# Fuck These People

if the average of all states received \$1.29 per \$1 paid, this means that the federal government is manufacturing that extra 29 cents out of thin air.
Idiot ^
How do you spell deficit?
R U R A L ' M E R K A!
right, i'm the idiot. people who don't realize that the federal government is just printing money and handing it out to their cronies are the idiots.

everyone who disliked my comment and liked mr. maaath are the real idiots here. or would you like to explain to me where that extra 29 cents is coming from? instead of just insulting someone why not educate me if i'm wrong.
or would you like to explain to me where that extra 29 cents is coming from

other states
the AVERAGE of ALL STATES means the amount every state received. how can it come from another state when every state is included in that figure?
Are people here really that bad at math? (Lookin' at you, "maaaath".) If all the states "on average, received \$1.29 in federal spending for every federal tax dollar they paid", then money is coming from nowhere (read: we're stacking up debt).

I mean, here's an example. You live in a house with four roommates. Everyone pays \$100 in rent. Your landlord then pays back that money to the renters based on improvement projects they propose. Roommate A wants to paint the downstairs, and he gets \$185 to do it. Roommate B wants to fix the chairs, and he gets \$151 to do it. Roommate C's project is funded for \$100, while Roommate D only gets \$80 for his project.

They each got an average of \$129 for every \$100 they put in (total of \$400 in, but total of \$516 paid out). Guess who's short \$116?

Honestly, if you can't work this out, no wonder our nation's budget is in the shape it is.
Also, Savage's argument is a non-sequitur. Whatever you think of his point, Romney was talking about individuals, not states. There's nothing from the state-level analysis that would preclude Romney's/Harrington's point from being correct. Not saying it is, just that this Savage's argument is meaningless.

Also, looks like Oregon has now joined the "getting more than they give" club. It wasn't, last time I looked. Meanwhile, Texas continues to give more than they get. Who's moochin' now, friends?
Did nobody here RTFA? At the bottom:
"Note: Data has been adjusted to be deficit neutral using the method described by the Tax Foundation in its earlier analysis of federal spending versus federal taxes paid."

Yes, there is a very large federal deficit. If they included that in the calculation, the numbers would be less meaningful because every state would be receiving more than they contribute.

Now, class, let's have a numerical example of how the "average" can be different from 1 without a deficit.

A three-state nation is born: Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.

Oregon and Washington each pay \$1000 in taxes. The lazy Canucks only pay \$500. We split the revenue fairly: BC gets \$2000 for its socialist health care and Oregon and Washington get \$500 each. Revenue netural, no deficit, no money printing.

Oregon and Washington get \$0.50 in spending for each dollar in taxes. BC gets \$4 per dollar in taxes. The average is \$1.66.

You at the back, are you paying attention? Spit out that gum.
Hahaha oops.

BC only gets \$1500, which is \$3 per tax dollar. The average is (0.5 + 0.5 + 3) / 3 = 1.333

Still. The point stands. Bonus marks for anyone who caught that.