OK conservatives. Crank up the spin machine!

[FromTexas]

Now, would you like to say that the red states are the only ones who enjoy the benefit of those events such as military spending? Items that provide a national, non-segregable benefit? You can't refuse someone the benefit of national defense whether they pay for it or not. The same is true of agricultural and medical research funded by the government and other items.

Above, I showed how all the welfare money flows mainly into the blue states. It covers the vast majority of entitlements. Entitlements are the large portion of any money that could be considered serving states and not sharing a national benefit.

 

[Larry Gude]

Mg...

And I'm not following you on Steve claiming population as some sort of significant factor

I haven't sat down and done, nor seen a thorough statistical analysis, based on this map, which includes gross tax dollars out, gross tax dollars in, population numbers, per capita income numbers nor an analysis of what the dollars to a given state went for and what the long term impact was.

The GOP has not had enough control over the federal purse strings in order for this to be the sole and single fact; GOP 'greed'. What did this map look like in 1992? 1996? 2000?

It is fairly simple for me to see, for instance, that the gross federal revenues from paychecks in Kali-for-neah is going to far exceed those of Oklahoma. And it is fairly easy to see that the gross federal dollars spent in Cali are going to far exceed the dollars spent in Oklahoma.

It is also easy to see where the per capita averages are going to make it look like Oklahoma is reaping a huge windfall when looked at per capita but that the number would become rather insignificant when compared to the gross dollars Cal gets.

You want to make a complex issue very simple to make a point but, for crying out loud, as red as South Dakota and South Carolina are, look who there Senators were. South Dakota had two D senators until recently. Carolina, Hollins, a noted fiscal conservative Democrat for some 36 odd years.

In support of your argument it does make sense that if the GOP has the votes then red states would tend to get a bigger piece of the pie but that doesn't automatically mean therefore the total budget was increased to do so. It could be a combination of events including taking from the blue.

 

[Larry Gude]

Mg...

You said:

You will never be able to define the parameters any better than that map shows.

If it helps, I totally grant you that. The thing is that the ONLY thing the map is saying is that red states are getting more back than they put in and that blue states are paying for the disparity.

I will bet you that back in the 70's and 80's and 90's when more of the red was blue that the numbers were the same.

And this is because of population and income factors, not party.

 

[Larry Gude]

Mg...

...did you look at Tex's first link?

 

[Larry Gude]

The second one...

...as well?

 

[Larry Gude]

The third???

..as well?

There's a whole lot more going on here than simple red=greed.

It seems the single largest factor in the disparity is...defense spending and you simply can't call that 'liberal policy'.

Hell, with population densities in blue states it gets even easier to see why the disparity.

You can only put certain types of facilties in blue, high density, places.

 

[MGKrebs]

I did.

...did you look at Tex's first link?

I'll have to wait until tonight to comment in detail, but I will ask again, is the contention that military construction spending somehow exempts states from this analysis? The map is just a coincidence?

The point, to me, is trying to figure out what is different about (generally) people in the red states vs. people in the blue states. The conservative stereotype is that blue states, full of big cities and millions of people on welfare, are bleeding the country dry. Whereas the map shows that those states contribute enough in taxes to pay for whatever crap they want. So, what is it with the people in the red states? To me, I think I can make the case that it doesn't matter what the federal money is for, it's still federal money, and to advocate smaller government/less taxes while their own states depend on it is either misguided or devious.

 

[2ndAmendment]

To me, I think I can make the case that it doesn't matter what the federal money is for, it's still federal money, and to advocate smaller government/less taxes while their own states depend on it is either misguided or devious.

That is where you and all political liberals go wrong. The Federal government has no money of its own. Every dollar has to come out of the economy or from the people through taxes. Taxing one group of people because they are successful and giving to another because they are not is not government's role. The government is not supposed to be Robin Hood.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison [1794]

The word welfare did not mean charity at the time of the writing of the Constitution. The founders used the word benevolence to speak of giving money or other types of help to those in need. The Constitution does not authorize the redistribution of wealth. We need to quit spending money on unconstitutional items like the entitlement programs and pay off the debt.

"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable." --George Washington, Fifth Annual Message of George Washington (State of the Union Address), Philadelphia, December 3, 1793

Unless we do that, the United States will always be in jeopardy from interference from foreign powers.

 

[MGKrebs]

All my gay friends are buying guns.

That is where you and all political liberals go wrong. The Federal government has no money of its own. Every dollar has to come out of the economy or from the people through taxes. Taxing one group of people because they are successful and giving to another because they are not is not government's role. The government is not supposed to be Robin Hood.



The word welfare did not mean charity at the time of the writing of the Constitution. The founders used the word benevolence to speak of giving money or other types of help to those in need. The Constitution does not authorize the redistribution of wealth. We need to quit spending money on unconstitutional items like the entitlement programs and pay off the debt.



Unless we do that, the United States will always be in jeopardy from interference from foreign powers.

I think it's an organized national movement.

 

[MGKrebs]

Yes, yes , yes, I read them all.

..as well?

There's a whole lot more going on here than simple red=greed.

It seems the single largest factor in the disparity is...defense spending and you simply can't call that 'liberal policy'.

Hell, with population densities in blue states it gets even easier to see why the disparity.

You can only put certain types of facilties in blue, high density, places.

It got too late for me to respond coherently last night though. But think of it this way: That map is a statistical analysis. We all know (well, all of us except maybe 2ndAmendment), that statistics can be manipulated, and that there are always exceptions, but that doesn't make statistical analysis useless. There may still be something to be learned in there.

See, I'm too busy and distracted to go further at the moment. See ya later.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think it's an organized national movement.

Good, but this discussion has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. This is just a typical liberal diversion tactic.

 

[2ndAmendment]

It got too late for me to respond coherently last night though. But think of it this way: That map is a statistical analysis. We all know (well, all of us except maybe 2ndAmendment), that statistics can be manipulated, and that there are always exceptions, but that doesn't make statistical analysis useless. There may still be something to be learned in there.

See, I'm too busy and distracted to go further at the moment. See ya later.

Thank you for being so disparaging. Having studied higher math in college, I certainly know how to manipulate statistics. I just pointed out the Constitutional facts which the Democratic party and their lemmings choose to ignore. In fairness, since FDR took us down the entitlement road, the Republicans have merrily followed.

 

[FromTexas]

It got too late for me to respond coherently last night though. But think of it this way: That map is a statistical analysis. We all know (well, all of us except maybe 2ndAmendment), that statistics can be manipulated, and that there are always exceptions, but that doesn't make statistical analysis useless. There may still be something to be learned in there.

See, I'm too busy and distracted to go further at the moment. See ya later.

You kept referring to it as a trend. It is not a trend. It has been that way since many of those states were blue. In fact, LG was nice enough to point out how some of those red states have democrats as senators and representatives. It does not get at any meat. It only gets at a snapshot that looks good for it what it was designed for. It does not say, "Guess what. This map hasn't changed much for decades", or, "despite being red states, these states are all democrat senators/representatives", or, "This state has low population spread widely and enjoys the benefit of a military installation that draws in $2.5 billion dollars a year".

What you have not done is grasp the entire argument. You are picking at minutia without putting it all together.

 

[Ken King]

I will dig up the tax data later but here is the spending for a few areas. I took one small blue area and one closely populated red area, the largest blue area and the largest red area, and using 2003 data will show population versus federal expenditures.

Small blue – DC – 564,326 estimated population – $34.75 billion in expenditures.
Small red - ND – 633,837 estimated population - $ 5.73 billion in expenditures.
Largest blue – CA – 35,484,453 estimated population - $219.71 billion in expenditures.
Largest Red - TX – 22,118,509 estimated population - $140.45 billion in expenditures.

Per capita costs by those areas;
DC - $61,578
ND - $ 9, 040
CA - $ 6,192
TX - $ 6,350

I can draw a conclusion to this data, though it might not necessarily indicate a fact. It seems like the cost of governing is greatest were you have the least population that are also the most governed.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ken...

..what I am reading in your post is support of the argument 2a, Tex and I are making:

California, blue, higher gross dollars in, but lower on a per capita basis.
So, if the ONLY measure of greed is per capita spent in your state by the feds then, we lose the argument.

It seems clear to me that there is a lot more to it than that. What did Californias $219 bill go to? Texas' $140 bill?

MG, whenever individual tax policy in regards to tax rates is considered the LAST thing Democrats want to discuss is per capita becaue it exposes the outrage that such a small percentage of US citizens pay fantastically disproportionate taxes (unless your name is Kerry BTW) vs. the average, the per capita.

So, another way to make your argument is that, using the same parameters your map uses, those who pay more, much more, on a per capita basis, IE the rich, or 'blue' people are being sucked dry by the real greedy, or 'red' people; everyone else.

Thus, the argument supporters of confiscatory tax rates make; 'well, they can afford it!'

Summary; You, MG Krebs, are a supporter of the conservative view of tax policy and fairness!

Your honor, I rest my case!

(crowd cheers, Arsenio-esque whoop, whoops!!!)

 

[Toxick]

In fairness, since FDR took us down the entitlement road, the Republicans have merrily followed.

Good point. I thought that Democrats like and encourage the redistribution of wealth.


Apparently they're suddenly conservative.... The thing that absolutely slays me in this discussion - and this very same discussion is going on at length in other boards, and forums that I follow - is this sudden breakdown into states of Red and Blue.

Democrats have started this massive smear campaign against THE RED STATES and are saying that the Reds suck up all the resources that THE BLUE STATES have so righteously earned with their incredibly sound work ethic, and dedication to the betterment of their society.

And not only are the Red states useless money-pits, filled with white-trash trailer-park dwelling leeches who are not only lazy and all living on the government dime - they're flat out STUPID.

BLUE = GOOD and KIND and HARDWORKING and SMART
RED = EVIL and MEAN and LAZY and STUPID


Is this is part of the Democrat Soul-Searching that they were talking about last week. Is this part of Gephardt's vision of working in the spirit of cooperation and bi-partisanship that can mend the Division that George W. Bush has so ruthlessly created singlehandedly?

Maybe I'm nuts, but I've never mended a gap by jamming a crowbar into it and yanking like all get out.



Perhaps the Democrats think that by increasing their smug condescention by several orders of magnitude, they can convince the people who voted Red to change to blue.

Perhaps these Democrats should invest a couple of dollars in some reading material.

 

[Ken King]

It seems clear to me that there is a lot more to it than that. What did Californias $219 bill go to? Texas' $140 bill?

Did you say, “Where did the money go?”

Breakdown between Defense Department and All Other Agencies
CA - $ 39,240,000,000/$ 180,466,000,000
TX - $ 30,354,000,000/$ 110,097,000,000

 

[MGKrebs]

I think you should eliminate DC from that set.

I will dig up the tax data later but here is the spending for a few areas. I took one small blue area and one closely populated red area, the largest blue area and the largest red area, and using 2003 data will show population versus federal expenditures.

Small blue – DC – 564,326 estimated population – $34.75 billion in expenditures.
Small red - ND – 633,837 estimated population - $ 5.73 billion in expenditures.
Largest blue – CA – 35,484,453 estimated population - $219.71 billion in expenditures.
Largest Red - TX – 22,118,509 estimated population - $140.45 billion in expenditures.

Per capita costs by those areas;
DC - $61,578
ND - $ 9, 040
CA - $ 6,192
TX - $ 6,350

I can draw a conclusion to this data, though it might not necessarily indicate a fact. It seems like the cost of governing is greatest were you have the least population that are also the most governed.

DC would be ALL federal money, wouldn't it?

 

[FromTexas]

DC would be ALL federal money, wouldn't it?

Yes, DC is an outlier and shouldn't be used. You are correct.

 

[MGKrebs]

Not certain I am following that completely but...

..what I am reading in your post is support of the argument 2a, Tex and I are making:

California, blue, higher gross dollars in, but lower on a per capita basis.
So, if the ONLY measure of greed is per capita spent in your state by the feds then, we lose the argument.

It seems clear to me that there is a lot more to it than that. What did Californias $219 bill go to? Texas' $140 bill?

MG, whenever individual tax policy in regards to tax rates is considered the LAST thing Democrats want to discuss is per capita becaue it exposes the outrage that such a small percentage of US citizens pay fantastically disproportionate taxes (unless your name is Kerry BTW) vs. the average, the per capita.

So, another way to make your argument is that, using the same parameters your map uses, those who pay more, much more, on a per capita basis, IE the rich, or 'blue' people are being sucked dry by the real greedy, or 'red' people; everyone else.

Thus, the argument supporters of confiscatory tax rates make; 'well, they can afford it!'

Summary; You, MG Krebs, are a supporter of the conservative view of tax policy and fairness!

Your honor, I rest my case!

(crowd cheers, Arsenio-esque whoop, whoops!!!)

Dang. Maybe I am a conservative. And here I was trying to convince ya'll that you were really liberals! Imagine that! Oh well.

I feel like the common ground available to discuss this further has eroded into the abyss, much like the federal surplus! Say, y'all may need to check in on 2nd Amendment. He seems to be wrapped a little tight. Hey 2A, have you got one of those sliding bookshelf things in the basement with all of your guns mounted on the wall behind on red felt fabric? That's always so cool in the movies.