[wardaddy]

taker state argument?

biggest taker states are either simply low population density but with highways and big federal land mngt like Wyoming

or states with a lot of military presence

or with high non productive minority populations like Mississippi

it all contributes

and it means nothing really

it is a liberal argument bolstered by liberals and race baiters and folks here who have no clue in the culture war...somebody at the Nation or HuffPo or in Jon Stewart's office discovered this morsel that rich urban and liberal states with high taxes pay in more than they take in usually and even some here run with it like every money spent in that state is an entitlement

it was a favorite point of trumandogz...now banned..anyone remember him?

[null and void]

Yep. I don’t miss him in the slightest.

[Melas]

it is a liberal argument bolstered by liberals and race baiters and folks here who have no clue in the culture war.

I'm either paranoid, or you're talking about me. Since you've told me that I have no clue about the culture war, I'll guess the latter.

I think it's an important point to make (the takers/givers) not because of liberal or conservative politics but because of the made up rural/urban divide. It's no divide. Better than four out of five people live in urban or suburban areas.

I see the anti-urban bias here at FR in much the same light that you see the see bias against people with money, which you have commented on. Don't even get me started on the bias against the educated.