Red States =net takers, Blue States = net givers

[mikekohr]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html

Above is a link to another fine article that documents the hypocrisy and the Federal tax dollar addicted economies of RED state America.

I believe the best way to kick an addiction is to go "cold turkey." It is time to sever the RED state mouths from the teat of the Blue State taxpayer. Let's help our friends in RED America go straight by cutting off their economic crack supply of Blue State dollars.

This is a perfect opportunity for RED state America to prove that they are economically viable, self reliant, and contributing members of the American Dream, instead of welfare queens, dependant on the kindness of Blue State strangers.

mike kohr


MAYBE IT'S TIME WE REMIND THE OBSTRUCTIONIST RED STATE SENATORS THAT THEY HAVE A SWORD OF DAMOCLES HANGING OVER THEIR HEAD AND WE HAVE SCISSORS

[Captain Hilts]

1. They want govt. "off their back," then they need to get their hands out of govt's pocket.

I post the statistics periodically and the threads drop.

Richard Shelby's AL gets back $1.82, I think, for every dollar to DC. It's okay to subsidize the South, but not the coastal or industrial states.

[Thothmes]

3. That is where the poor people are at.

California and New York have great wealth. They should subsidize the poorer states. Just like my tax dollars go to subsidize programs for those people the are not as well off as I am. The theory of tax the rich also works for states as well as individuals.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Then Shelby shouldn't rail against helping out Detroit/Michigan. nt

[Thothmes]

11. He's free to voice his opinion

We are free to completly disregard his opinion. We must always help those that need it.

[Captain Hilts]

13. And Shelby doesn't want to do so. nt

[slampoet]

12. Actually the state with the highest per capita income is IOWA

Also the Blue states contain MORE poor people than the red states.

The difference is that the Blue states actually HELP their poor.

[Occam Bandage]

2. Newsflash: We won. We elected the "not red states, not blue states, but united states" guy.

Let's leave the bitter "fuck red states" permanent-minority mentality back in the pre-2006 days. Plus, you know, "Red-state Senator" doesn't say much, given that plenty of those '04 Red States have Dem Senators--and a few of 'em are blue states now, too.

[Doctor_J]

5. Apparently McConnell and Cornyn didn't get the memo

Every time one of the Hate Radio Belt Senators filibusters a bill, 5% of their federal dollars should be cut. Pretty soon the socialist government will be completely off of their backs.

[yardwork]

25. I have no idea why the Democrats didn't start doing this years ago.

[harun]

33. I don't think McConnell has ever "got the memo" in his life

[Doctor_J]

4. Correct, and it's time to start punishing the obstructionist legislators

from the welfare states. Let's get our tax dollars off of their backs for awhile and see how they like it. I am sure that Hate Radio Nation is embarrassed to be taking money from the hard working-yet-elitist blue states anyway.

[Maru Kitteh]

30. Yes, let's punish children and other defenseless, blameless people - we can give it a catchy name -

like Dubya did with his "compassionate conservatism."

We can call it "vengeful progressivism." Or, we can just cut to the chase and call it petty and stupid.

[AZ Criminal JD]

6. Another bunch of bullshit

I tell you what -- since you want to cut off federal money, then fine do it. Cut off all federal money and we will see who cries uncle the first. These are totally meaningless stats. Who get the most? Who is number 1? Why it's DC! Pretty blue last time I looked. These stats are measures of federal money going to maintain federal land and the personnel and facilities on them. Most of land in the west and south is owned by the feds. Let them sell off that land and then the stats would be reversed.

[Doctor_J]

7. True, and most Southerners are decent folk, but I get damned tired

of listening to the Senators from those areas bitching about socialism while trying to revive Jim Crow.

[Captain Hilts]

10. "Revive Jim Crow?"

[Captain Hilts]

9. Read here:

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

[MajorChode]

28. There are several more reasons

Many southern and western states have much smaller population densities, which means you have a much higher ratio of infrastructure required to the people available to pay for it. Welfare spending is really a non-issue because it only consumes about 1% of the total federal budget. So the issue of donor vs contributor states is much more complex and the numerous exceptions to the rule invalidate the argument for the most part.

However there are a few areas where there is a small amount of merit. For instance, blue states tend to have more progressive policies towards moving people out of poverty and making them productive citizens. Blue states also have more progressive policies that strengthen the wages of the middle and upper classes, so they are more affluent overall and those areas who have more affluent wage earners pay more taxes as a result. If you look at the poverty belt in the US, it pretty much stretches from eastern Nevada strait through to North Carolina and covers the reddest of the red states. In those areas the gap between the haves and have nots is widening and the people in the middle classes and especially the upper middle classes are disappearing, and so goes the tax base.

[MadHound]

14. Woohoo, another thread of divisive bullshit

One that even resorts to three year old, out of date news articles.

We're not red states, we're not blue states, we're the United States. Don't like that, then find another country to move to and stop trying to divide this one.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Love it or leave it, wow, how Nixon era of you.

And a lovley fantasy for the privilged set. The fact is, many of the States allow legal discrimination against people like me. We can be fired, evicted, whatever just for being. So there are major differences between one state and another for many Americans.

[MadHound]

17. So we should fight bigotry and discrimination with an ever more divisive mindset

That continues to promote the false meme of two Americas, that furthers the tensions between people, that tries to divide this country? Like that will really work.

[elizm]

18. Thank you...from someone in a Red state...

..Who worked very hard for 2 years to help get Obama elected and who also traveled to NC and worked very hard to help that state turn Blue this year. Obama is all about people working together. There are plenty of decent folks in Red States who are working hard to bring about change. The posters arrogance is something you'd think would come from a divisive Republican.

[stevenleser]

16. Very interesting and a very important point.

Its interesting that those that complain the most about government intrusion get the most government dollars compared to how much they put in.

[mikekohr]

20. CALM DOWN EVERYBODY, The Intent of This Thread IS NOT a Call to Arms Between North and South

The intent is a call to recognize the HYPOCRISY of "Red State" leaders with regard to their calls for small government and attacks on wealth redistribution. AS the numbers show "Red States" love income redistribution when their states are on the receiving end. And "Red States" are not the South or the West. One of the biggest violators of this maxim is Alaska. That's as far north as we can get.

This post does however point out to a refusal of many to recognize that we ARE the United States of America. I live in rural Illinois. In our local area and across much of the state outside of the Chicago metro area is a belief that the Chicago area is bleeding the rest of the state dry, IN SPITE of the historical record that the Chicago area has ALWAYS paid more to the state treasury then it has received back. This attitude is replicated in the data in the link article that manifests itself across entire states with respect to the Federal government.

Those of us that live in areas of the country that are net receivers should be very intolerant of the paranoid rantings of conservative legislators that bemoan the Federal dole while standing front and center with both hands held out.

I'm grateful for the generosity of my fellow Illinoisans from the Chicago area. I just wish the ingrates in similar situations to ours would get down off their high horse before someone knocks them off.

mike kohr

[AZ Criminal JD]

21. You don't even know what the numbers mean

Yet you give self-righteous comments on them. The numbers are not federal money going to the states as "receivers". It is a measure of the cost of federal land, facilities, and personnel in those states. That is why D.C. is number one. The feds unjustly own most of the land in the south and west. Sell it off if you don't want money going to the states. Learn what you are commenting on next time.

[mikekohr]

27. ACTUALLY, I DO, and here's the facts:

Ownership of land by the Federal Government is not the reason more federal dollars flow to some areas of the country than others, if it was Iowa, Indiana would not be on the list of net "takers." http://www.nemw.org/data.htm#fedspend

Mississippi which ranks #1 in Federal Dollars received, only ranks 36 in Federal land ownership, Alabama ranks 41st, Georgia ranks 40th, Kansas comes in at 50th, while one of the biggest net givers in Federal taxes paid, California, is among the top ten states (ranked #7) with lands held in title by the Federal government. http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

mike kohr

PS all of our land is "unjustly owned," we stole all of it America's First People

[AZ Criminal JD]

31. Convenient you left out #1 on the list --- District of Columbia

Receiving a whopping $5.15 for each dollar they send! I wonder why that is? Actually I don't. It disproves your whole baiting thesis. I am sure you will lead the way and give back your property to the Native-Americans.

[mikekohr]

32. Here Is the Major Reason We Have Disparity In The Giver/Taker Index That Breaks Along Party Lines

A Post From MajorChode (Response to Reply #6

Many southern and western states have much smaller population densities, which means you have a much higher ratio of infrastructure required to the people available to pay for it. Welfare spending is really a non-issue because it only consumes about 1% of the total federal budget. So the issue of donor vs contributor states is much more complex and the numerous exceptions to the rule invalidate the argument for the most part.

However there are a few areas where there is a small amount of merit. For instance, blue states tend to have more progressive policies towards moving people out of poverty and making them productive citizens. Blue states also have more progressive policies that strengthen the wages of the middle and upper classes, so they are more affluent overall and those areas who have more affluent wage earners pay more taxes as a result. If you look at the poverty belt in the US, it pretty much stretches from eastern Nevada strait through to North Carolina and covers the reddest of the red states. In those areas the gap between the haves and have nots is widening and the people in the middle classes and especially the upper middle classes are disappearing, and so goes the tax base.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the answer in a nutshell. Conservative economic principles have NEVER worked, not on a National level (see http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/releases/053 and on a state level are producing the same under performing results.

D.C. will always be #1 in the taker index because that is where the Federal Government is based, no reasonable person would suggest otherwise. The real issue as far as DC goes is why DC residents do not have representation in Congress or the Senate.

My wife is of native descent. So this little piece of heaven remains with its original and rightful owners. Stop by our website, "International Brotherhood Days," http://www.brotherhooddays.com You might learn a bit of history there.


mike kohr

[trof]

19. Blue States = More Blessed. Red States = Less Blessed.

Because it is MORE blessed to give than receive.
Take some comfort in that.
;-)

[Texasgal]

22. You do realize that this article

is from 2005 don't you?


Sunday, February 13, 2005

Geez. :eyes: Can we have something more updated to manufacture some outrage over?

[mikekohr]

23. This is the last year available to calculate these numbers

see http://www.nemw.org/data.htm#fedspend

Teaxas is and has been consistantly a "giver" to the federal treasury as has my home state of Illinois. But being from a rural part of Illinois I am from a part of the state that receives more in state taxes then we pay in, a microcosm of what has been happening on the national scene for many years. I am grateful that the richer areas of our state enable those of us in poorer, rural areas of the state to maintain our roads, bridges, and help keep our cash strapped schools open.

I am embarassed by the hypocrisy of my fellow Americans that live in similar areas, in similar conditions, debase and demonize efforts to level the playing field across the nation.

mike kohr

[Texasgal]

26. I guess I am just not getting your point.

Oh well, not the first time on DU. :shrug:

Your argument is based on very old information it makes no sense at this point.

[mikekohr]

29. It is simple

We are all in this together.

Rich areas of the country have historically helped poorer areas (like mine)and continue to do so. This fact has been a primary reason we are the most powerful nation on Earth. What is confounding to me is conservative leaders (particularly in the Senate), that disporportionaltely represent these poorer areas, demonizing income redistribution while standing first in line with both hands out.

And these statistics ARE the most recent available. 2006 numbers will be compiled shortly. Check them out. They will not be much different. They never are.

mike kohr

[yardwork]

24. This has been true forever, and yet for some reason Democrats still pander to conservatives.

Help me understand why Democrats constantly hew to the right. Do we have some kind of inferiority complex? Do we want the thugs on the right to "like us?" They won't.