bkmk
Once the dollars spent on national defense for EVERYBODY are weeded out, the picture changes again, dramatically.
Ah, reddit will never believe this. They’re all convinced that all blue states are carrying all red states.
A much quicker solution is to stop supplying cities with food and other necessities. By the way, if there was a CWII it wouldn’t be between red and blue states, north and south, or east and west. Most of the nation is red. The small blue parts don’t make a damn thing worth any value, at least to me. Just cut them off.
bkmk
The Tax Foundation used to compile these reports. Many high-income earners live in blue states, yet blue staters keep voting to send more money to Washington, so then Washington can redistribute it around the country. I never understood these voters.
So... how would a national divorce work?
I did not see it specifically in the article, but does the federal spending in each state include military bases, shipyards, etc. or is it just federal funding to states and entitlements?
Then they retire to Red States and take their Social Security dollars with them. They pay less taxes too.
Let me count the savings.
By breaking with socialist politics, red states will save with a massive reduction in DEI, BLM, Public college and k-12 reorganization to stop the BS.
Cutting red tape.
Pumping oil and increased used of NG, clean coal and nuclear power will destroy the Blue states as they strangletheir middleclass with GREEN....
Just the tip of the waste.
Two words fossil fuels and foods.
Blue states, and more accurately blue CITIES in all states, are net users of energy, food, water, waste disposal, and virtually all other resources.
Contrary to what Citifried economists like Ed Glaeser say, cities are net importers of virtually everything they rely upon for survival. In exchange, they export sewage, nuclear waste, air and water pollution, etc. to the countryside. This Keynesian calculus treats all economic activity as equally valuable, whether it is saving lives or rebuilding a hopelessly floodprone New Orleans after Katrina (courtesy of Bush the Idiot).
The “monetary” flows merely disguise the true story by considering goods and bads as fungible substitutes.
How long would any city survive if it had to grow all of its own food, provide all of its own water and electricity and absorb all of its own waste?
The “country” could last indefinitely without the contributions of the “city,” but not vice-versa. Our much-vaunted urbanization is a one-way arrow to a very unpleasant destination.
I'm from Mississippi originally, the top of the often cited red state list that receives more federal dollars than it sends in. Correlation doesn't equal causation however. Mississippi may be red but 40% of the population is african american and vote almost exclusively democrat. They're also mostly on some form of welfare. That's where all that federal money is going when it pours into Mississippi. So yes, Mississippi is a red state because the other 60% votes mostly republican, but the vast majority of the federal money goes to people who vote democrat. It's not correct to say a red state gets the money because ultimately the money goes to people, not the state, and the people who are sucking up the money don't vote republican.
“Rep. Greene’s Twitter critics are clearly very enthusiastic about portraying Americans in red states as impoverished unsophisticated welfare queens unable to get by without wealth transfers from the blue states.”
Then these critics should be fully on board with Rep Green’s proposal. Right?
EC
That is the wrong way to look at it. A red state nation devoid of all connections to the USA would flourish ecomically. The red countrty economy would mushroom, lifting all boats. The key to prosperity is freedom and a little protectionism.
Of course the data doesn’t back it up.. and a lot of those blue states get bonus income due to things related to red states.
IE NY financial gets boon from economic activities of all states.
West Coast gets boon from all the imports for ALL states through their ports.
The idea that blue states are wholesale subsidizing red states is nonsense.
This analysis omits two of the three big ares of Federal expenditure, and gets the third wrong.
I don’t have current numbers, but, from the most recent numbers I’ve seen, the three big areas of Federal expenditure are: Redeeming Federal bonds, food stamps, and social security/medicare.
Since buying Government bonds is not a tax, in an assessment of taxation, it wouldn’t count. However, redeeming Government bonds is an expenditure. If these were included in a comparison of taxation with expenditure, it would create the illusion that people who buy government bonds are a pure drain on the system. Actually, people who buy Government bonds are helping to hold the roof up. So some care would be needed to include this. However, without it, you can’t get a picture of the Government’s cash flows.
Food stamps are a pure payment by the Federal Government, which go into an area. If you’re going to look at Government cash flows, this has to be included.
This analysis includes, apparently, both Social Security taxes, and SS payments. But (mostly) the taxes come from the place where someone lived while he worked, the payments go to where he retired. If someone works in New York, but retires to Alabama, the revenue come from New York, and the payments go to Alabama. That doesn’t make Alabama a beneficiary of New York, it makes it a retirement community for New Yorkers. I’ve heard a lot of stories of people retiring to places with low taxes, low crime, and a low cost of living. This mostly means that people either retire in place, or retire to red states. To claim that the red states are supported by the states where people don’t want to retire, is to create an illusion. What this actually means is that red states are better places to live.