OK conservatives. Crank up the spin machine!

[Steve]

exactly. He didn't receive from handouts.

So you agree, that economic map means nothing. Just proves that people want to be left alone, unfettered by the "give-me" types, and just exist. People do good things every day, including republicans. Bush has no agenda against the poor, but he will give them opportunities, not hand-outs.

 

[SmallTown]

Just proves that people want to be left alone

Yep. Be left alone and let the tax money from elsewhere roll right in

 

[Larry Gude]

Mg...

...as you've presented the ever so interesting facts, care to make a point to give them meaning?

'Stephane' basically pointed out the first context necessary to even begin to draw any conclusions; population.

So, to the map we should add 1, total population per state, 2, total dollars paid to the Treasury per state and 3, total dollars returned per state.

One of the largest single Federal programs in recent memory was 'the big dig' in Boston, not yet finished and already costing over $14 billion mostly federal dollars, yet its cost is pared down as a per person or per dollar average simply because it is divided by Massachusetts 6.5 million souls.

Trent Lott got a $300 million aircraft carrier contract for Mississippis 2.8 million folks.

The new highway in Boston is permanent and value adds for Boston pretty much forever. A new project planned for Manhatten is to cost a few billion but is expected to bring as much as $60 billion in increased property values.

The aircraft carrier is over when it's finished. They get to keep an empty ship yard.

I'd love to also see that map on a county by county basis. St. Mary's probably gets way more return on a federal dollar by dollar basis but no one is going to confuse what Baltimore gets total and what they can do with it vs. what Leonardtown gets.

So, context, context, context.

When you're ready to move to Pascagoola because the tax return is so much more fair there, per dollar, by all means, let me know.

 

[MGKrebs]

OK. pretty weak so far.

Here's my perspective, (to give you something more to shoot at).

But first, let me define some terms so that I can generalize and use shorthand: when I say "red state people" I mean states in which the majority voted red (Repub) in 2000. And "blue state people" means, well, you get it.

So, the bottom line is, red state people, meaning Republicans, meaning the party of self-reliance, and anti-welfare, and lower taxes, and personal responsibility, are the states that are ON THE DOLE. if the blue states were to secede, the red states would NOT BE SELF SUFFICIENT. So, despite the fact that the blue states supposedly have millions of welfare queens stealing from the system, and wasteful big governments running giant populations, and are bleeding the country dry with their liberal agenda, the fact is that the blue states more than pay for themselves. In fact, all those city folks pay for themselves AND help pay for all the farmers and moonshiners out there in the red states. And do we complain? No! We understand that it takes a government to run an organized society, and it takes money to run a government in a capitalist system, and we accept that. It is the Republicans who still want to cut more taxes, even though we are running huge deficits and fighting an endless "war", and even though most of them are living in places that aren't contributing enough taxes to pay for what they use anyway.

So to stereotype conservatives, I think the philosophy is that if we cut taxes, that the cuts will come where the waste is, i.e., the cities (blue states), but that things will remain the same where "red" people live. When in fact, it's the "red" areas that would need to have their services cut.

The other way to look at it is that since repubs have been controlling the purse strings the past couple of years, that they are just sending money back to their home districts. Which seems pretty hypocritical when you think about it.

 

[Steve]

MG, Bush won again. Get over it. Stop trying to find ways to undercut that fact. We can have discourse after discourse, hashing out the facts of money, political swing, media influence, but it just don't matter. Get away from the city, talk with rural Americans, and you'll maybe understand. Become a rural American; live as an urban American in the harshest part of town. Then maybe you'll get it.

There is no reason that Bush won except that more people wanted him to win. See you in four years. "Insert quarter, try again".

 

[MGKrebs]

And you know where I'm going with this.

This is, to me, another example of how the conservative agenda today is centered around greed and selfishness. And you know what? I think that's fine. At least it is a philosophy and it is honest. I just want somebody to step up and admit it. "I am greedy, I want more for myself, and I don't really care where it comes from". That sort of thing. Everything from affirmative action, to welfare, to taxes, to social security, to eductation, the conservative answer is always "me first". If someone can admit that, then perhaps we can discuss the pros and cons of that sort of system.

I have to go now. i am desperate to get my "Elvis' 50 Gold Records" vinyl copied over to cd. My iPod is hungry for Elvis!

 

[SmallTown]

MG, Bush won again. Get over it. Stop trying to find ways to undercut that fact. We can have discourse after discourse, hashing out the facts of money, political swing, media influence, but it just don't matter. Get away from the city, talk with rural Americans, and you'll maybe understand. Become a rural American; live as an urban American in the harshest part of town. Then maybe you'll get it.

There is no reason that Bush won except that more people wanted him to win. See you in four years. "Insert quarter, try again".

Oh please. This has nothing to do with Bush winning. If Bush had lost, this map would still look the same.

 

[Bogart]

Moonshiners vote GOP?

 

[MGKrebs]

Hey, I'm fighting for your rights too!

MG, Bush won again. Get over it. Stop trying to find ways to undercut that fact. We can have discourse after discourse, hashing out the facts of money, political swing, media influence, but it just don't matter. Get away from the city, talk with rural Americans, and you'll maybe understand. Become a rural American; live as an urban American in the harshest part of town. Then maybe you'll get it.

There is no reason that Bush won except that more people wanted him to win. See you in four years. "Insert quarter, try again".

I'm trying to get my non-profit org to oppose the anti-gay marriage amendment here.

Oh wait, you're not gay?

Cheers.

 

[Larry Gude]

yeah right...

OK. pretty weak so far.

Accurate is more like it.

Obviously you wanted to make the point that Republicans are hypocrites (sp?)
and that's fine as far as it goes.

If your theory is true isn't it also easier to just say Democrats are stupid? If this is so important or a bad thing and the key is simply voting red or blue shouldn't blue vote red?

Your tax cut line doesn't fly either because, as far as I know, tax cuts apply to both blue and red states (though we are working on it!).

It is a simple fact that if New York and California had ALL Republicans in the House and Senate for the next 20 years the disparity would still exist because of population.

Each state, thanks to the Founders wisdom, has two very powerful Senators who's votes don't come cheap. If a Senator from California gets $10 billion in pork in exchange for a Senator in Wyoming getting $1 billion there's gonna be a 'disparity' if you play the numbers as you please.

It never cease to amaze me how Democrats always look at zero sums. It matters greatly what each dollar actually goes to and the dynamics of that dollar.

Again I ask, you ready to move to Waco to stop the ruin this injustice is laying on you?

Wanna add per capita income to the mix to further muddy your point?

 

[SmallTown]

It never cease to amaze me how Democrats always look at zero sums. It matters greatly what each dollar actually goes to and the dynamics of that dollar.

And it never ceases to amaze me how republicans don't understand that if more money is being spent than what is coming in, spendings needs to ease up. Sure, republicans are always talking tax cuts, yet you never hear about them cutting spending. Sure, their spending is focused differently than liberals, but they spend just as much with (if they have their wish) less money coming in.

I would love the republican's notion of tax cuts if they knew how to cut spending as well. All we do is rob Peter to pay Paul.

 

[ylexot]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Larry Gude again.

This is far more complicated than just money in vs. money out. Larry, you did a great job at pointing out some of the variables.

 

[2ndAmendment]

if the blue states were to secede, the red states would NOT BE SELF SUFFICIENT.

And the blue states would feed themselves, how? Very difficult to raise cattle on concrete, chickens in apartments. Please, let them secede and starve to death. Good riddance. The world cries for the food raised in the red states. Plenty of markets to sell to.

 

[2ndAmendment]

And you know where I'm going with this.

This is, to me, another example of how the conservative agenda today is centered around greed and selfishness. And you know what? I think that's fine. At least it is a philosophy and it is honest. I just want somebody to step up and admit it. "I am greedy, I want more for myself, and I don't really care where it comes from". That sort of thing. Everything from affirmative action, to welfare, to taxes, to social security, to eductation, the conservative answer is always "me first". If someone can admit that, then perhaps we can discuss the pros and cons of that sort of system.

I have to go now. i am desperate to get my "Elvis' 50 Gold Records" vinyl copied over to cd. My iPod is hungry for Elvis!

I don't think it is me first. I would like to decide who I help rather than have the government steal it from me to give to someone else. Welfare is unconstitutional.

 

[2ndAmendment]

And it never ceases to amaze me how republicans don't understand that if more money is being spent than what is coming in, spendings needs to ease up. Sure, republicans are always talking tax cuts, yet you never hear about them cutting spending. Sure, their spending is focused differently than liberals, but they spend just as much with (if they have their wish) less money coming in.

I would love the republican's notion of tax cuts if they knew how to cut spending as well. All we do is rob Peter to pay Paul.

I'm all for spending cuts. Let's cut all spending that does not have direct Constitutional authority. That will get rid of about 85 to 90 percent of federal spending. All the entitlement programs will be gone. That would be a great start at putting this nation back where the founders intended it to be.

 

[SmallTown]

I don't think it is me first. I think it is I would like to decide who I help rather than have the government steal it from me to give to someone else. Welfare is unconstitutional.

Hm. So the government giving money to individuals is uncostitutional, but the government giving money to states is essential?

 

[SmallTown]

I'm all for spending cuts. Let's cut all spending that does not have direct Constitutional authority. That will get rid of about 85 to 90 percent of federal spending. All the entitlement programs will be gone. That would be a great start at putting this nation back where the founders intended it to be.

When are you running for office?

 

[FromTexas]

Its nice to look at data that portrays a picture you would like to see without looking at the meat. You were presented some very solid reasons why the situations would exist. In fact, the very link you took the information from had other pages explaining discrepanices due to similar issues (per capita income, type of industry for income, military personnel per capita, federal employees per capita, etc... ).

But, here is a breakdown in 2003 of spending.

http://www.nemw.org/fedspend1.htm

On another note, I discovered the map you portray hasn't really changed much at all in the past 3+ decades. It is not anything to do with politics. It has to do with the nature of the states.

Because you can not understand simple logic does not make the argument weak. It just means you aren't able to comprehend it.

 

[SmallTown]

And the blue states would feed themselves, how? Very difficult to raise cattle on concrete, chickens in apartments. Please, let them secede and starve to death. Good riddance. The world cries for the food raised in the red states. Plenty of markets to sell to.

the blue states leaving would hurt the red states more than the blue. The money the blue states would keep would be more than sufficient enough to be able to import their needs.

without the blue states consuming the products from the red states, plus with less government funding, they would begin to dry up. Sure, exporting the food would be ok. But with less local consumption, along with the decreased federal funding, prices would rise to a level that would make it difficult to compete on the world market.

 

[FromTexas]

Smalltown, you need to be hit with the cluebat, too, in this thread. Just an FYI.

Say it slowly with me, "Poopppuuullllatttiion ddeeennnnssiityy and innddduuusttrry".

If you have ten people... 7 live in one territory and 3 live in another. They all pay $10 in taxes. To run the same programs in each territory, more of the tax money will be returned to the territory with 3 people. There is a basic cost for providing the service and a small increase above that for each person served. It is cheaper per person to serve 1,000 than to serve 100.

This is simple government 101. We aren't talking rocket science here.

In addition, if one territory provides 70% of the produce and the other territory provides 80% of the industrial technology and services, the industrial tech and services are paid higher and the agriculture makes less. They both are hard workers. However, there is higher tax income over the base needed for just providing the government services in the higher income state.

It can't get much simpler than that.