Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bottom line is if the blue states redirected taxes paid to the Feds for use within their states they would be self sufficient. They don't need support from the Feds, and so they subsidize the states which do.
It is the RED states which do not generate revenues, and so depend on Federal gov't largesse.
THEY ARE SUBSIDIZED BY BLUE STATES.
So much for people who scream states rights and small government!
Also if the "liberal" policies pursued by blue states is so damaging to wealth creation, why is it that the areas with the most buoyant economies, with the exception of Texas, tend to be blue states? Listening to the loony right NYC ought to be Detroit, instead of being the major global city that it is.
So if the GOP has all the answers Alabama and Mississippi ought to be among the nation's wealthiest states, instead of the ones with some of the greatest concentrations of poverty!
Are they actually subsidized by the blue states?
Do you know what "wealth creation" means? ( No, I'm not talking about accumulating money, this has nothing to do with money).
What is the federal spending spent on?
Here's a "for instance". Utah has lost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars in commerce because of the federal government's prohibition on using the resources within it's boundaries. Why does this make Utah's people and their self governance bad?
Wyoming, on the other hand, has about 600K people. total.
And almost 99 thousands square miles. Larger than Utah. Yet, Wyoming has the least state debt of all states per capita. And New York, the most.
And Wyoming's revenue PER CAPITA is right about the middle.
And the federal government owns 42% of Wyoming.
Seriously, I don't think anyone has a point in Red states being "welfare" states. Quite the opposite, they seem to be well run and responsible with their own money.
And you don't get "redder" than Wyoming.
People have been furnishing data about the states which receive the most from the Feds on a net basis, and those which have the highest poverty and lowest rates of educational attainment.
It is clear that the Red States depend MORE on Federal expenditures than do blue states. Its also clear that the people who live in red states are poorer, hungrier, less educated and less healthy.
Now rather than picking and chosing between various states why don't you deal with the issue in its entirety? Why using most measures of socio economic attainment is Texas worse off than New York? They both attract huge pools of poor immigrants, and have large numbers of impoverished native minorities. Why is NYC a global city and neither Houston nor Dallas are?
Do you know what "wealth creation" means? ( No, I'm not talking about accumulating money, this has nothing to do with money).
What is the federal spending spent on?
Here's a "for instance". Utah has lost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars in commerce because of the federal government's prohibition on using the resources within it's boundaries. Why does this make Utah's people and their self governance bad?
So tell us why Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are so poor? Why are New Yorkers more educated than Texans, and more likely to have access to health insurance?
The bulk of the federal expenditures are on social security, and Medicare (not welfare programs), and we can add defense and debt service.
Aside from Medicaid expenditures, programs which benefit the poor are not a major part of federal expenditures. Indeed the assorted farm support programs are a major reason why red states benefit from the feds.
You can skip and jump and do all you wish, but you cannot avoid the fact that the poorest states in this country are almost ALL RED! And have been for quite a while too!
Something that has always bothered me about this 'welfare' red state theory. Does it separate things like military bases out of the equation? Red states do seem to have a large number of them. Or Federal owned land and the money to support that? Does supporting military bases and Federally owned land constitute 'welfare' to the states? Personally, I don't think those two things should be counted towards the states as 'welfare'.
When I think 'welfare' states, I think about payments to support the people in those states via government programs (e.g. TANF, Food stamps, Medicaid, etc). What does it look like once you analyze it for that? Are red states still taking in more money then?
As an aside, this isn't me arguing one way or the other but a genuine request for this information.
Something that has always bothered me about this 'welfare' red state theory. Does it separate things like military bases out of the equation? Red states do seem to have a large number of them. Or Federal owned land and the money to support that? Does supporting military bases and Federally owned land constitute 'welfare' to the states? Personally, I don't think those two things should be counted towards the states as 'welfare'.
When I think 'welfare' states, I think about payments to support the people in those states via government programs (e.g. TANF, Food stamps, Medicaid, etc). What does it look like once you analyze it for that? Are red states still taking in more money then?
As an aside, this isn't me arguing one way or the other but a genuine request for this information.
Take a look at Mississippi and Alabama and then decide for yourself. Those states have some of the greatest concentrations of poverty, as do others like West Virginia.
Nita.
please post the money the feds get in from each state and how much they return; .. that is the real issue;
But it's not the real issue.
Money spent on an Air Force base in Alaska isn't "Federal welfare disproportionately spent on the Alaskan people" which is how *******s frame the issue.
Air Force/Army bases, Federally maintained lands and railways/highways in Red states obviously provide non-monetary benefits for all Americans.
Bottom line is if the blue states redirected taxes paid to the Feds for use within their states they would be self sufficient. They don't need support from the Feds, and so they subsidize the states which do.
It is the RED states which do not generate revenues, and so depend on Federal gov't largesse.
They "depend on gov't largesse"..?
Yes I'm sure Nevada would fall to pieces without the Feds paying for all those Federally controlled grazing lands and secret Air Force bases...
Take a look at Mississippi and Alabama and then decide for yourself. Those states have some of the greatest concentrations of poverty, as do others like West Virginia.
I've always considered West Virginia a blue state that only went red for the election due to Obama's stance on coal. Perhaps it's more urban vs. rural states that's the primary difference versus red vs. blue states. If that was the case, it would make sense.
Money spent on an Air Force base in Alaska isn't "Federal welfare disproportionately spent on the Alaskan people" .................
Air Force/Army bases, Federally maintained lands and railways/highways in Red states obviously provide non-monetary benefits for all Americans.
This is a lot of it. Many who make these comparisons totally ignore the vast tracts of non-taxed real estate in many of these states. Admittedly, military bases create a sort of leverage in an area (witness NAS PAX in MD) but the acres and acres of nothing but acres and acres out West really don't.
Isn't this what the whole Bundy affair was really about in some aspects?
Money spent on an Air Force base in Alaska isn't "Federal welfare disproportionately spent on the Alaskan people" which is how *******s frame the issue.
Air Force/Army bases, Federally maintained lands and railways/highways in Red states obviously provide non-monetary benefits for all Americans.
Really? Air force and army bases also create engines for substantial civilian employment (not for ALL Americans..for LOCALS). Would anyone not correlate NOVA's growth with the growth of the Federal government?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
