It's time to end Red state welfare.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1283489/posts

As students of the federal budget know, the citizens of some states pay more in taxes than they get back from Uncle Sam in grants and benefits. Arnold Schwarzenegger was stunned to learn upon taking office that for every dollar Californians send to Washington, they get back only 77 cents?an imbalance that topped $50 billion in 2003.

But a new analysis in The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America, a coffee-table book/political rant by liberal billionaire John Sperling, shows that a fiscal map looks awfully like an electoral map. Between 1991 and 2001, "winner" states got nearly $1 trillion more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes. Alabama won the biggest, raking in $100 billion. Losers California, New York, and Illinois each paid $250 billion or so more than they got back. The huge gaps are driven by higher average incomes in the "donor" states, plus subsidies for farms, oil, mining?"extractive" industries that skew red. There are exceptions (Texas is a loser, Pennsylvania a winner), but the map on this page shows the big picture.

The heist is more impressive considering that the winners have only a third of the U.S. population.

For blue staters, it's one thing to watch red states pick the President and set national policy on everything from Iraq to judges. But to pay them lavishly for the pleasure suggests that blues aren't just losers, they're stupid losers. You can feel blue anger rising. You reds don't like taxes? Okay, stop taking mine! You can have your states' rights too?and we'll start by cutting your allowance!




So California wouldn't HAVE a budget problem if they just received their fair share of the money they pay the feds.
It seems bizarre how many of the Red state lovers like to point out how great their economies are doing. I guess low paying jobs are doing great for Red stater.
Since we have been giving the Red staters huge subsidies for many years, I say its time to get them off the dole.
If they can't be self sufficient in say, 5 years, just like individuals on welfare, cut them OFF.
As it is they are taking the blue state money and using it to subsidize the stealing of blue state jobs.
Heck, if it weren't for the Red state leechers life would be good.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,963
47,858
136
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Maybe we can go one better and use the same analysis on a personal basis!

I think you missed the point. The irony is that the people who rail against the welfare state because they think people are leeching off them, are in fact its largest recipients.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,398
6,077
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Maybe we can go one better and use the same analysis on a personal basis!

I think you missed the point. The irony is that the people who rail against the welfare state because they think people are leeching off them, are in fact its largest recipients.

When you give you have to understand that those you give to will slit your throat if you allow them to know you are helping because their self hate will become directed at you for reminding them of their condition. Therefore, expect nothing when you give and do so without any recognition or hope of it. You give so others can benefit, not yourself. The fact that you can give means you already have your reward.

That said, what difference does it make that red states get more. They need more due to their greater ignorance.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Are you trying to steal the crown from Dave for the biggest nutjob on this board? You are certainly making gains.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
You'd think you'd see the irony of advocating welare as a party platform while condemning it on the national scale.

If everyone paid the federal government about 80% less money, we'd all be better off.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Maybe we can go one better and use the same analysis on a personal basis!

I think you missed the point. The irony is that the people who rail against the welfare state because they think people are leeching off them, are in fact its largest recipients.

My point is that people who tend to mention what the OP wrote are the same but on a personal basis rather than a residence basis.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Are you trying to steal the crown from Dave for the biggest nutjob on this board? You are certainly making gains.

:thumbsup: :laugh:
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
What the hell..... :confused:

First Democrats want to raise taxes to give to the poor, and now they bitch about it?!

Oh Christ, the irony is killing me.

Heres a thought..... Maybe those dumbass Democrats should have put more thought into those social programs BEFORE ramming them down everyones throat rather then bitch about it afterwards.

As they say, you sleep in the bed you make. Enjoy it. :)
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,089
12
76
fobot.com
so, what do we do? have Civil War II ?

Red vs. Blue ?

I think my neighbors have more guns than you libs in the blue states neighbors have.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,669
2,424
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
What the hell..... :confused:

First Democrats want to raise taxes to give to the poor, and now they bitch about it?!

Oh Christ, the irony is killing me.

Heres a thought..... Maybe those dumbass Democrats should have put more thought into those social programs BEFORE ramming them down everyones throat rather then bitch about it afterwards.

As they say, you sleep in the bed you make. Enjoy it. :)

You totally distort the original post, and I don't think it is merely a matter of you didn't comprehend it. The premise of the original post, and the study it cites, is that Republican states are getting a disproportionate amount of the federal "largess." The people receiving the benefit of public monies are those that claim a philisophical repugnance of the "welfare state." Address THAT issue.
___________

I have noticed this time and time again, particularly among businessmen railing against welfare in one breath while in the next seeking tax breaks, subsidies, etc. from the government for their business.

 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
You'd think you'd see the irony of advocating welare as a party platform while condemning it on the national scale.

If everyone paid the federal government about 80% less money, we'd all be better off.

Not really but there would be no Halliburton and a lot fewer dead Iraqis.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: techs
The huge gaps are driven by higher average incomes in the "donor" states, plus subsidies for farms, oil, mining?"extractive" industries that skew red. There are exceptions (Texas is a loser, Pennsylvania a winner), but the map on this page shows the big picture.

All you boobs talking about state "welfare" need to read a bit closer.

Those extractive industries are big corporate America, and of course they're gonna be in rural areas. You gonna drill for oil or farm in manhatten? Who wants to smell the fertilizer etc?

But I suppose people living in urban areas don't use farm products or oil etc.

For those who say each state should get back exactly what it pays, WTH pay it in the first d@mn place? That makes no sense; just keep it to begin with.

Oh, and since civics lessons obviously aren't popular with the crowd here, it's Congress that allocates the money. Congressional representation is primarily based on a state's population. So the populated states have more Congressional (House, really) than sparsely populated states.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,963
47,858
136
Originally posted by: Fern

All you boobs talking about state "welfare" need to read a bit closer.

Those extractive industries are big corporate America, and of course they're gonna be in rural areas. You gonna drill for oil or farm in manhatten? Who wants to smell the fertilizer etc?

But I suppose people living in urban areas don't use farm products or oil etc.

For those who say each state should get back exactly what it pays, WTH pay it in the first d@mn place? That makes no sense; just keep it to begin with.

Oh, and since civics lessons obviously aren't popular with the crowd here, it's Congress that allocates the money. Congressional representation is primarily based on a state's population. So the populated states have more Congressional (House, really) than sparsely populated states.

Fern

Well its not like the costal states don't have just as many industries (actually a whole lot more, as the coasts are hugely more valuable then the interior). The specifics aren't really important anyway.

Also, about the civics lesson... actually the small states have considerably more representation then the large ones do thanks to the senate. Actually your point about Congress might be completely right, just maybe not for the reasons you meant. The fact that the red states have more representation per citizen explains pretty well why they are net takers of federal tax dollars.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,425
7,485
136
Originally posted by: FoBoT
so, what do we do? have Civil War II ?

Red vs. Blue ?

I think my neighbors have more guns than you libs in the blue states neighbors have.

Sounds like techs is itching for a war. Can?t blame him really, natural tendencies rise in difficult times.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern

All you boobs talking about state "welfare" need to read a bit closer.

Those extractive industries are big corporate America, and of course they're gonna be in rural areas. You gonna drill for oil or farm in manhatten? Who wants to smell the fertilizer etc?

But I suppose people living in urban areas don't use farm products or oil etc.

For those who say each state should get back exactly what it pays, WTH pay it in the first d@mn place? That makes no sense; just keep it to begin with.

Oh, and since civics lessons obviously aren't popular with the crowd here, it's Congress that allocates the money. Congressional representation is primarily based on a state's population. So the populated states have more Congressional (House, really) than sparsely populated states.

Fern

Well its not like the costal states don't have just as many industries (actually a whole lot more, as the coasts are hugely more valuable then the interior). The specifics aren't really important anyway.

Also, about the civics lesson... actually the small states have considerably more representation then the large ones do thanks to the senate. Actually your point about Congress might be completely right, just maybe not for the reasons you meant. The fact that the red states have more representation per citizen explains pretty well why they are net takers of federal tax dollars.

The Senate can't pass any bill by itself. The red states come out ahead in the House, they don't have to pass it if they don't like it.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,963
47,858
136
Originally posted by: Fern
The Senate can't pass any bill by itself. The red states come out ahead in the House, they don't have to pass it if they don't like it.

That idea seriously neglects the give and take of lawmaking between the House and Senate. If you have two bodies that make laws together, one body in which small states are overrepresented per citizen and another body where all states are equally represented per citizen, it is only reasonable to think that the eventual bias will be more spending per citizen for the small states.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
It takes a lot of money to support the infra-structure required to get the raw materials out of the rural states. I'd be willing to bet that the average wage in the red states is way lower then the blue states, making supporting that infrastructure an even bigger burden on the populace. I can't (easily) find any hard figures to support that premise, but I did find this:

Blue States Beat Out Red States in Home Values

According to Zillow?s Zindex (median Zestimate or the middle estimated home value), the Red states (pro-Bush) have substantially lower home values than do Blue states (pro-Kerry). Red states had a Zindex of $190,323 vs. a Zindex of $323,952 for the Blue states as of the first quarter of 2007

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Maybe we can go one better and use the same analysis on a personal basis!

I think you missed the point. The irony is that the people who rail against the welfare state because they think people are leeching off them, are in fact its largest recipients.

When you give you have to understand that those you give to will slit your throat if you allow them to know you are helping because their self hate will become directed at you for reminding them of their condition. Therefore, expect nothing when you give and do so without any recognition or hope of it. You give so others can benefit, not yourself. The fact that you can give means you already have your reward.

That said, what difference does it make that red states get more. They need more due to their greater ignorance.

HEY now!! What did I ever do to you!?!?!? ;)

NATIONALGenerosity Index 2004 (2002 data)
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
The Senate can't pass any bill by itself. The red states come out ahead in the House, they don't have to pass it if they don't like it.

That idea seriously neglects the give and take of lawmaking between the House and Senate. If you have two bodies that make laws together, one body in which small states are overrepresented per citizen and another body where all states are equally represented per citizen, it is only reasonable to think that the eventual bias will be more spending per citizen for the small states.

Come on, there are quite a few blue states that are "over-represented". Look at the map of the NE (RI, Vermont etc).

Plus, I'd like to know where the big corps are HQ'd that have their opertaions in rural areas. Could any be a blue state?

Fern
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,425
7,485
136
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
It takes a lot of money to support the infra-structure required to get the raw materials out of the rural states. I'd be willing to bet that the average wage in the red states is way lower then the blue states, making supporting that infrastructure an even bigger burden on the populace. I can't (easily) find any hard figures to support that premise, but I did find this:

Blue States Beat Out Red States in Home Values

According to Zillow?s Zindex (median Zestimate or the middle estimated home value), the Red states (pro-Bush) have substantially lower home values than do Blue states (pro-Kerry). Red states had a Zindex of $190,323 vs. a Zindex of $323,952 for the Blue states as of the first quarter of 2007

You?re telling me waitresses make less than $2/hr in red states?

I know for a fact I was surprized to learn the differences in wages/home prices/etc in Alabama compared to California. Maybe that is an unfair comparison though, California being as bankrupt as it is.

The red states I know are far more expensive than the blue states I know.
 

GenHoth

Platinum Member
Jul 5, 2007
2,106
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

The red states I know are far more expensive than the blue states I know.

Seriously? You're talking about cost of living and thats what you've seen? New York, Chicago, LA Less expensive than say, Manhattan, Kansas?