Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    no-man's land in Texas
    Posts
    2,168
    Quote Originally Posted by satanica View Post
    Cali is sending more money to the government than they get back, this is because there are many many red states that need help. They have governors that can't seem to govern.

    Now if those red states could get their act together, Cali would be able to keep more of their money.
    How do you explain away Texas, DUmb-ass?

    The reddest of red states, with a surplus?

    Fail.

    Checkmate.

    Game, set and match.

    I'll give you a hint...

    It's the part-time legislature. They spend less money.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Get rid of Ag subsidies. End of problem.

    I say this as somebody who has benefited from that program. It's a "loophole", not a strategic benefit nationally.

    If Ag subsidies ended, the huge multinational agribusinesses would lose but the flexible, small owners would be shocked into competition (which they do very well on most of their land, anyway).

    Do that and most of the Red State "benefits" would end. It's just not the case that Alamosa and Cripple Creek and Limon have hoards of pregnant teen drop-outs who require Federal dollars in benefits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    no-man's land in Texas
    Posts
    2,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    Get rid of Ag subsidies. End of problem.

    I say this as somebody who has benefited from that program. It's a "loophole", not a strategic benefit nationally.

    If Ag subsidies ended, the huge multinational agribusinesses would lose but the flexible, small owners would be shocked into competition (which they do very well on most of their land, anyway).

    Do that and most of the Red State "benefits" would end. It's just not the case that Alamosa and Cripple Creek and Limon have hoards of pregnant teen drop-outs who require Federal dollars in benefits.
    Don't forget, welfare is under the Dept. Of Ag. :eek:

    edit post to add; I agree. Most Ag producers take advantage of the "system". Believe me, I live with nothing but farmers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Destroyer of Worlds Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Locked in a Dungeon, being tortured and LOVING IT!
    Posts
    5,234
    Few things idiot.

    One, your link, Graph and study is... 7 years old. I'm sure its changed some as Cal. will be high now.

    Two understand what affects the outcome in this.

    From the site that did the survey.

    What affects the rankings?
    One factor affecting rankings is that federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful members of congress. Also, state governments can grab more federal grant money by manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.



    Another factor is demography. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements tend to rank high. Similarly, high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.



    Finally, states with higher incomes per capita—such as Connecticut—pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the income tax's progressive structure, which increases federal taxes per dollar of federal spending received in return.
    Also.

    1. D.C. ($6.17)
    Federal employees, black poverty, and Congressional self-pork (improving their own working neighborhood.) Deep blue.

    2. North Dakota ($2.03)
    Sparsely populated, with military bases and missile silos. Having a missile silo upwind or an Air Force base in the next county is not "feeding at the public trough." Yes, locals like bases because they help the economy, but the bulk of those massive military dollars do not reach the community (see missile silos, for instance), and the bulk of the benefits are shared by the entire nation. An Air Force base is different from local poverty payments or a billion dollar transit system, when it comes to benefiting the state residents. Possibly a larger proportion of retired people than elsewhere.

    3. New Mexico ($1.89)
    Evenly split red-blue. Military expenditures, and Indian reservations. Those Indians aren't "Red", and it may be that the "Reds" in NM are subsidizing the "blues." Note that on the military issue, they may be putting military bases in red states as a "pork" preference", but odds are that urban (blue) states can't fit them, or don't want them, and that putting a base anywhere causes the state to become more red, which is very different that saying that red states are feeding at the public trough (unless the law profs think that military personnel are trough feeders.) County data would be much more useful here. Incidentally, when the liberals spend federal money to environmentally control forest and other federal land in a state that opposes such control, is that really “trough feeding”?

    4. Mississippi ($1.84)
    A red state with large areas of poor black "blue" voters. Red tax payments providing subsidies to blue? Only local or county data can tell. Plus military.

    5. Alaska ($1.82)
    Sparse population, military expenditures, and an oddball.

    6. West Virginia ($1.74)
    "Ladies and Gentlemen, the Honorable Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)."

    7. Montana ($1.64)
    See ND.

    8. Alabama ($1.61)
    See MS

    9. South Dakota ($1.59)
    See ND, and consider the Honorable Thomas Daschle (D-SD)

    10. Arkansas ($1.53)
    See MS

    Of the above, I find one or two obvious cases of political pork, and that is due to the pull of a powerful Democrat.
    Rest In Peace America
    July 4, 1776 - January 20, 2009
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by satanica View Post
    So you think we should let the red states just fail and collapse?
    Abso-freakin'-lutely. ANY state (regardless of Left / Right leanings) that can't handle it's budget deserves to crash and burn. The Free People who reside in the productive states have no responsibility WHATSOEVER to the States who routinely piss money away on failed ideas (mostly Progressive ideas, mind you) like Medicare and Welfare.

    By the way, thanks for including my home state of Pennsylvania among the list of Socialism gobblers. It certainly is a tax and spend money waster (and Gov. Spendell will never get a damn budget approved) but MAN, what a red state we are!
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member enslaved1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kingman, Arizona, United States
    Posts
    1,221
    Just out of curiosity, and since Mr. Hit and Run has struck again, I take it from his changed subheading that it's been determined that satanica is not Supercrash, but this Blarch, or are they one and the same?
    Romans 6:18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

    Differences between Obama and God: God's plan to save us is actually written down for people to read. Rush Limbaugh.

    My blog: How Things Look From Here Politics, religion, random stuff, now on Wednesdays!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by satanica View Post
    So you think we should let the BLUE states just fail and collapse ?

    .
    Yep, no bailout money for you.

    Fixed
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •