presented are wrong, prove it. Don't accuse the Tax Foundation of liberal bias {chuckle}; discuss the problems with its methodologies. If the Daily Beast or Paul Caron or Jeff Frankels are faking their numbers, a child should be able to prove it. So go ahead; I'm still waiting. If you've got better numbers (you don't), let's see them. If all you've got is ad hominems and evasions, then you have nothing relevant to say.

Once again, according to the (conservative-leaning) Tax Foundation, red states take more from federal coffers than they pay in. Blue states do too -- just barely -- but red states take more, and have done so for at least the past twenty years.

Now, if you want to look at net contribution per capita rather than ratio of benefits received to taxes paid, Wikipedia (which you'll now accuse of bias) has the numbers from FY 2007:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...

Note that, once again, the table starts out mostly blue and turns redder as you move down. Of the twenty states who pay in more than they receive back, fourteen are blue. Of the thirty states that receive more federal money than they pay in, eighteen are red. On average, blue states contributed $1262 per capita to the federal government more than they received. Red states received $599 per capita more than they paid in.

Conclusion: "Democratic-leaning states tend to be net contributors to the federal budget while Republican-leaning states are more often net recipients of federal spending."

Now, let's see YOUR numbers.