Rant

[Train]

I still havent seen any hard data backing up these claims that "Blue states pull more weight"

If anyone can pull up some per-capita data on federal (not state) funds in and out of each state, then we can talk.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Surprisingly DC and Maryland ranked top for per capita spending in terms of federal dollars. In DC they spend 61,000 per person which is 10x the national avg. For every tax dollar that was taken from citizens of DC. They spent 6.90 on them.

DC should really just be tossed out of this discussion though, I mean, its a tiny little land mass, and since its the nations capital, the funds spent there are mostly for monuments, federal programs, security, etc, money that benifits the locals directly is much less than $61,000 per person. DC's numbers are just too skewed.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Train
]DC should really just be tossed out of this discussion though, I mean, its a tiny little land mass, and since its the nations capital, the funds spent there are mostly for monuments, federal programs, security, etc, money that benifits the locals directly is much less than $61,000 per person. DC's numbers are just too skewed.

Besides, how much of that money went just to Marion Berry's rehab programs?

 

[cwjerome]

The "rant" displays a startling display of ignorance and intolerance... I'm impressed.

I'm sure his worth just went up a couple notches in the elitist circles.

 

[judasmachine]

All those founding fathers you seem to love so much used to go out and slaughter my fathers, you founded america? good, then you are the enemy. All, the wealth of the south was made on the backs of slaves, those who were brought here against their will, and forced to labor while your fathers sat on their asses. So all I see is a big bloated empire ready to die on the blades of those it's wronged. Blacks, Indians, Asians, Muslims, etc. This country was not built with ingenuity, it was built by slaves, and wage slaves. The secret to getting rich is not to work hard, it's to make others work hard for you. But remember those people will not work hard for you, forever.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Train
I still havent seen any hard data backing up these claims that "Blue states pull more weight".

If anyone can pull up some per-capita data on federal (not state) funds in and out of each state, then we can talk.

Start talking.

Prof. Paul L. Caron, Charles Hartsock Professor of Law and Director of Faculty Projects at Univ. of Cincinnati College of Law reports the HARD DATA here:

Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):


States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

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

These figures come from this report by the Tax Foundation, which fully outlines it's sources and methodology:

As of September 23, 2004 the U.S. Census Bureau had not yet published its federal spending data for 2003. As a result, this analysis makes use of 2002 Census Bureau data as well as revised 2002 data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. As soon as the 2003 Census Bureau data becomes available the Tax Foundation will published a full updated version of its federal taxing and spending by state report.

So, Train, despite Genx87's bald faced statement, "Bunch of conjecture in there.", it turns out that Zebo's contention was solidly based in fact.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Train
I still havent seen any hard data backing up these claims that "Blue states pull more weight".

If anyone can pull up some per-capita data on federal (not state) funds in and out of each state, then we can talk.

Start talking.

Prof. Paul L. Caron, Charles Hartsock Professor of Law and Director of Faculty Projects at Univ. of Cincinnati College of Law reports the HARD DATA here:

Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):


States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

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

These figures come from this report by the Tax Foundation, which fully outlines it's sources and methodology:

As of September 23, 2004 the U.S. Census Bureau had not yet published its federal spending data for 2003. As a result, this analysis makes use of 2002 Census Bureau data as well as revised 2002 data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. As soon as the 2003 Census Bureau data becomes available the Tax Foundation will published a full updated version of its federal taxing and spending by state report.

So, Train, despite Genx87's bald faced statement, "Bunch of conjecture in there.", it turns out that Zebo's contention was solidly based in fact.

Hmmm so many of the Red Staters are Dead Weighters!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Perknose
So, Train, despite Genx87's bald faced statement, "Bunch of conjecture in there.", it turns out that Zebo's contention was solidly based in fact.

Well, I'm convinced. I guess the entire NE region should just secede from the rest of the uncivilized part of the nation. I mean, they have been carrying us on their backs for *so* long, they deserve a break. And I'm sure Nebraska and the other farming states will be willing to sell you guys some food at very *reasonable* prices. And good luck building those 3.6 million sqft. automobile plants in downtown New York. Oh, that's right, you guys are all going to give up oil and ride around on bicycles and Segways. :thumbsup:

See ya soon!

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
*yawn* What was the point in this?

Yes, Southerners are hypocrites and are basically up to the same crap they were in the Civil War.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Perknose
So, Train, despite Genx87's bald faced statement, "Bunch of conjecture in there.", it turns out that Zebo's contention was solidly based in fact.

Well, I'm convinced. I guess the entire NE region should just secede from the rest of the uncivilized part of the nation. I mean, they have been carrying us on their backs for *so* long, they deserve a break. And I'm sure Nebraska and the other farming states will be willing to sell you guys some food at very *reasonable* prices. And good luck building those 3.6 million sqft. automobile plants in downtown New York. Oh, that's right, you guys are all going to give up oil and ride around on bicycles and Segways. :thumbsup:

See ya soon!

We get this same 'argument' in Canada all the time; Ontario, (particularly Toronto) gets called a leech on our society, so someone points out that Ontario and Alberta (and sometimes BC) supply all of the net tax dollars spent in the other 7 (sometimes 8) provinces in the country. Then that person continues by saying we don't feel this is unjustified, but we do think it makes the bitching unjustified.

Then someone says 'why don't you just leave then' when the facts of the argument are clearly not on their side.

Someone pointed out that California isn't a NE state, but it does produce a great deal of food; there's a frequent assumption that since something is a primary industry for a state/province (like farming in Nebraska, or Saskatchewan in Canada) that place must have a large effect on the supply for that industry. California produces more food than any farming state, and Ontario grows more crops than the Canadian prairies.

And none of that means the states/provinces have any desire to secede, or that they would be better off doing so. It just means that they easily pull their weight.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Perknose
So, Train, despite Genx87's bald faced statement, "Bunch of conjecture in there.", it turns out that Zebo's contention was solidly based in fact.

Well, I'm convinced. I guess the entire NE region should just secede from the rest of the uncivilized part of the nation. I mean, they have been carrying us on their backs for *so* long, they deserve a break. And I'm sure Nebraska and the other farming states will be willing to sell you guys some food at very *reasonable* prices. And good luck building those 3.6 million sqft. automobile plants in downtown New York. Oh, that's right, you guys are all going to give up oil and ride around on bicycles and Segways. :thumbsup:

See ya soon!

Not MY argument at all. You conveniently forget that I'm a liberal, and a firm believer in the United States of America.

It has been a little tiring, though, these past years, hearing certain segments of our great country proclaiming themselves the REAL Americans and continually questioning my patriotism and morals, when, as it turns out, in the aggregate they divorce more often than the liberal citizens of the state of Massachusettes and are the real federal welfare queens.

You'd think the actual facts would severely embarrass these hypocritical haters and shut them the hell up, but I'm not counting on it.

Red state, Blue state crap is just that, CRAP, and divisive crap at that. We have achieved our preeminence in the world as Americans. We fight and die as Americans.

Yet there are those who take a 51% win, one of the five closest Presidential elections in the entire history of our nation, and proclaim that their personal views repreesent the real and the only America, and that they will rule our country untrammeled and unopposed for the next 60 years. CRAP, all crap.

 

[Chadder007]

BAN...im offended.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Perknose
So, Train, despite Genx87's bald faced statement, "Bunch of conjecture in there.", it turns out that Zebo's contention was solidly based in fact.

Well, I'm convinced. I guess the entire NE region should just secede from the rest of the uncivilized part of the nation. I mean, they have been carrying us on their backs for *so* long, they deserve a break. And I'm sure Nebraska and the other farming states will be willing to sell you guys some food at very *reasonable* prices. And good luck building those 3.6 million sqft. automobile plants in downtown New York. Oh, that's right, you guys are all going to give up oil and ride around on bicycles and Segways. :thumbsup:

See ya soon!

We get this same 'argument' in Canada all the time; Ontario, (particularly Toronto) gets called a leech on our society, so someone points out that Ontario and Alberta (and sometimes BC) supply all of the net tax dollars spent in the other 7 (sometimes 8) provinces in the country. Then that person continues by saying we don't feel this is unjustified, but we do think it makes the bitching unjustified.

Then someone says 'why don't you just leave then' when the facts of the argument are clearly not on their side.

Someone pointed out that California isn't a NE state, but it does produce a great deal of food; there's a frequent assumption that since something is a primary industry for a state/province (like farming in Nebraska, or Saskatchewan in Canada) that place must have a large effect on the supply for that industry. California produces more food than any farming state, and Ontario grows more crops than the Canadian prairies.

And none of that means the states/provinces have any desire to secede, or that they would be better off doing so. It just means that they easily pull their weight.

I know, I was just mimicing the OP's sentiment, as he gave off the impression that the NE is the only area that matters to the country, being filled with monuments and all.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Well, I'm convinced. I guess the entire NE region should just secede from the rest of the uncivilized part of the nation. I mean, they have been carrying us on their backs for *so* long, they deserve a break. And I'm sure Nebraska and the other farming states will be willing to sell you guys some food at very *reasonable* prices. And good luck building those 3.6 million sqft. automobile plants in downtown New York. Oh, that's right, you guys are all going to give up oil and ride around on bicycles and Segways. :thumbsup:

See ya soon!

Not MY argument at all. You conveniently forget that I'm a liberal, and a firm believer in the United States of America.

It has been a little tiring, though, these past years, hearing certain segments of our great country proclaiming themselves the REAL Americans and continually questioning my patriotism and morals, when, as it turns out, in the aggregate they divorce more often than the liberal citizens of the state of Massachusettes and are the real federal welfare queens.

You'd think the actual facts would severely embarrass these hypocritical haters and shut them the hell up, but I'm not counting on it.

Red state, Blue state crap is just that, CRAP, and divisive crap at that. We have achieved our preeminence in the world as Americans. We fight and die as Americans.

Yet there are those who take a 51% win, one of the five closest Presidential elections in the entire history of our nation, and proclaim that their personal views repreesent the real and the only America, and that they will rule our country untrammeled and unopposed for the next 60 years. CRAP, all crap.

I agree. But ranting and raving from the other side doesn't 'balance' anything out, however. You don't hear too many 'reasonable' people decalring the blue states or whatever to be hotbeds of immorality and detrimental to the nation, so claiming the opposite just puts you into that same little padded room as them. Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say (but they do make a left.)

I'm a firm believer in the idea that this nation is great because of its diversity, not in spite of it. I welcome all you tree-hugging liberals with open arms, even if I don't agree with some of the things in which you believe. I have no doubt that the majority of us want what best for the nation, even if we don't agree on how to get there, or where "there" even is. Minor details, as long as we are all on the same side, IMO.

 

[Genx87]

So, Train, despite Genx87's bald faced statement, "Bunch of conjecture in there.", it turns out that Zebo's contention was solidly based in fact.

That wasnt the only thing I am thinking is conjecture.

But you cant take per capita and total amount of cash outlays. You need to look at both. While States like ND, SD,Montana, New Mexico on avg get more money per capita. Their populations are signifiacantly less and thus the actual outlays are much less than what the blue states on the bottom are getting.

The one thing I learned from what I saw was there are two sides to this tail.

An analogy would be Sweden having a higher per capita spending when it comes to aid to other countries. Does that make Sweden better or worse than the US? On paper it sounds better than the US.

But the US spends about an x amount more on world aid than Sweden. When it comes down to it if things were equal in terms of population Sewden would be better. But since they arent they cant feed as many people.

The same can be applied to the blue and red states. The red states getting aid are doing it on a higher per capita basis but since their is x amount less the actual outlays are less.

On thing that is interesting. The report I read from the census bereau only put agricultural aid at 5.1% of federal outlays. While health and human services consisted of 56.4%.

On thing that I did find interesting in the northern red states like Montana, ND, and SD. A large % of their federal aid goes to highway costs.

 

[ForThePeople]

Just thought that I'd give some more data to answer the question about where the blue states would get their food. Simple answer? We already make it....

From the Department of Agriculture website at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/F...e/50State/50stmenu.htm

"Net returns to operators earned from the production of goods and services in the agricultural sector" which means farm output, ie who produces the most.

1) California - 13.9%
2) Texas - 6.63%
3) Iowa - 5.3%
4) North Carolina - 4.8%
5) Florida - 4.2%

The next states, in order but without percentages, are:

Illinois
Nebraska
Minnesota
Georgia
Washington

What is interesting is that if you take California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Washington (all blue states) - you get 26.3% of all US production.

We'd be self-sufficient. Just like we are with our tax dollars while you cheap-labor conservatives suck down government money as fast as you can get your hands on it. What was that line of yours about being "self-reliant?"

 

[Genx87]

Btw your link doesnt appear to work.

26.3% of the production possibly. But what % of the United States population lives in the blue states?

 

[AntiEverything]

ForThePeople

Look at the county map of the US. All that food grown is blue states is coming out of red counties.

Remember, just because a state is red or blue doesn't mean that 100% of that state is.

 

[Vic]

I've known this for years, that cities pay for the rural areas (and not the other way around like the arrogant rural-ites like to claim). Proof of this to me occurred here in Oregon in the late 90s where half of Oregon's population is centered in the Portland metro area, while the other half is spread out through mostly rural areas throughout the rest of the state. For years, the rural areas tried to claim in Salem that their money went to the urban areas. So the state conducted a study. Surprise, surprise, it turned out that it was the ruralites sucking the money. The urbanites made more money and paid more taxes while the ruralites were sucking down more government dollars per capita.

The solution to this is simple btw. The Blue States need to lead a tax revolt. The city people and the Democrats, instead of being pro-tax as they have been, need to switch back to anti-tax and quit being the Red States' cash cow. And as the Pubs have already coded in (via marketing) the idea that "tax cuts" are the same as "moral issues", they would get slaughtered.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything
ForThePeople

Look at the county map of the US. All that food grown is blue states is coming out of red counties.

Remember, just because a state is red or blue doesn't mean that 100% of that state is.

Doesn't matter as the 2 groups are interdependent. Farmers would go bankrupt in a hurry if they didn't have city folks to sell their foodstuffs to, same as the city folks would starve. In other words, this "who makes the food" argument is pretty much moot.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Fusk the South. Fusk 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.

Stopped reading right there. This author is ignorant...period. The South fought for states' rights....the same thing so many of you "libertarians" are also shrieking for. Slavery was on the way out regardless.

Thanks, Zebo, for sharing with us this guy's ignorance. I hope it was cathartic or something and you managed to save on your weekly therapy bill.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Stopped reading right there. This author is ignorant...period. The South fought for states' rights....the same thing so many of you "libertarians" are also shrieking for. Slavery was on the way out regardless.

Thanks, Zebo, for sharing with us this guy's ignorance. I hope it was cathartic or something and you managed to save on your weekly therapy bill.

Right, right... the same way the Southerners still call it the "The War of Northern Aggression" when they fired the first shots. :roll:

The states' rights that the South was fighting for was the right to make every new territory entering the US a slave state. While slavery may have been on the way out, it universally accepted by historians that the South would never had freed the slaves short of war. The Southern treatment of the blacks following the Civil War more or less proves this.

But thank you for sharing YOUR ignorance.

 

[Emveach]

So the Blue states pay the most for everyone else? Isn't that what Kery wanted? Wasn't he going to remove the tax cuts for the rich, so they would be paying more then the middle class?

Looks like its already going on, and now we have liberals complaining about it.

 

[TMPadmin]

It seems to me that everyone upset about the election really doesn't site any reason why they are so upset? Not to mention that EVERY post on this and other forums from "liberals" (sorry for the generalization) all contain profanity. Can't you speak without swearing?

Zebo, you didn't really say anything about what you want, you just complained. Seems like much of the Democratic Party is this way. There is no action or even vision, just bashing of what currently is. You didn't give any solution either. Just complained. I am getting bored with the posts about how everything is so bad now.

You know, this is a great country. If Arnold can become Gov I'm positive you can make something of yourself (assuming you are still "young" here - I'm not implying anything negative). Get into politics, one day YOU can be President. Make a difference if you see something is wrong. Wouldn't that be great!? I'm not being sarcastic here either. I might be rambling so I'll stop.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The "rant" displays a startling display of ignorance and intolerance... I'm impressed.

I'm sure his worth just went up a couple notches in the elitist circles.

For a second I thought you wrote it...