Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism)

[Mr_Adams]

Isn't that why they receive federal money though? Because they are under the poverty line? A lot of these Red State's have one important struggle or another. Education being the prime example.

My grandmother told me a story. On her reservation there was nowhere to work. The Feds came through and built a bunch of new modular homes for the Indians who lived there. But most of them still had no jobs. So the homes were used like campers or cabins. Five years later it was a blighted area again. Then they built a college there, and things improved. But the Natives still don't have a hospital of their own, or anything in the way of fire protection. Likewise Health Care and Medicaid is a huge cost for everyone nowadays, and all Indians should receive free care under treaty. Of course Congress never gives enough money for that, but that is one big expense that I would like to see here.
NA's also have a huge turnout for elections, yet +14% of their votes are cast out in each presidential election. All-in-all we don't take care of them like we should and then we don't count their votes of accountability.



Also, what are the odds of us meeting? We should start a clan.

Haha, I am so far disconnected from my Native American ancestry, I don't think I'd be a good choice for such a CC clan leader.
And the lack of work is part of the problem. That is why government doesn't work. The only native american industry I have ever seen succeed is the casinos. It's really sad. They need to find people dedicated to their communities who are intelligent enough to be the first smart buisness men. there is a significant available work force just waiting. even if it's a factory of some sort, it'd still be better than the mass unemployment. Unfortunately, so many people on the res. are content with their way of life. Not saying they all are, but government dependency DOES take a toll on a person's moral and motivation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, except they aren't. The links you provided after the quote do not support the premise of the thread in any way. In fact, as I've illustrated very clearly for you, the states that your friend identified as "supporting" the Red States are actually in the top half of states that take money from the federal government.

The premise is that Red States get more than they give, that wasn't meant to be a blanket statement for all red states as because one or two could take care of itself. I just meant to draw the eye to the ones that do (virtually all of them). So yeah that was bad English and I apologize. However in fairness the Red States absolutely are the top half and then some when one crucial conservation is factored in: the total dollars that each state has paid in, before federal dollars come back.

the states that your friend identified as "supporting" the Red States are actually in the top half of states that take money from the federal government.

But for the most part they don't take more than they pay in. Or much more money than they pay in. Sure they get a ton of money back, but they also pay in a ton of money. But the Red States by and large actually take much more than they give. Here's some much clearer facts:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html
Take a look at the total reversal of the state's ranking when total taxes paid are taken into consideration. There are 33 states (and the District of Colombia) that are getting more money back than they are paying in. Obviously this kind of religious spending cannot be sustained. Thus, this country must rid itself of Socialist Conservatives in order to prosper once again.

Quick question: How does the evidence account for each state flipping at different times (from "red" to "blue"), and how does it separate long-term costs and benefits from previous State administrations of both sides?

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm not sure what specifically you mean by long term cost-benefits, but those federal dollars are all distributed by congress.

I don't think that flip-flopping enters into it if the people of the state describe themselves as Conservative or Liberal. We pretty much have to talk in generalities when talking about national and even state-wide demographics. However, I'd allow anyone to disagree with me here and make a counter-point. This could just be my reasoning alone after all.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm just not seeing how this works...

"Red states get more than they give"

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/census_states.aspx

California and New York are the top recipients of federal money... That's $63bn and $44bn, so using your author's logic (of that article), then we could save a ton of money if that was cut...


But more importantly:

This isn't just a "Red v. Blue" issue--no matter how angry that author feels about this. It makes sense for the government to heavily subsidize programs (like infrastructure) in Alaska in order to prepare for the development of one of the most potentially wealthiest regions in the world--regardless of whether or not the total number of citizens of these States is >51% "conservative" or "liberal."

tl;dr: There are plenty of other reasons why certain states receive federal assistance.

[spurgistan]

This is true. When you hear Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo grandstanding against federal spending, gimme a holler. However, when Republican governors rage against welfare, etc, yet take federal money. we get to make these threads.

I do not think that the fact that Mississippi does not contribute a lot of tax revenue compared to what it gets back from the feds is a bad thing, as a fan of redistributive economies - on average, Mississippians are the poorest people in the US (I think) and relatively small improvements in per capita income there have relatively large impacts on quality of life. The fact that Haley Barbour gets to be cast as a crusader against spending (not even wasteful spending. It should be mentioned that the first thing they try to turn back is unemployment benefits. Which would be reasonable, if there were jobs) while taking credit for spending programs, that's an issue I got.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is true. When you hear Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo grandstanding against federal spending, gimme a holler. However, when Republican governors rage against welfare, etc, yet take federal money. we get to make these threads.

I do not think that the fact that Mississippi does not contribute a lot of tax revenue compared to what it gets back from the feds is a bad thing, as a fan of redistributive economies - on average, Mississippians are the poorest people in the US (I think) and relatively small improvements in per capita income there have relatively large impacts on quality of life. The fact that Haley Barbour gets to be cast as a crusader against spending (not even wasteful spending. It should be mentioned that the first thing they try to turn back is unemployment benefits. Which would be reasonable, if there were jobs) while taking credit for spending programs, that's an issue I got.

What does "redistributive economics" mean to you?

[Juan_Bottom]

California and New York are the top recipients of federal money... That's $63bn and $44bn, so using your author's logic (of that article), then we could save a ton of money if that was cut...

Absolutely, but if you subtract the amount that they're getting from the amount that they have paid in, then suddenly the ranks look reversed. Take a close look at Mississippi for example. It is ranked 9th for Census related program expenditures and has the 23rd spot for census-related federal assistance. My home state of Illinois rakes in more cash than Mississippi with a 16 and 8, respectively. That means that Mississippi gets over $2 back for every dollar that they pay in. Illinois on the other hand receives $.75 for every dollar. So when viewed from this angle, Illinois is practically subsidizing Mississippi.
The Author from the OP has a slightly different point than I have, despite the very similar view. We're both talking about hypocrisy in action.

[Juan_Bottom]

Fastposted,
but this could be a fun thread though. Let's try to avoid simple math and posts laden with "facts." It would be more fun to just bash at each other's politics. More people would read this thread too.

[Night Strike]

This is true. When you hear Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo grandstanding against federal spending, gimme a holler. However, when Republican governors rage against welfare, etc, yet take federal money. we get to make these threads.

Convenient to blame the states for taking the federal money when it's actually the federal government FORCING the states to take the money. Furthermore, the income levels that determine who is eligible for welfare are federal numbers, not state numbers. So even though $35k per year may be penniless in New York, it is enough income for a rural family in a red state. And how much money is forced into these states through items like farm subsidies? We know the big blue states have very little farming; it's the red states that contain most of the nation's farm lands. And since the federal government insists on farming subsidies, of course it's the red states that get the money. Most of these issues are problems in the size and rules of the federal government, not because of choices by the states.

[BigBallinStalin]

California and New York are the top recipients of federal money... That's $63bn and $44bn, so using your author's logic (of that article), then we could save a ton of money if that was cut...

Absolutely, but if you subtract the amount that they're getting from the amount that they have paid in, then suddenly the ranks look reversed. Take a close look at Mississippi for example. It is ranked 9th for Census related program expenditures and has the 23rd spot for census-related federal assistance. My home state of Illinois rakes in more cash than Mississippi with a 16 and 8, respectively. That means that Mississippi gets over $2 back for every dollar that they pay in. Illinois on the other hand receives $.75 for every dollar. So when viewed from this angle, Illinois is practically subsidizing Mississippi.
The Author from the OP has a slightly different point than I have, despite the very similar view. We're both talking about hypocrisy in action.

But this hypocrisy is done for other reasons then just the lines of thought representative of a >51% "conservative" or a >51% "liberal" State. (I say ">51%" because that's the minimal number required to officially label an entire State as "red" or "blue.")

These other reasons (beyond the partisan) are previously stated examples like boosting Alaska's infrastructure (because it's oil rich), or because the federal government thinks that it's wise to dump more money in MS to boost their performance.

And these data are only the results of not just 100% Republican or 100% Democrat decisions, which is why I mentioned how these States also flip from "red" to "blue." What we're looking at now is the result of decades of flipping, but then some like the author only look at today's results, and blame it on today's labels of "red" or "blue."

tl;dr: This issue should be about the incentives which anyone in power encounters. When we can realize that nearly everyone in such a high state of political power are just a bunch of assholes, then we have successfully moved away from insufficient lines of reasoning like blaming this or that on Red or Blue, conservative or liberal.

[spurgistan]

This is true. When you hear Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo grandstanding against federal spending, gimme a holler. However, when Republican governors rage against welfare, etc, yet take federal money. we get to make these threads.

I do not think that the fact that Mississippi does not contribute a lot of tax revenue compared to what it gets back from the feds is a bad thing, as a fan of redistributive economies - on average, Mississippians are the poorest people in the US (I think) and relatively small improvements in per capita income there have relatively large impacts on quality of life. The fact that Haley Barbour gets to be cast as a crusader against spending (not even wasteful spending. It should be mentioned that the first thing they try to turn back is unemployment benefits. Which would be reasonable, if there were jobs) while taking credit for spending programs, that's an issue I got.

What does "redistributive economics" mean to you?

Uhh, well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

You know, progressive taxation supporting a social safety net, and such?

[Juan_Bottom]

Most of these issues are problems in the size and rules of the federal government, not because of choices by the states.

Convenient to blame the states for taking the federal money when it's actually the federal government FORCING the states to take the money.

Congress determines who get's what when it comes to handing out federal money. I'm sure that you see my point here.

tl;dr: This issue should be about the incentives which anyone in power encounters. When we can realize that nearly everyone in such a high state of political power are just a bunch of assholes, then we have successfully moved away from insufficient lines of reasoning like blaming this or that on Red or Blue, conservative or liberal.

lol, I agree with you. I agree that some states need help and deserve more money than other states. Liberals like myself believe in helping others when they need a hand. If I climb out of a hole I'm going to throw the rope back down and help the next person to crawl out too.

The point of the thread is that the people who complain the loudest also take the most. There was nothing else to my agenda.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is true. When you hear Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo grandstanding against federal spending, gimme a holler. However, when Republican governors rage against welfare, etc, yet take federal money. we get to make these threads.

I do not think that the fact that Mississippi does not contribute a lot of tax revenue compared to what it gets back from the feds is a bad thing, as a fan of redistributive economies - on average, Mississippians are the poorest people in the US (I think) and relatively small improvements in per capita income there have relatively large impacts on quality of life. The fact that Haley Barbour gets to be cast as a crusader against spending (not even wasteful spending. It should be mentioned that the first thing they try to turn back is unemployment benefits. Which would be reasonable, if there were jobs) while taking credit for spending programs, that's an issue I got.

What does "redistributive economics" mean to you?

Uhh, well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

You know, progressive taxation supporting a social safety net, and such?

So, going on everything within that definition, you're in favor of nationalization. (That's why I ask you to say what you mean about it..)

[BigBallinStalin]

Most of these issues are problems in the size and rules of the federal government, not because of choices by the states.

Convenient to blame the states for taking the federal money when it's actually the federal government FORCING the states to take the money.

Congress determines who get's what when it comes to handing out federal money. I'm sure that you see my point here.

tl;dr: This issue should be about the incentives which anyone in power encounters. When we can realize that nearly everyone in such a high state of political power are just a bunch of assholes, then we have successfully moved away from insufficient lines of reasoning like blaming this or that on Red or Blue, conservative or liberal.

lol, I agree with you. I agree that some states need help and deserve more money than other states. Liberals like myself believe in helping others when they need a hand. If I climb out of a hole I'm going to throw the rope back down and help the next person to crawl out too.

The point of the thread is that the people who complain the loudest also take the most. There was nothing else to my agenda.

Those "people" don't take the most. The politicians and the State governments do... And since the politicians and State governments do, it is not correct to assume that conservatives (i.e. the individuals representative of such thought) complain the loudest and take the most. That's my point.


Which led to my above tl;dr: The politicians will act on their incentives regardless of their political ideology. Their words to me are meaningless, but their actions determine a lot. So, hating on "conservatives" or "liberals" because of this article is incorrect. If one has to despise someone, I'd direct them to the politicians and the government--regardless of the words which they spout to paint themselves as either "red" or "blue."

[Juan_Bottom]

If one has to despise someone, I'd direct them to the politicians and the government--regardless of the words which they spout to paint themselves as either "red" or "blue."

Yeah. And direct them to those motherfuckers who elected those politicians in the first place.
I don't really know what we are even arguing about but I'm not about to lose.



Yield sir!

Click image to enlarge.

[spurgistan]

You could change the thread title, or something. For one thing, while it's true, all states get way more than they give. It's how our economy's structured, right now.

[Juan_Bottom]

IT IS TRUE AND THEY TAKE A LOT.
But what should I change it to? I'm noticing that this is becoming a theme with me. I mean, I'm always changing thread titles. But this site is helping me to kill some time while the new Mortal Kombat episode 3 loads.

[BigBallinStalin]

If one has to despise someone, I'd direct them to the politicians and the government--regardless of the words which they spout to paint themselves as either "red" or "blue."

Yeah. And direct them to those motherfuckers who elected those politicians in the first place.
I don't really know what we are even arguing about but I'm not about to lose.



Yield sir!

Click image to enlarge.

NEVER!

[spurgistan]

Ok, now I need to know what that clip's from, and a plot synopsis.

[BigBallinStalin]

If one has to despise someone, I'd direct them to the politicians and the government--regardless of the words which they spout to paint themselves as either "red" or "blue."

If you want to go that avenue, then you have to assume that the politicians are 100% representative of the voters' expectations. And you have to ignore that the politicians hardly ever deliver on their promises during the elections.

[thegreekdog]

This is true. When you hear Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo grandstanding against federal spending, gimme a holler. However, when Republican governors rage against welfare, etc, yet take federal money. we get to make these threads.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the answer that I find most correct. I would like to see states that are "red" not take money from the federal government. I would also like to see the "red" states not pay money to the federal government.

[Night Strike]

This is true. When you hear Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo grandstanding against federal spending, gimme a holler. However, when Republican governors rage against welfare, etc, yet take federal money. we get to make these threads.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the answer that I find most correct. I would like to see states that are "red" not take money from the federal government. I would also like to see the "red" states not pay money to the federal government.

That would be possible if the federal government actually followed the Constitution instead of declaring that all of their rules trump the state rules. If they wouldn't force the states to do so many extra-Constitutional things, the states wouldn't have to take the money just to pay for them.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is true. When you hear Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo grandstanding against federal spending, gimme a holler. However, when Republican governors rage against welfare, etc, yet take federal money. we get to make these threads.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the answer that I find most correct. I would like to see states that are "red" not take money from the federal government. I would also like to see the "red" states not pay money to the federal government.

That would be possible if the federal government actually followed the Constitution instead of declaring that all of their rules trump the state rules. If they wouldn't force the states to do so many extra-Constitutional things, the states wouldn't have to take the money just to pay for them.

What's with you Consitutionalists?

The Constitution is a contract which is enforced by.... no one! This is the "Who watches the Watchman" problem.

So, how can people reasonably expect that the federal government will actually follow a contract which isn't enforced by any higher enforcer?

And how can such a small contract cover the future problems that a government may run into? It is reasonable to assume that the government will act in its self-interests in order to expand its authority over the Constitution so that it may accomplish whatever it perceives to be as necessary.

I just don't get it. Someone help me here!

[Night Strike]

And how can such a small contract cover the future problems that a government may run into? It is reasonable to assume that the government will act in its self-interests in order to expand its authority over the Constitution so that it may accomplish whatever it perceives to be as necessary.

I just don't get it. Someone help me here!

The whole point of the Constitution is to outline the exact things the federal government can and cannot do. If the federal government feels there is a legitimate thing they should be doing that's not already in the Constitution, there is an amendment process to update the Constitution. Nowhere does it say the federal government can do programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Nowhere does it say the federal government has the power to tell you what purchases you can make in the private market. And if a problem does arise in the future, the federal solution must conform to the Constitutional framework. If it does not fall within their powers such as coining money, raising an army, etc. then that solution can only be done by the states. It's the states and people who are supposed to have almost unlimited powers to figure out solutions to their problems instead of the federal government having the unlimited power.

[thegreekdog]

I think BBS was making a tongue-in-cheek post.