Two Americas: for how much longer can we prop-up the failed "Blue" America?

10/31/03

[Snidely Whiplash]

Still, it is interesting that the more liberal states, the ones we like to make fun of, tend to also generate more money.

Could be because those areas (esp. on a county-by-county basis) tend to be more densely populated, i.e. cities and other heavily developed areas, than the areas that voted for GWB in 2000. More people=more money in a raw sense. Why do those urban areas tend to be more liberal? Simply put, they're denser, and rely more on government regulations & services.

It makes the picture slightly more complex than you presented above.

< sarcasm > Fool! You think this isn't necessarily a black-and-white issue? You must be a Communist or DU disruptor or something!< /sarcasm>

Snidely

[Snidely Whiplash]

For instance, farm subsidies benefit any one who eats food.

True enough. Other subsidies have benefits as well - roads subsidies benefit anyone who travels; educational subsidies benefit...somebody, I'm sure; Medicare and Medicaid benefit the health-care industry and those who are able to receive medical attention as a result; and tax credits (effectively subsidies) benefit small business owners, parents, and anyone who gets a college education, to name a few.

It's all really a matter of perspective, innit? Or is it?

Snidely

[Question_Assumptions]

Also, all of those wonderful federal parks, federal highways, federal dams, and other big federal projects built throughout the mid-West and West give me very little payback (other than the ability to see nice scenery when I vacation). Factor in the cost of living (those dollars are worth more in New Mexico than they are in New Jersey), the side benefits (relatively cheap hydroelectric power), the lower levels of social problems, and simply the sheer volume of tax dollars the New Jersey sends to DC and you'll be hard pressed to show that New Jersey is reaping benefits comparable to the loss. I know that a lot of Freepers have a preconceived notion that the "blue" states are a net liability but it just isn't so in most cases (with a large exception being DC, itself).

[Eaker]

Another step in that direction everyday.

[Poohbah]

Almost every dollar the US Government spends, whether it's a direct payment to an individual through a subsidy program, to build an interstate highway, or to pay some bureaucrat's salary is spent in some state. (Foriegn aid is an exception.)

Even a lot of "foreign aid" is spent here in the USA--much of it comes with a proviso that it is to be used for goods and services produced here.

[Jack Black]

Well I'd like to see the detailed math. The US Army is not the same as block grants for welfare is not the same as the Los Alamos labs is not the same as building nuclear submarines is not the same as having lots of retired people collecting social security. One only has to live in a place like NY to know that huge numbers of unproductive citizens are living off the fat of the land. I don't think you can say this about places like Wyoming. So before I give any weight to supposed "69c out of every $1" I'd like to see (and contemplate) the breakdown.

[Jack Black]

Who is John Galt? I have no idea. I see this pop up from time to time. It's some kinda inside joke. Could you please explain it to me, and others who didn't attend the party where the joke originated.

[Jack Black]

Who is John Galt? I have no idea. I see this pop up from time to time. It's some kinda inside joke. Could you please explain it to me, and others who didn't attend the party where the joke originated.

[Jack Black]

The link in Post 39 is broken.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

It used to be the Democrats were red like their communist and socialist cousins, and Republicans were the blue team. The leftist media hijacked our color saying they're giving blue to the incumbents. Bush is the incumbent now and I would like our color back!

That's what I have been saying for a long time. Commies are red bump!

[Qwinn]

My guesses for why the blue states make more money than the red states:

1) At some point their blue legislatures stuck in significantly higher local and state taxes. This increases the cost of production, therefore retail prices rise to compensate, therefore wages increase to get enough workers who can afford the prices, blah blah blah. Net result - higher cost of living, and higher wages. Fact is, the blue states pay twice as much for everything, and earn almost twice as much as workers in the red states. They're two different economies, one much more inflated than the other due to local taxes. But "progressive" tax rates bite the guy in NY a hell of a lot harder than the guy in the south.

2) Along the same lines: Assume people prefer to live outside of cities than in cities. I think this is true, all other things being equal. But the cities are also where the big corporations are. What do employers need to do to make employees deal with the smog, long commutes, etc.? Pay them more. Blue states have a higher urban to rural ratio, therefore, once again, their citizens are paid higher, deal with a higher cost of living, and pay unfairly higher "progressive" federal taxes for the same basic services.

3) Do the dollars sent in and out of a state include corporate taxes as well as income tax? If so, factor them in - I would guess they pay a great deal in taxes but don't require much additional infrastrucure compared to each individual taxpayer.

4) I would guess that most of the military spending is going to be in the red states, with the HUUUUUGE... tracts of land.

5) Outrageously oversized farming subsidies.

Just my guesses.

Qwinn

[Rummyfan]

This next round they will pull out all the stops. The hate and lies and vote fraud will be unprecedented.

Bears repeating. 2004 will be the ugliest meanest political year in the history of the Republic. Just look at the rhetoric spouted in the 'debates' so far.

[Jack Black]

D.C. is the worst. $5.00 in for every $1.00 out.

[Rummyfan]

ATLAS SHRUGGED

[backhoe]

Just an off the cuff ( and probably off the wall ) comment?

I have long wished we could split America in two-- one nation of "Just let me aloners" and the other of "I want the government to be my Mom & Daddy..."

Unfortunately, the latter require the money and labor of the former, so it would never stand for long.

[Question_Assumptions]

So before I give any weight to supposed "69c out of every $1" I'd like to see (and contemplate) the breakdown.

Do the research yourself or pay me a consulting fee to do it for you. There is only so much research I'll do for free.

Yes, you can argue that dollars are not equal but bear in mind that New Jersey does have military facilities as well (Fort Monmouth, Earl, Picatinny, McGuire, as well as federal employees in various agencies). And a heck of a lot of welfare gets sent into the "red" states. I know this is counter-intuitive for many Freepers but it really isn't difficult to understand. It's all about income.

If you look at average Median incomes (for example, here), you'll see an average income in Kentucky of $39,300 but $63,800 in New Jersey. New Jersey has about 8.6 million people while Kentucky has only about 4 million. Now, consider that the tax brackets for Federal income tax are not indexed for the cost of living. That means that fewer of those 4 million Kentuckians are even paying taxes. They are paying less in taxes. And there are less of them paying it. This is so obvious for conservatives when it comes to explaining why the poor didn't get a tax cut.

Poor people pay less in taxes. The people in the rural South, rural Midwest, and rural West are poorer than the people on the coast and in the cities. There are fewer of them in the same physical area. It is more expensive to do things like build roads, sewers, or electrical and phone lines and it takes longer to visit each person because each person is father apart (this is where the rural "Baby Bell" USWest got screwwed). Put it all together. This isn't that difficult to see once you stop assuming that rural living is cheap. Ask USWest/Qwest how cheap it is running a rural utility compared to an urban utility.

[So Cal Rocket]

Should I assume that since you don't seem to be troubled by redistribution that you aren't troubled by going into debt to play Santa Claus?

Oh, I'm very troubled by the by the debt being incurred by the US Government and all the State Governments and local municipalities. In my mind the ONLY programs that should be funded by debt are those for which the benefits accrue over a period of time (i.e., roads, dams, buildings). You should never go into debt to meet recurring expenditures.

I personally only use debt financing on things that for which I will derive a benefit on over time (home, second house, car). I never use debt to finance my recurring expenditures (groceries, electricity, Santa Claus). If only the Government would manage their money the same way.

[Brilliant]

You're addressing a different issue. My point is that we should not bail them out when they mismanage. I was not criticizing them because they don't send enough to Washington. By analogy, I would not want the federal government to bail out a billionaire if he got into financial trouble. That's not the same as criticizing him because of how much he pays in taxes.

[Question_Assumptions]

Try this or this

They are PDFs. I couldn't find an HTML version quickly, though you can Google search the links and probably see an HTML version that way.