• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Red States = takers, Blue states = makers

Deacon923

Deacon923

Scooter Banks
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
11,136
Reaction score
1,052
Location
Greensboro, NC
http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

federal-gov-dependency.jpg


discuss amongst yourselves.
 
Alabama and Mississippi still at the top of the "takers" list, despite how much their citizens hate big government. That's rich!
 
oh maine, right up there. full of rednecks and wealthy white liberals
 
Clearly there's a distinction to be made between Republicans and people who vote Republican.
 
Fuck self interest, we got to keep these queers from getting married
#donttreadonme #thesecolorsdontrun
 
I would like to see that map re-done with the top 1% taken out.
 
It's pretty bad here in Alabama. A couple years ago Forbes ran an article stating we had more people dependent on government than privately employed. This is somewhat misleading since dependent on government includes local, state and federal employees, who are hopefully productive members of society, but it still isn't exactly great. Link
 
Maybe we should let Paul Ryan have what he wants. When all those people in red states, all those seniors and all those vets are put out in the cold, the south could become bluer than Vermont in a couple of months.
 
Can I petition for the term "Medicare conservatives" to be used in the same way people use "limousine liberals?"
 
I'm here in Huntsville, and this place wouldn't even be on the map were it not for the federal largesse. Huntsville is often referred to as "Pentagon South" with a huge US Army presence. Our congressman decries the "huge federal government...except for "the white collar welfare" here. Amazing.
 
Dang, all those good-wage jobs going to waste because the lazy refuse to go apply for them and work. Shame
 
I think we need to cut taxes some more to create jobs in these states clearly the job creators are suffering unfairly and just cannot create jobs.
 
the Atlantic story mentioned the idea that the red states can keep their tax rates low partially because they're using the blue states to subsidize their poor people. kind of like the argument that the taxpayer is subsidizing McDonald's. i thought that was an interesting way to think about it.
 
Deacon923 said:
the Atlantic story mentioned the idea that the red states can keep their tax rates low partially because they're using the blue states to subsidize their poor people. kind of like the argument that the taxpayer is subsidizing McDonald's. i thought that was an interesting way to think about it.
Click to expand...

Considering that the poor don't pay taxes, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The other way to think of it is that the feds have their tentacles into everything. Sure, there are all the military facilities. That's one thing. But there is highway funding, education, and a whole laundry list of things that the feds throw money at. The sparsely populated areas that tend to vote red are going to draw a disproportionate share of some of that. I mean, how much $ in highway funds does North or South Dakota receive relative to one of the more densely populated northeastern states? Or Montana? Or Wyoming?

No doubt, I think that if the red states were to form their own separate country, places like Mississippi and Alabama will be fucked regardless, but that has little to do with GOP policy.
 
Poor people don't pay state sales tax? How do you figure that?
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Considering that the poor don't pay taxes, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The other way to think of it is that the feds have their tentacles into everything. Sure, there are all the military facilities. That's one thing. But there is highway funding, education, and a whole laundry list of things that the feds throw money at. The sparsely populated areas that tend to vote red are going to draw a disproportionate share of some of that. I mean, how much $ in highway funds does North or South Dakota receive relative to one of the more densely populated northeastern states? Or Montana? Or Wyoming?

No doubt, I think that if the red states were to form their own separate country, places like Mississippi and Alabama will be fucked regardless, but that has little to do with GOP policy.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that it's the federal government's fault that all those red states get the money, they don't really want it, and they'd give it all back if the feds would just get their dang tentacles out of Alabama's defense sector and stop "throwing money" at Mississippi's poor people? I'm not sure that narrative squares with the actual lobbying and voting history of the politicians representing those states in Congress.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
No doubt, I think that if the red states were to form their own separate country, places like Mississippi and Alabama will be fucked regardless, but that has little to do with GOP policy.
Click to expand...

What does it have to do with?
 
PhDeac said:
Poor people don't pay state sales tax? How do you figure that?
Click to expand...

They don't pay federal income tax, and I'm guessing they don't pay much state income tax either (I'm in a state with no income tax like you, so I don't know what percentage they'd pay in a state with it). Yes, they pay sales tax. Great. How much of those state sales and property taxes do you think they pay relative to the middle and upper classes? And at what point does one get off saying Texas or South Carolina has low taxes because the feds and blue states subsidize their poor? It's typical idealist arrogance and double-talk. "We care for the poor, but goddammit, we're paying for your poor!"

It seems typical that those who favor "big government" would look at numbers like this and come up with a way to eschew the "smaller government" crowd (and there are very few of those who actually exist in DC). Money and funding and "investment" is the solution to everything. Well, maybe some of those states have more poor than they otherwise would because of federal subsidies. Maybe they have more poor due to the federal government's inability to enforce immigration laws. The feds aren't the be-all-end-all savior. They're often part of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top