I agree with the above statement as it applies to you. Most of the tax money goes to the states that have the most federal facilities such as military bases and Indian reservations. It is in the warm and coastal areas where the Military is located. Also the bigger states are at the bottom because they send much larger amount of tax dollars to DC
The bigger states got to be big by being more successful economically. Don't tell me you never thought of that?
Location and total acreage has much to do with big state success. Rhode Island will never compete with Texas for economy size.
Are you being deliberately dense? RI isn't at the top of that list, first of all. Secondly, the ones that are are there because, generally speaking, their per capita income is lower than those at the bottom. Meaning, the ones at the top are, generally speaking, comparative economic failures, while the ones at the bottom are, generally speaking, comparative economic successes. They pay more in tax because of that, and therefore support all those states in "the rest of the country", as AAA put it. You know, the ones with the Real Americans. Like Palin's Alaska (third on the list of moochers).
I hope it is actually a red blue divide by county or city. Even in the supposedly liberal states there are plenty of conservatives. Most of So Cal is middle to right (if they are not hispanic) So cal speaks of breaking CA into two states. Most of hates the way the state is mismanaged by the democrats. We are watching them destroy the state and spend our future. Now we are 40 billion in debt and instead of cutting spending the left wants to raise taxes. (calling them fees) I would also like to point out - I think it is specious to point to old data saying the blue states are providing all the revenue - when it is the blue states that may have caused the collapse of our financial system.
Oh please. If you have capital and put it at risk, things will happen. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Better than being Mississippi, and not having any capital to play with anyway.
If these blue states are such economic success stories, why are they whining for federal bailouts? Implement my plan and taxes in free America would drop 50%. Maybe more. We have all the oil, nat gas and coal. We grow all the food.
In a way it's fighting a battle of retreat. Folks came to these shores to escape tyranny. And now we are suggesting that we give up half the country in our continuing retreat from the bad ideas of liberalism, socialism and massive government. It seems that eventually we'll be reduced to a small town fighting for it's life as the spark of liberty is extinguished for all mankind. But who cares if you can get somebody else to pay for something you want, right?
Those last two sentences are the classic apologia of backward, second-rate places. You sell, to the advanced economies, stuff to burn, and stuff they import because the products are the products of places where land is cheap. Just to round out your sorry economic education: nations are self-contained empires. Their cities do the innovation, and quite literally "farm out" the backward stuff to the backward places. You would like to take all the backward places and secede from the advanced parts of the US. Fine. As I said before, feel free. We quite honestly don't need you, since everything you produce is a commodity. As for the long-term success and fate of commodity producers, see Russia, Venezuela, Argentina, etc. The only thing standing between the places you want to secede and these countries is the size of the dole here in the US, and that dole is bought and paid for by the places you'd like to secede from.
Read a little. Something other than Hayek, Mises (who was good on theory but lousy on real life, like his nemesis, Marx), and whatever stoopid bile is produced by the far right places you so obviously frequent. Liberty is an innovation of the advanced economies. Yes, after a while, the standard of living in those advanced places gets expensive. Expensive does not equal socialism, not by a long shot. The only people to whom it means that is people who don't have the imagination to live with freedom in the first place.