Paying no Taxes

I havent been posting here for a while, mostly because I got bored of it - but also because everything seemed to be a re-run, or some sort of boilerplate bullcrap that was altogether unsurprising.  It seems that US polotics has taken on a tribalistic quality that is much more reminiscient of Michigan-Ohio State football fans than conservative-liberal issue-based political discourse.  You know, it doesnt matter how bad "your" team is, or how they play, or recruit, or hire, you will still be on "that" team and NEVER switch to the "other" guys, regardless of the circumstances - its like, you know, treason... or something. So anyway, I was reading about the incredibly stupid, but completely "thats what we think, just dont say it out loud" Mitt Romney 47% comment.  All of the typical UM-OSU responses aside, I saw one picture that surprised me.  Here it is: I'm not sure what I expected this to look like, but I didnt think that some of the MOST republican states in the country would also contain the most non-federal-income-tax-payers.  As seems to be the case more and more often, the tribalistic nature of US politics results in more people working against their own interests.  Why is this so?  David Frum has what I believe to be a decent explanation: "When you ask white Americans to estimate the black population of the United States, the answer averages out at nearly 30%. Ask them to estimate the Hispanic population, and the answer averages out at 22%. So when a politician or a broadcaster talks about 47% in "dependency," the image that swims into many white voters' minds is not their mother in Florida, her Social Security untaxed, receiving Medicare benefits vastly greater than her lifetime tax contributions; it is not their uncle, laid off after 30 years and now too old to start over. No, the image that comes into mind is minorities on welfare." So, is anyone you know in that dastardly 47% - careful... Class warfare, anyone?