OK conservatives. Crank up the spin machine!

[MGKrebs]

You think you know what this map is?

http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/bushstates300.jpg

Well, read the article here:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Then lets discuss.

 

[Steve]

Are you really prepared to discuss, other than the links you provided, because I can lay it out for you quite easily Muppet...

Let me know when you are prepared. I leave the open invite to Larry and Ken as well; I am sure they can chime in.

 

[Christy]

Are you really prepared to discuss, other than the links you provided, because I can lay it out for you quite easily Muppet...

Let me know when you are prepared. I leave the open invite to Larry and Ken as well; I am sure they can chime in.

Be nice to Maynard, he's one of the few coherent democrats that post here.

 

[MGKrebs]

Bring it on, homey.

 

[Steve]

Be nice to Maynard, he's one of the few coherent democrats that post here.

I am usually polite. Do I flame people? I'm picking on Maynard because he used my name (not personally) in a gay comparison. Not every guy named Steve is gay.

 

[Steve]

Bring it on, homey.

Bear with me as I lay this out, it will take a few posts to explain why the apparent illogical situation is actually logical.

First point is this: Most wealthy people live on the west coast, or in the northeast. Thus, the taxes paid by those people offset the federal money spent.

 

[MGKrebs]

Oh, did I make a typo?

I am usually polite. Do I flame people? I'm picking on Maynard because he used my name (not personally) in a gay comparison. Not every guy named Steve is gay.

Been awhile since I read Genesis.

 

[Steve]

Ironically, Chicago also show low fed dollars spent, as does Michigan, but the second tier wealthy live there. Think Oprah, and other entertainers, as well as the big three car manufacturers.

 

[Steve]

Been awhile since I read Genesis.

You said Adam and Steve, no harm. But you know as well as I that Steve is a typical gay-guy name. No harm, no foul. Just messing with your post.

 

[Christy]

You said Adam and Steve, no harm. But you know as well as I that Steve is a typical gay-guy name. No harm, no foul. Just messing with your post.

A bit homophobic are we?

 

[Steve]

You said Adam and Steve, no harm. But you know as well as I that Steve is a typical gay-guy name. No harm, no foul. Just messing with your post.

Back to the money...

The entire mid-west, all the 'farm' states, and the deep eastern, southern states do not have a plethora of big cities. The megatropolises exist in the aforementioned regions of this country. The northeast and the west coast. Thats where the money lies; it's where it has always lied.

 

[Steve]

A bit homophobic are we?

Am I homophobic? No, but every gay guy in the west-coast movie empire is named Steve. You know it, I know it.

 

[FromTexas]

1. D.C. ($6.17) - Can drop this one since D.C. doesn't get other funding like states... they are pretty much federal dependent.

2. North Dakota ($2.03) 47
3. New Mexico ($1.89) 36
4. Mississippi ($1.84) 31
5. Alaska ($1.82) 48
6. West Virginia ($1.74) 37
7. Montana ($1.64) 44
8. Alabama ($1.61) 23
9. South Dakota ($1.59) 46
10. Arkansas ($1.53) 33

Now, the least recieving states...

1. New Jersey ($0.62) 9
2. Connecticut ($0.64) 29
3. New Hampshire ($0.68) 41
4. Nevada ($0.73) 35
5. Illinois ($0.77) 5
6. Minnesota ($0.77) 21
7. Colorado ($0.79) 24
8. Massachusetts ($0.79) 13
9. California ($0.81) 1
10. New York ($0.81) 3

The numbers after each state is its population ranking. That will be one factor. A better factor would be population density (such as New Hampshire having lower population but less area). That is key because less populated and more vastly spread regions will need more federal dollars to provide the same services to broader regions. It takes fewer offices, less roads, less service per capita when it is packed together.

In addition, for the large part you are comparing mostly urbanized states to their more rural counterparts (with one or two exceptions). In case you missed this, rural communites have lower costs of living and tend to live on agricultural or other lower incomes compared to their expensive cost of living city counterparts. There is a curve to how much use is on your money to how much you make. So much of your taxes will cover the basic services offered in your area by the federal government per capita. More people making higher incomes means beyond that level of average income, there is more to spread other places.

Population density would be a significant factor, I would be certain, with cost of living/income playing a slightly less prevailing reason. Of course, we would need statistics to back it up.

 

[Steve]

So the northeast and the west coast can afford to do without federal dollars, simply because those states collect mad taxes from their populace. To wit, Cali is something like the fifth largest economy in the world! And that's a state!! New York collect 8% on every sale that occurs in that state, to the dismay of visitors the world over.

 

[Steve]

FromTexas is doing a much better job at this than I am!!

Point being, the red states vote red, not because they are receiving more fed dollars, but because they wish to preserve their conservative way of life. The needy flock to where the money is, and the rich can afford to pay for their services. The fact that the rich as a whole further subsidizes the disenfranchised, and thus draws them there, turns those states into 'blue' states. Not rocket science, Maynard.

 

[Steve]

And hence the liberal dogma of California to Washington State, and the Northeast. It is easy to show concern for the 'little guy' when you hire them to mow you lawn, tend to your sloop, and nanny your children. It is easy to be liberal when you are rich, and think that everyone should be free of 'suffering'; after all, the rich are free of financial suffering. And any other suffering, they can pay for appeasement. Whether it be by drugs, or entertainment, or vacations. This is the dichotomy of American life. Hard workers, those that scrap every day to live, but have pride (like farmers) vote Repub; those that play the system to their economic advantage, vote Dem.

That will never change.

 

[SmallTown]

I think some are losing site of the issue at hand. This really isn't about how much money a state gets. It is relative to how much they put it:

"The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes "

We tell by the Bush economics that is exactly how republicans work. As long as they get more money in their pockets, they don't care where it comes from. This is why people praise bush for his tax cuts, then shrug and figure it is just the war that has put us so far in debt

So basically what we have learned is this: The libera'ls welfare notion of helping the needy can be easily seen even at the state level. They praise themselves on helping the needy, they shouldn't be upset when it happens :shrug:

 

[Steve]

Are we done? I can explain states per each, if you'd like.

Hawaii has two businesses: tourism and the military. Tourism is based entirely upon the service industry, so the population that supports that industry sees all these people with money, showing up, having a great time, and they get out of bed and go to work. The military tends to vote Repub, back in each member's home state. Tends to, but not universal.

So in Hawaii, there is a strong economy that drives the state. Very little fed funding is needed, or wanted. No major public works, like dams, or roads, or 'green' areas. Hell, the Hawaiians would just like us to leave. So they always vote "blue", just the nature of the state.

 

[Steve]

We tell by the Bush economics that is exactly how republicans work. As long as they get more money in their pockets, they don't care where it comes from. This is why people praise bush for his tax cuts, then shrug and figure it is just the war that has put us so far in debt.

How the Republicans work? Please expand on this statement. You see, I don't arbitrarily equate the success of hard work to getting more money in your pockets. Isn't the latter a direct result of the former?

Bill Gates is worth some 53 billion dollars, that he earned by his own actions and the actions of the consumers, who have bought his product. Gates has put a lot of that money back into his community in Redmond, WA, but that state still went to Kerry. Is he a rich guy who cares nothing about the 'little people'? I say otherwise...

He worked hard and achieved success, just like a great many Americans. Should they feel guilty about not giving their hard earned success to someone who chooses to watch Oprah every day? Come on!

 

[SmallTown]

How the Republicans work? Please expand on this statement. You see, I don't arbitrarily equate the success of hard work to getting more money in your pockets. Isn't the latter a direct result of the former?

Bill Gates is worth some 53 billion dollars, that he earned by his own actions and the actions of the consumers, who have bought his product. Gates has put a lot of that money back into his community in Redmond, WA, but that state still went to Kerry. Is he a rich guy who cares nothing about the 'little people'? I say otherwise...

He worked hard and achieved success, just like a great many Americans. Should they feel guilty about not giving their hard earned success to someone who chooses to watch Oprah every day? Come on!

exactly. He didn't receive from handouts.