Ooops. Patient Obama Singled Out In Ohio Is Being Treated For Free

In January, the president said, the woman gave up her health insurance because the premiums had grown too large. And she was filled with worry over the financial burden on her family, especially losing her house. The woman, whose name is Natoma, is whom Obama credited as the reason for his trip to the politically vital state of Ohio, not notoriously high unemployment. "I'm here because of Natoma," Obama said. This morning, interim good news. Judson Berger and Marla Chichowski of Fox News checked into the story of Natoma, who is undergoing treatment at the famous Cleveland Clinic. A spokeswoman there said the woman was virtually certain to qualify for aid and, anyway, the clinic has no intention of placing any liens on her home for the expensive care she is now receiving free.

. . . Health care in America is broken. Exhibit A is this woman who is getting top-notch care for free!

Obama's speech in Ohio was scheduled BEFORE Natoma's diagnosis of leukemia.

Do they ever do anything that's just totally honest and above board?

obviously, NO!

Can't wait to see the Liberal's defend this!

Looks like it's gonna be a good day tater!

they'll be no MSM coverage of this item. Ignore the man behind the Curtain.

Basically says the hospital in question says Obama's premise was all a ruse.

oh yeah - can we bring up Rush and Bush now!

Yeah we can't talk about Bush. I forgot. He didn't mislead us into the Iraq war. Just bad intelligence right?

you want to talk about Bush and the Iraq war? You need to let it go.

Why? Because you are more concerned about abortions than soliders dying for Georgie Bush? All I have heard is about how Obama lies. No bigger lie than the Iraq war. But I know, we can't talk about that.

And for you and me too.

"He didn't mislead us into the Iraq war. Just bad intelligence right?"

Actually two different investigations led by a DEMOCRATIC congress came to that exact conclusion. If they had one iota of evidence that Bush lied about anything in regards to Iraq they would be going after him with guns blazing. They are not.

But you believe what you want.

You keep doing the same. Keep protecting the rich in this country. I am sure it will trickle down eventually. Right?

"Keep protecting the rich in this country. I am sure it will trickle down eventually. Right?"

Wow, what a left turn. From whether Bush lied about Iraq to protecting rich people. I think you have bitterness issues.

Top 1% of income earners pay roughly 40% of all income taxes.

That's NOT ENOUGH!!!!

Even though 1% pays 40%, and 40% pays zero, it's not enough. We want more more more!!!!!

Nope they went out and worked hard to obtain the results. They didn't wait for 'BIG BROTHER GOV" to come up with a way to pay them to sit on their butts and let someone else earn the money so they could redistribute it. But I guess you are of the mind someone else is responsible for the mess you find yourself in, someone else (those big bad credit card companies) made you rack up all of that debt buying stuff you couldn't afford. Those big bad auto makers forced you to go upside down in payments for that new car. Yep it is all someone elses fault and now they need to get you out of the hole they put you in.

It is time to make people accountable for their actions. It is time for the people handing over our tax dollars to stop and fix the issues already so far out of control.

I think that states and local governments should be on their own. The Fed should have little involvement. That way, the rich northern states can stop subsidizing the poor southern states and they can just fail on their own.

Like New York? New Jersey? Ha ha ha ha. Good one.

The whole country is in trouble. My point is that the northern states take on an unfair portion of the taxes in which they pay, for what the get in return. Southern states put in less and get more. Why don't we let the south get what the put in? You want less government. Lets give you less government.

Please tell me that it is NOT possible for someone to be this stupid!!!

I am certain most of you want little federal government involvement and support the conservative view point of state powers.Let me offer you this. Currently, the Blue States subsidize the poor red states in this country as they pay more taxes and southern states get much more back then they put in. Why don't we let the south stand on its own? I am sure everything will be just fine. Sounds like a deal.

A new report out by Forbes aptly called The Global Debt Bomb reveals that the five states roiling in the most debt are all so-called blue states. The top five are: Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California.

And among the five most fiscally sound are three predominantly red states (Utah, Nebraska, Texas) and two more politically mixed states (New Hampshire and Virginia).

Republican politicians from states like Mississippi and Alaska whine most about paying taxes to fix "urban problems" (subtext: minorities).

In reality, they get back far more for the taxes paid than those more productive urbanized "blue states". New Jersey and Nevada, for instance, get back only one third in federal spending benefits compared to Mississippi and Alaska.

talking points is nice. provide a link. otherwise, i think you are just hot air. like obama.

Sorry, I am just trying to learn the rules. Conservatives can just make statements. Since I am a moderate democrat, I will need to use a source. So here you go.http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

....then complain the most about the federal government.

Time to Dismount Your High Horses

Andrew Sullivan links to a post on TaxProf Blog titled "Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed." It shows two tables which follow:

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

There are many possible implications, almost all of them negative towards middle America and Republicans. Indeed, Andrew Sullivan writes "A new study reveals just how welfarist much of Middle America is" regarding TaxProf's post. Sullivan's post with this derogatory comment can be found in the entry "Bush's Conservatism".

But before we get carried away about welfare queens in middle America and evil Republicans screwing states that vote Democrat, we should consider if maybe there is a perfectly straightforward explanation for the data. It turns out that there is.

First, let's imagine what a perfectly fair system of federal expenditures and taxation might look like. In such a system, each state would receive identical per capita federal expenditures, including government contracts, entitlements, etc. In other words, if a state had twice as many people as another, it would get twice as much federal spending as the other.

On the tax side, it's a little tricker. In some sense, for perfect "fairness", if a state has twice as many residents, those residents should pay twice as much federal tax. Under this scenario, every man, woman, and child would pay about $5,000 in taxes per year, regardless of income or wealth. However, this would require that the poor (and children) pay a far, far higher percentage of their income and wealth in taxes, in some cases greater than 100%. This is extremely regressive and very few people would consider that to be fair.

A less regressive structure would be a flat tax and/or consumption tax. Then everybody pays the same percent of what they make or consume. In this case, the total federal income tax paid by the residents and businesses within that state would be very close to a constant percentage of the State's total income (or of a closely related measure called Gross State Product). That's still much more regressive than our current tax system. Nonetheless, it seems quite fair for each state to pay an equal percentage of it's Gross State Product.

In the following table, I've shown by State, the Gross State Product Per Capita and Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes. After the table comes my analysis.
State 2001 Gross State Product ($ millions) 2000 Population Gross State Product Per Capita ($) Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes by State
Alabama 121490 4447100 27319 1.61
Alaska 28581 626932 45589 1.82
Arizona 160687 5130632 31319 1.20
Arkansas 67913 2673400 25403 1.53
California 1359265 33871648 40130 0.81
Colorado 173772 4301261 40400 0.79
Connecticut 166165 3405565 48792 0.64
Delaware 40509 783600 51696 0.85
Florida 491488 15982378 30752 1.00
Georgia 299874 8186453 36631 1.01
Hawaii 43710 1211537 36078 1.52
Idaho 36905 1293953 28521 1.34
Illinois 475541 12419293 38291 0.77
Indiana 189919 6080485 31234 0.99
Iowa 90942 2926324 31077 1.22
Kansas 87196 2688418 32434 1.14
Kentucky 120266 4041769 29756 1.46
Louisiana 148697 4468976 33273 1.44
Maine 37449 1274923 29374 1.31
Maryland 195007 5296486 36818 1.20
Massachusetts 287802 6349097 45330 0.79
Michigan 320470 9938444 32245 0.90
Minnesota 188050 4919479 38226 0.77
Mississippi 67125 2844658 23597 1.84
Missouri 181493 5595211 32437 1.32
Montana 22635 902195 25089 1.64
Nebraska 56967 1711263 33289 1.19
Nevada 79220 1998257 39645 0.73
New Hampshire 47183 1235786 38181 0.68
New Jersey 365388 8414350 43424 0.62
New Mexico 55426 1819046 30470 1.89
New York 826488 18976457 43553 0.81
North Carolina 275615 8049313 34241 1.07
North Dakota 19005 642200 29594 2.03
Ohio 373708 11353140 32917 1.02
Oklahoma 93855 3450654 27199 1.47
Oregon 120055 3421399 35089 1.00
Pennsylvania 408373 12281054 33252 1.08
Rhode Island 36939 1048319 35236 1.06
South Carolina 115204 4012012 28715 1.32
South Dakota 24251 754844 32127 1.59
Tennessee 182515 5689283 32080 1.24
Texas 763874 20851820 36633 0.92
Utah 70409 2233169 31529 1.14
Vermont 19149 608827 31452 1.12
Virginia 273070 7078515 38577 1.47
Washington 222950 5894121 37826 0.91
West Virginia 42368 1808344 23429 1.74
Wisconsin 177354 5363675 33066 0.87
Wyoming 20418 493782 41350 1.05


Assuming you agree that fairness would require each State get the same per capita federal expenditure and each State should pay an equal portion of it's Gross State Product in federal taxes, then we might expect some sort of relationship in the data between Gross State Product per Capita and Adjusted Federal Expenditures. In particular, we might expect poor States with low GDP to pay a lower per capita amount in taxes (even though taxed at the same flat rate), yet receive the same federal expenditures per Capita. This would cause the Adjusted Federal Expenditures measure higher for such states. Indeed, this is exactly what happens. The following table shows the correlation between the two last columns in the previous table:

Correlation Between Gross State Product per Capita and Adjusted Federal Expenditures

Correlation Coefficient Correlation Coefficient Squared
All States -0.62 0.38
Excluding Outliers (Alaska, Maryland, Virginia) -0.76 0.58


The square of the correlation coefficient corresponds to the fraction of the variation of one column that is explained by (or correlates with) the other column. The sign of the correlation coefficient (not squared) tells us if it us a positive or negative relationship.

Sure enough, excluding outliers, 58% of the differences of Adjusted Federal Expenditures can be explained by the differences in per capita income between the States. I've excluded Virginia and Maryland because they border D.C., and do get more federal expenditures than would be expected using the Gross State Product model. I've excluded Alaska because it is an extreme outlier and it has low population and Gross State Product. To leave it in would allow it to substantially skew the results even though it represents a minscule amount of federal expentitures and taxation. That same argument could be made to exclude other small population states such as North Dakota and Hawaii, which would also, it turns out, increase the correlation. But I left the rest of the small States in.

Gross State Product (column 2) comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, State Population comes from the census bureau, and Adjusted Federal Expenditures comes from The Tax Foundation (this is what TaxProf linked to). Unfortunately, the data for the various columns are for slightly different years. However, all of this data varies slowly so it is unlikely to have materially changed the result.

So if 58% of the differences in Adjusted Federal Expenditures is explained by Gross State Product per Capita, what about the other 42%? Well, The Tax Foundation lists other possibilities and I'll comment on each.

One factor affecting rankings is that federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful members of congress. Also, state governments can grab more federal grant money by manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.

Well, maybe so, but they don't happen to mention which states those might be so I have no way of checking. Funny that the list these first when clearly they are a minor effect at best.

Another factor is demography. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements tend to rank high.

Once again, maybe, but if you look at the data, states you might think likely candidates for this effect such as Florida and Arizona, don't seem to be out of line.

Similarly, high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.

This one is clear and that is why I eliminated Maryland and Virginia from the mix.

Finally, states with higher incomes per capita%G%@such as Connecticut%G%@pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the income tax's progressive structure, which increases federal taxes per dollar of federal spending received in return.

But as I've shown, even if the taxes were flat instead of progressive, most of the differences are explained anyway. It's not clear to me that the "progressive" portion of the taxation makes much difference at all.

The Tax Foundation doesn't mention randomness. Sheer chance is going to introduce some differences in Adjusted Federal Expenditures. In other words, the chance that every state has identical Federal Income per capita is zero. In fact, chance could possibly explain all of the rest of the differences.

Anyway, for those on their high horses who see vast republican conspiracies to bleed the blue states for the benefit of the welfarist red states, I think it's time to dismount.

Some good points. I still wonder if given the choice, would you take only what you pay in? Fair is fair right, and the arguments on here seem to be anti fed.

So, yeah, go ahead and cut a penny from what we get.

you actually used regression analysis to prove a point. Way over libby's head. It's Bush's fault!

I know CON, nothing is Bush's fault. It is all Obama fault. Cons lie to us because when they controlled Washington for eight years, they did exactly the opposite of what they had promised us they would do.

The Fiscal Responsibility Act was the first item on the Contract With America, the document that Newt and Delay used so well to convince Americans to vote Republican in 2000.

The Fiscal Responsibility Act included a provision "to require that total outlays for any fiscal year do not exceed total receipts for that year."

But conservatives ignored that and brought us record deficits instead.

How did the conservatives manage to waste so much money? They gave a huge tax break to the richest Americans, while stiffing the rest of us.

People who earn more than $100,000 a year received 68% of the Bush tax cuts. That was $114.6 billion in 2004 alone.

I know, I know, its all Obama's fault.

And -- I know this will come as a surprise to you -- those earning more than $100,000 pay most of our country's income tax.

Additionally, Bush's tax cuts resulted in an INCREASE in tax revenues. Look it up.

Finally, the Bush administration did over spend, and it was righly criticized for doing so. But Obama is outspending Bush by a wide margin. It's clearly an unsustainable path.

You say the Bush admin was brought to task, but a quick search on this forum back to 2008, 2007, etc show that is not true from the right. Or at least you were as not as vocal about it. Seems hatred for Obama rules the day on this forum.

hatred? where? dislike, distrust, dismissal yes. hatred is a term the left uses (hate crime, racist, bigot) to deflect the argument.

You also bring up DeLay and Gingrich, who were forced out of the house. and - - - drum roll please - - - the democrats have held congress for 3 years now, 1 with a super-majority, and the deficits have skyrocketed during those 3 years. Pot - kettle - black.

Spending is the problem, it is rising faster than the GDP (was) and tax revenues.

In addition to Peggy Noonan (see link below), conservative commentators David Frum, Bruce Bartlett, and Jonah Goldberg all condemned George W. Bush's embrace of big government conservatism. Frum's piece is particularly interesting, given that he is a former Bush speechwriter and author of The Right Man, a laudatory book about W. By now, it is no secret that Bush presided over a massive expansion of government.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007291

You failed to address the my other two points: 1) tax revenues INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts and 2) Obama's spending like Bush on steroids. Back to you.

"Seems hatred for Obama rules the day on this forum."

Defined how? Why does disagreeing with someone's view of where the country should go require any sort of hatred?

"People who earn more than $100,000 a year received 68% of the Bush tax cuts. That was $114.6 billion in 2004 alone."

Let me ask the obvious question. What percentage of personal income taxes do those people pay? If they pay 50%, you may have an argument. If they pay 80%, you sound like a fool.

Any tax cut with even a tinge of fairness to it is going to provide the most benefit (in dollars, not percentages) to the people who pay the most taxes. How else would it work?

"Sorry, I am just trying to learn the rules. Conservatives can just make statements. Since I am a moderate democrat, I will need to use a source."

Do you understand the difference between offering an opinion and offering something as a "fact"?

The difference is mostly a function of income levels and the progressive income tax -- you know, the one where the top 1% of earners pay roughly 40% of all income taxes. That is, income levels in New Jersey, New York, etc. (think Wall Street) are much higher on average than in Mississippi, so -- Surprise! Surprise! -- tax revenues from those states are much higher.

So if you stop the high earners from subsidizing the low earners, then the Blue state subsidy of Red states will automatically end.

BTW, several of the states receiving more from the feds than they pay in taxes include NoOrth Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, as well as D.C. Hardly southern states.

Mostly southern, but also mostly red states. Spin it however you like.

16 of 51 when D.C. is included. So 35 are spending more than they pay in taxes. And, as a "fiscal" conservative, that's the problem.

BTW, all of this is based on fairly old data -- 2000 and 2001. It would be interesting to see how results are affected by the Wall Street meltdown, which disproportionately impacts NY, NY and CT (three states that paid more than they received) and the insolvency problems of California.

And the number likely drops to 12. Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut all paid more in taxes than they received from the Federal government. But include the trillions of dollars in bail out money and that's probably no longer the case.

Conclusion: few states (less than 25%) -- in any part of the country -- pay more in taxes than they receive from the Federal government.

Many rich became rich by abusing and slaving the poor and middle class. If the rich wouldn't have the poor and middle class to use and slave for them with minimum wages, they wouldn't be rich, would they??? Why do you think Unions were formed? Why do you think many corporations are manufacturing out of the United States? Too greedy to even pay the minumum wages so they leave and slave citizens of India , China and so on! Hell, if you need anything fixed, forget americans workers, your call is transfered to foreigners who can't even speak english! What do you think is happening now? Banks, big Corporations, Insurance companies are legalized mafia and continue to rip off whoever they can. IT IS grand time to make the CEOs accountable for their excess greed.

really gets to the point, comrade. Saul would be proud of you.


sound familiar?

Outlining his strategy in organizing Alinsky writes:

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families more than seventy million people whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."[2]

THEY WILL MOVE TO THE RIGHT UNLESS MANIPULATED TO MOVE LEFT - and you bash CEOs? You propose the same enslavement, only to your cause.

"Many rich became rich by abusing and slaving the poor and middle class. If the rich wouldn't have the poor and middle class to use and slave for them with minimum wages, they wouldn't be rich, would they???"

Oh my God, you are like a walking talking liberal talking point. What you say is what the liberals want their constituents to believe, so they will support them and view them as the ones looking out for the little guy. In the end all the liberals want to do is keep the little guy being the little guy, and dependent of government. Someone has to be the boggieman, there has to be someone other than oneself to blame ones woes on. Enter rich people.

Rich people are the bane of our existence. Other than creating almost all the jobs, providing pretty much all the innovation, making the yeoman's share of charitable donations, and paying the great majority of the taxes that finance our government, they don't do a damn thing worthwhile.