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.
What are the "blue cities" in Mississippi, North Dakota, etc? I agree that everything is not always what it seems (what ever is?) but the big factor in some states getting 200% of their taxes back is both welfare and the farm bill. And guess what? The vast majority of the farm bill goes to a small handful of millionaire farmers, not the mom and pops. It's OK to admit error occasionally without having to always play "6-degrees of it's liberals fault".
For example Jackson Mississippi is having a huge crime problem, high homeless population, high unemployment, and a high % of welfare recipients in their urban neighborhoods.
Mississippi is considered a "Red State", but most of the Federal Tax money is going towards the more blue urban areas in Jackson, Mississippi.
Jackson's Mayor is also a Liberal Democrat and admits they have a huge problem.
"For a liberal Democratic African American mayor to consider homeless people as vagrants is a way to defame an entire group of people," Stoops said.
Some prosecutors have objected to Melton's practice of putting on police gear and picking up a shotgun, and his habit of taking crime witnesses into his home in a sort of self-styled witness protection program. And some business leaders say the state of emergency is hurting the city's image.
"We do support the mayor in what he's trying to do. Crime is a major problem," said MetroJackson Chamber of Commerce Chairman Eddie Maloney. "The only problem we have is the state of emergency tag. It gives a negative context to the city."
Melton said he knows his tactics are not popular with everyone, but he sees his approach as the only salvation from a crime rate that is nearly twice the national average
Actually more federal spending goes to infrastructure than handouts, which are used by both liberals and conservatives in red states (handouts also go to farmers and agriculture related subsidies, which is another story)
What I really want to know is how did you get the data that federal spending only goes to liberals and not conservatives in red states? Does the federal government have policies telling red states to allow only liberals to use federal funded roads and bridges, and redirect conservative traffic to dirt roads or state highways?
Also, it is amusing that you can tell that not all folks in the red state are red, but when it comes to rich ppl in blue states, you make the assumption they are all blue? How do you know that the rich in the blue states don't have a mix of conservatives, and that they also deserve to be chastise for not giving more to charity?
It's common knowledge the highest percentage of voters are Liberal in the Larger Cities like New York and Los Angeles, but they don't give the same PERCENTAGE of their income to charity as the "Red States" do.
I was talking about social programs, which is what I thought you were implying.
If you want to talk about Federal Funding of roads/infrastructure the "Blue States" receive less in Federal Funds for roads, because they are able to pay more in to State Tax Revenues, due to their higher populations and higher incomes.
They don't need the Federal Government to supplement their funding on projects, because they have a higher population, earn more income, and thus pay more in State and Federal Taxes.
They are able to fund their themselves through their State taxes and don't need to be an increase in Federal funding.
Federal Funds are supposed to go to a state where they are needed. The majority of "Red States" have smaller populations, which is less of a tax base so they don't get as much in State Tax Revenue and need Federal funding.
The "Blue States" don't and it's up to each state to ask for the Federal funds, also.
It's common knowledge the highest percentage of voters are Liberal in the Larger Cities like New York and Los Angeles, but they don't give the same PERCENTAGE of their income to charity as the "Red States" do.
Quote:
The rich elite liberals are earning higher incomes so of course they pay more in Federal Income Taxes, but they still give LESS of a PERCENTAGE of their income compared to the "Red States" charitable giving.
I am still really interested in how you calculate this percentage? And while LA and New York do have higher number of liberals overall, how can you tell the percentage of rich liberals apart from rich conservatives in the blue states? Are you just taking the overall conservative liberal percentage in LA and applying it to the rich? Because there is data that says the rich vote more conservative, did you take that into consideration too?
Quote:
I was talking about social programs, which is what I thought you were implying.
If you want to talk about Federal Funding of roads/infrastructure the "Blue States" receive less in Federal Funds for roads, because they are able to pay more in to State Tax Revenues, due to their higher populations and higher incomes.
They don't need the Federal Government to supplement their funding on projects, because they have a higher population, earn more income, and thus pay more in State and Federal Taxes.
They are able to fund their themselves through their State taxes and don't need to be an increase in Federal funding.
Federal Funds are supposed to go to a state where they are needed. The majority of "Red States" have smaller populations, which is less of a tax base so they don't get as much in State Tax Revenue and need Federal funding.
The "Blue States" don't and it's up to each state to ask for the Federal funds, also.
Of course, I know all that, so you do get the point? You just stated how the blue sure can afford to have their taxes go to the other states, which was the point I keep saying, this is already a form of charity to other red states, how else to you expect them to give more when they already did to these states. Did you take this charity into your percentage?
I think you have somewhat painted yourself into a box on this one... Of course I could be wrong (it does rarely happen!)
You have made the assertion that "Red" folks pay more in charity than "Blue" folks.... You also said that the reason that red states get all of their taxes back and then some is because of the blue cities getting welfare, etc.
1) Why would the blue states not get more taxes back, since they certainly have more and bigger blue cities (and places like Compton and Trenton have a lot more population, crime, and poverty than Bismark or Biloxi)
2) Even if it is true about blue cities in red states needing welfare, etc that means that folks in red states are not helping their fellow Mississippians and instead are waiting for those "liberal elites" to take care of the folks in their home state. That kinda undercuts the point about how "red" folks are so much more charitable.
Also if you are talking about infrastructure, that depends more on the population than the land area of the state (we've all read countless newspaper articles and heard many commentaries on the radio about how they need to expand freeways, add light-rail, etc because the population has grown in the past 20 years).
I didn't read the rest of the thread after the initial post.
No reasonable person has said that no Democrats are rich. The difference is that they aren't as greedy or selfish as rich Republicans, or they wouldn't be Democrats. Think about it, rich Democrats voting to increase their own taxes! That would never happen with a greedy, selfish rich Republican.
On the other hand, sadly, there are poor Republicans. I have never understood why -- there is nothing in the Republican economics that would help a poor person. Oh, wait, I forgot -- the poor Republicans are the result of the rich Republicans CONNING them by claiming to care about abortions and gay marriage. Otherwise, the rich Republicans couldn't get enough votes to support their greed.
PSLOldTimer, don't you know that if the "little people" understood just how important it was to their own freedom to abolish the estate tax, they'd ALL be voting Republican?!
Well, actually talking about "red states" vs "blue states" is also misleading.
How about "red counties" vs "blue counties".
Take a look at a map from the 2004 Presidential Election:
ha I like how probably half that map is vacant land and they decided to make it a "red" county, and I am sure there are other lies like blue countys going to red , but when dealing with the Republican party you get lies and manipulation so I am not surprised
Check the stats out by town in each state. The wealthiest towns in CT (among the wealthiest in the nation) are solid RED, while the poorer cities that are over 80% minority are solid BLUE.
Don't get me wrong, even the Republicans in Connecticut are more moderate compared to our Southern friends.
I am still really interested in how you calculate this percentage? And while LA and New York do have higher number of liberals overall, how can you tell the percentage of rich liberals apart from rich conservatives in the blue states? Are you just taking the overall conservative liberal percentage in LA and applying it to the rich? Because there is data that says the rich vote more conservative, did you take that into consideration too?
Of course, I know all that, so you do get the point? You just stated how the blue sure can afford to have their taxes go to the other states, which was the point I keep saying, this is already a form of charity to other red states, how else to you expect them to give more when they already did to these states. Did you take this charity into your percentage?
The Generosity Index, is compiled by The Catalogue For Philanthropy. It is computed by taking each state’s average income and average charitable contribution, then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single number for each state.
Blue States have larger tax revenues compared to the Red States due to population density.
EVERYONE pays the same percentage of their income to taxes. The Generosity Index is based on the PERCENTAGE of your income you give to charity.
Tax Revenues and federal funding of red and blue states are irrelevant. It is based on each individual's charitible giving.
The Blue States do NOT pay a higher tax rate than the "Red States". It's irrelevant!
The "Blue States" could give a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their individual income to charity, but DO NOT.
The Generosity Index, is compiled by The Catalogue For Philanthropy. It is computed by taking each state’s average income and average charitable contribution, then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single number for each state.
Blue States have larger tax revenues compared to the Red States due to population density.
EVERYONE pays the same percentage of their income to taxes. The Generosity Index is based on the PERCENTAGE of your income you give to charity.
Tax Revenues and federal funding of red and blue states are irrelevant. It is based on each individual's charitible giving.
The Blue States do NOT pay a higher tax rate than the "Red States". It's irrelevant!
The "Blue States" could give a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their individual income to charity, but DO NOT.
They already subsidize money to the "Red States". To make more money, they require bigger infrastructure, which they are not getting back. It's relevant! They already subsidize to the "Red States". They can give more to charity once they get back the same rate in federal spending.
Also, that wasn't your point, you said the blue liberal rich elites did not give their fair share in charity. you did not say the blue states, so I am still waiting for say you to tell me how you manage to know which are rich liberal and which are the rich conservatives in the blue states, and how you know that the rich conservatives in the blue states are giving their fair share in charity?
Last edited by person; 09-01-2007 at 10:00 PM..
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.
American Libertarian
