If you spread out defense spending by population, I wonder if any state doesn't get back more tax dollars than they put in. How could anyone imagine that it is sustainable, let alone make an argument for continuing to spend more than we collect. What a load of distorted crap. A map that clearly demonstrates impending fiscal disaster used as evidence that a party that wants to spend more is "better"?

Greetings tragicview.
That certainly was a tragic view!
Wow, so much wrong it hurt to read...
Rubbish...
Thank's... I think. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.

Forwarded this to my husband and three sons, changed the subject line to "Hahahaha Lololol Almost don't know where to start. Luv the irony!" As much as I find the flip-flop hilarious, it was the most concise, on point article written by a progressive that I have ever read. One of my, and my husband's, complaints is how rare it is to have a conversation with a progressive without said progressive becoming emotional, irrational and offensive. At least Ms Robinson appears to articulate her rational in an organized, coherent manner.

While this person is obviously warped beyond all ability to see the truth. I would love to take him at his offer and wait for the blue states to succeed and the red states to fail as he expects. The fact that things would go exactly opposite as he expects would be wonderful for us in the red states and might even wake up a few of those in the blue states.

Oh and one small other thing. As a vet myself, I am ENTITLED to the vet benefits and GI bill that I First paid into. I bought those benefits with 5 years and 6 months of my life. Value for value, this is not some government handout!....That part PISSED ME OFF!

Comrade citizens, call me Sara.
I went on a gender bender when I wrote that propaganda hit piece.
Who is John Galt? A moocher!
Wait until I call him a racist. Bwahaha!
Excuse me while I slime away with the drive-by media.

Many of those states have anemic economies so the ratio will be higher. Bullshit analysis. Left voted for these policies and now complain?

These oppressed geniuses created the disparate system the author criticizes! We will not miss them. Please go away and don't let the door hit you in the a#$ on the way out!

It is true that high population urban areas have many "producers". It has always been that way. What the author leaves out is those same areas have an abundance of "parasites": illegal immigrants, persons on welfare, many criminals, etc. Most of these urban parasites vote Democrat for what they can get. Thus making the state "blue".

Well, it was written by the NYT after all. Pretty much ignore anything that comes out of that leftist fishwrapper.

This is totally a bunch of BS... there simply not enough "donor" states is to cover the greater than $1.00 (the bulk) of the states. California alone, with 40 million people and the 8th largest economy in the world would be rather impossible for the few small donor states indicated to subsidize.

If this isn't a complete lie - it may be taking into account long-term infrastructure bonds (spent in a single year but repaid over 50 years or something), and other considerations like that - which would be a very skewed representation. Small states in the midwest simply don't have much for highways and infrastructure (nor the need for them) compared to Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, New York, etc.

The thought that Virginia doesn't take in more federal dollars than it pays in is completely ludicrous... ever driven up the BWI corridor?

Their corrupt rationale is taking up space on earth. Would we miss them? Would we miss leaches? Hell, no!

Is it my imagination? Does this woman sound like a 35 year old adult child threatening to move out of my basement?

Fine. Let blue states secede and form their own collectivist paradise.

Why then am I supporting myself and paying taxes and my neighbors playing video games and getting checks for doing nothing! New Jersey is a welfare state!

It amazes me that what seems patently obvious is some kind of new idea: "By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare the birth of a new Progressive Objectivism — a frankly producerist personal-responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red leeches off our collective blue hide."

I agree wholeheartedly with her but not her end goal. I don't want rural places to discover how badly they need monies from liberal urban areas. I would actually prefer to keep the wealth here. Rural areas can keep their mining, farming, paper mills, etc. Liberal urban areas can keep their biotech, software development, private equity firms, etc. People can always move back and forth, work remote, make money and then retire to a rural area, etc. We don't need gov't to spread the wealth around.

Political ideologues don't want this, though. They want gov't to carry on being a huge percentage of GDP and to carry on making money by calling each other names like children.

It's simply this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damne...