red feeds on blue

[420BlackXJ]

This is interesting.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
Are you as pissed about this a I am.
And red states vote republican just in case you forgot.

Republicans feeding at the trough of blue states. Whoda thunk it.

 

[5spd_xj]

I enjoy these "studies" :laugh:

 

[scoutdoc]

i'm sure not much has changed since 2004:dunno:. right? this is a really old article

 

[Ralph]

What's your point?

 

[old_man]

My point is that if the numbers are true, then the people in the red states are smarter than those in the blue states.atriot:

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

My point is that if the numbers are true, then the people in the red states are smarter than those in the blue states.atriot:

:roflmao: X2!!!

Sounds like the democrats are a little slow :laugh:

 

[420BlackXJ]

The point is if you like this idea of wealth redistribution, maybe you think communism isn't such a bad idea.
Wealth redistribution is OK with you repubs, as long as the cash is flowing your way.
Talk about hypocritical, and repubs take the cake.
And you all think the dems are the guilty ones. Look in your own backyard. Fools.:eyes:

And so what if the article is old. The policy is the same.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

Like a typical liberal moron, you failed to think this through. Only a very tiny percentage of the population of each state actually make decisions regarding what and how much federal money (grants) to take. So are you arguing that the entirety of that tiny portion of the whole states' populations who receive more than they pay are republicans? Or that every other republican in that state agrees with the decisions to take the money as well? Either way, that's a profoundly retarded argument to try to make :roflmao:

Fool.

 

[420BlackXJ]

Like a typical liberal moron, you failed to think this through. Only a very tiny percentage of the population of each state actually make decisions regarding what and how much federal money (grants) to take. So are you arguing that the entirety of that tiny portion of the whole states' populations who receive more than they pay are republicans? Or that every other republican in that state agrees with the decisions to take the money as well? Either way, that's a profoundly retarded argument to try to make :roflmao:

Fool.

What are you talking about. All your fuzzy logic goes right out the window. Please try to stay on topic.
Why are those states poor? Could it be they have no progressive thinkers in their state government? Methinks so.

 

[Darky]

Hmmm...which red states were at the top of receiving?
Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama - 3 southern states that have fairly low populations in comparison to states like NY and CA and a lot of the blue states and therefore fewer people to pay taxes, industries that were largely rooted in fields that don't make much money anymore as times and tech have changed.

North and South Dakota and Montana - states which are lacking in profitable resources, free water (a LOT of money gets spent every year on irrigation projects for the midwest, southwest, and the west), and they're very cold states that lose a lot of the year to snow/freezing temps and can't produce much in agriculture

West Virginia, not much going on there

Alaska, under a million people in a very harsh environment. Again not many people to pay into taxes.

California is a state full of resources that took off as a center of many industries, starting back when it was a red state.

NY has the advantage of being one of the original 13 and a prime point of immigration over the years, leading to a huge head start in developing industry and financial centers.

Same can be said for a lot of New England as well.

Also keep in mind that a lot of the mid west is farming land, which the government has chosen to heavily subsidize. That would help to inflate the numbers quite a bit. And where did the idea of subsidizing farmers come from? Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He loved that idea so much that when his first attempt at passing a law was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, he wrote another one, worded differently, accomplishing the same goal.

 

[XJEEPER]

What's your point?

Karl Marx is cooler than all the Founding Fathers combined...... :doh:

 

[Ralph]

My question arises because there is no context. All the article compared was how much federal money each state received in relation to federal taxes collected. What was the money spent on? Without context, the information in the article is useless. Since the information is useless, what is the point?

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

The point is for liberal moron's like 420 to have something colorful to point at and feel better about themselves, duh. Try to keep up

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

What are you talking about. All your fuzzy logic goes right out the window. Please try to stay on topic.
Why are those states poor? Could it be they have no progressive thinkers in their state government? Methinks so.

I'm sorry your mushy liberal brain can't comprehend my critique or you're retarded argument.

And what states are you referring to when you ask why are "those" states poor? And I find it cute and hilarious that you think that a state's poor financial condition is because they have no "progressive" thinkers in their government :roflmao:

How about you educate yourself and go look up which states are in a poor financial state and which ones have been influenced more by liberal policies. You'll see a shocking correlation

 

[westvirginia24976]

West Virginia, not much going on there

:smootch:

 

[Rod Knee]

North and South Dakota and Montana - states which are lacking in profitable resources, free water (a LOT of money gets spent every year on irrigation projects for the midwest, southwest, and the west), and they're very cold states that lose a lot of the year to snow/freezing temps and can't produce much in agriculture

Normally your posts are well thought out, but you were just winging it here and missed the mark by quite a margin. Key phrases for you: spring wheat, petroleum, pheasant hunting.

 

[Darky]

So, how much do they make off all that? How much is that in comparison to other states? You'll probably still find that they have less going for them then other comparably sized states in more hospitable terrain. What's the annual precipitation, snow runoff, etc? And yes, I was just going off basic info I knew from being through the Dakotas once and looking at location...

 

[Rod Knee]

Right now ND and MT are having an oil boom, with ND soon to be no. 2 in petroleum production in the country. They can't hire enough people to work in the oil patch. The region produces most of the country's spring wheat, durum, flax, and sunflowers. The cattle up here are fat and happy for now, and there's more water than we need.

 

[Darky]

I see, I just noticed your location... Like I said, i was just kinda generalizing based on basic location. I stand by my low population remark.

 

[tbburg]

Is this really a "red state/blue state" issue? In theory, federal spending should be for projects the the individual states can not or will not fund.

A lot of federal spending is infrastructure related: highways, bridges, etc. If you're building/repaving, for example, I-90, the money spent in the individual states for their portion of the highway gets counted toward that state's share of the federal pie.

Does anybody honestly think South Dakota would fund it's portion of I-90 when the vast majority of traffic on -90 in interstate between Washington and the Wisconsin/Illinois/Indiana area?
Would Nevada fund it's portion of I-70? There is nothing east of Reno in Nevada that warrants a 4-lane highway. It only makes sense if you follow it east a long way outside the state.
Would the gulf coast states pay for port maintenance/upgrades knowing that most of the goods flowing through those ports are leaving the states as quickly as the trucks can be loaded(oh,. there's more internally useless highway funding,..)
How much less traffic would the west coast ports(San Diego, San Fransisco,Seattle/Tacoma) have if there were no infrastructure to trans-ship goods across the country?

Another large portion of federal spending is on military/defense. We never placed early warning radar in California just because there are a lot of tax payers there. We put it in Washington, Montana, North Dakota, and all over Canada(Gasp! They're not even in the US,.. why do we throw money up there?)

The fact that the federal government spends relatively more in states with lower populations kind of shows that the system is working the way it was intended.

If you have to get tied up int the whole "Red-vs-Blue" debate, here's some more relevant and entertaining information.