"Red State Socialism"

[Guest American Woman]

This is quite interesting regarding federal spending:

Of the 32 states that receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are Republican.

Of the 18 states that contribute more than they receive, 14 States (78%) are Democratic.

So much for the idea conservatives try to push that Democrats 'like to spend other people's money.'

link

Edited October 31, 2008 by American Woman

[Liam]

This is quite interesting regarding federal spending:

Of the 32 states that receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are Republican.

Of the 18 states that contribute more than they receive, 14 States (78%) are Democratic.

So much for the idea conservatives try to push that Democrats 'like to spend other people's money.'

link

It's been long known that Republican-leaning states are welfare states. Redistribution outrage? Talk about hypocrisy.

[BC_chick]

Don't the family and God-loving Red-States also have way more divorce, domestic abuse and teen pregnancies?

[eyeball]

I'm pretty sure most corporations that moved to China and Mexico also came from Red-states. Its strange how the people in these states still vote for the ideology that's most responsible for facilitating many of the trade agreements that paved the way for this industrial exodus. An exodus that's hurt their states the most.

Edited October 31, 2008 by eyeball

[BubberMiley]

The Alaska government even taxes wealth from oil companies and their shareholders and redistributes it to each citizen. Their governor has even said how proud she is of that program.

[Liam]

Don't the family and God-loving Red-States also have way more divorce, domestic abuse and teen pregnancies?

Yes. Blue states have much lower divorce rates. Massachusetts, the only state (so far) with gay marriage, has one of the lowest divorce rates in the union. So much for red state family values.

[Pliny]

So the Republicans are hypocritical is the message?

It seems to me that based upon the statistical evidence presented here that the Democrats should be voting Republican.

If you like those statistics then go ahead and vote Republican. It seems they are the real caring/sharing party.

It could be that those states that contribute more than they receive are just taxed more. Doncha think?

If they weren't taxed so heavily the Democratic States would be red too.

So, basically there are two sides to give and get. The Democratic States are obviously taxed more heavily. They shouldn't mind though it is within their philosophical politically correct caring/sharing ideal. It seems the Republican States are not taxed as much but the Federal government gives them a share of their take as well.

Hypocritical? I think a more in depth analysis should be made before charges are laid.

I think the lesson here is that governments know where the money is and tax accordingly.

And Liam charges that Republican States are welfare States! I suppose statistics like those presented here prove that? Are you Canadian, Liam? There are welfare provinces in Canada but I don't think there are welfare States in America.

Divorce, domestic abuse and teen pregnancies are more prevalent in red States? A little more analysis could be put into that as well.

Do the blue states, being more progressive, even bother with marriage these days? I see Nevada is at the top of the list for divorces. I suppose that is understandable but if I look at the electoral map today I see they are leaning toward being a blue State this time around.

I have to go with Mark Twain who said about Statistics, "There are lies, damn lies and then there are Statistics."

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes. Blue states have much lower divorce rates. Massachusetts, the only state (so far) with gay marriage, has one of the lowest divorce rates in the union. So much for red state family values.

This is also apparent here in Canada. The number of single-parent families is higher in small towns in central Canada and on the east coast, as supported by statistics. In other words, places that are generally conservative mono-cultures. The bigger multi-cultural cities, where liberalism is stronger have a lower incidence.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=357347

[August1991]

Of the 32 states that receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are Republican.

Of the 18 states that contribute more than they receive, 14 States (78%) are Democratic.

So much for the idea conservatives try to push that Democrats 'like to spend other people's money.'

link

This is entire thread is based on mistaken assumptions.

First of all, the federal government does not tax states - it taxes individuals.

Secondly, the "federal spending per tax dollar" includes all manner of purchases. By that logic, Canada would be a net beneficiary too since the US federal government sources some of its purchases in Canada.

Canadians are past masters at analyzing and understanding inter-regional transfers. The simplistic data in the OP is laughable.

-----

I suspect that military bases figure in the data and that's what is being observed. I note too that DC is the highest jursidiction.

[Pliny]

This is entire thread is based on mistaken assumptions.

First of all, the federal government does not tax states - it taxes individuals.

Secondly, the "federal spending per tax dollar" includes all manner of purchases. By that logic, Canada would be a net beneficiary too since the US federal government sources some of its purchases in Canada.

Canadians are past masters at analyzing and understanding inter-regional transfers. The simplistic data in the OP is laughable.

-----

I suspect that military bases figure in the data and that's what is being observed. I note too that DC is the highest jursidiction.

I believe that what the social progressives here like is simplistic data, rumination is not a requisite for this form of ruminant.

[Pliny]

This is also apparent here in Canada. The number of single-parent families is higher in small towns in central Canada and on the east coast, as supported by statistics. In other words, places that are generally conservative mono-cultures. The bigger multi-cultural cities, where liberalism is stronger have a lower incidence.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=357347

I wonder if being busy has anything to do with the results those statistics show? Not much to do in small towns in central Canada or on the east coast. The guys get into trouble and head to the major centres for work, and as an escape. Single Mothers in rural and welfare Canada get the best support from Government. It doesn't pay to work there when you have the Nanny State to compete against.

[Guest American Woman]

So the Republicans are hypocritical is the message?

Nope. More Democratic states give more than they get more from the federal government, while more Republican states give less than they get from the federal government, is the message. Therefore, Republicans who say 'Democrats like to spend other people's money,' which is not synonymous with with "the Republicans" either don't know what they are talking about, or keep repeating the mantra even though they know it's not true.

It seems to me that based upon the statistical evidence presented here that the Democrats should be voting Republican.

If you like those statistics then go ahead and vote Republican. It seems they are the real caring/sharing party.

How can they be the caring party if they vote against the programs they are getting more federal money for than what they are paying in?

It could be that those states that contribute more than they receive are just taxed more. Doncha think?

If they weren't taxed so heavily the Democratic States would be red too.

Of course they're not more heavily taxed. Every state is taxed by the federal government at the same rate. Every individual would be treated the same, paying the same taxes, regardless of which state they lived in.

So, basically there are two sides to give and get. The Democratic States are obviously taxed more heavily.

Wrong. As explained above.

They shouldn't mind though it is within their philosophical politically correct caring/sharing ideal.

Evidently they don't mind since they keep voting Democrat. In other words, they practice what they preach.

It seems the Republican States are not taxed as much but the Federal government gives them a share of their take as well.

It seems the Republican States don't pay as much in taxes, and they get more than a share in their take-- they get a higher share than what they contribute.

Hypocritical? I think a more in depth analysis should be made before charges are laid.

I'm sure you do since the facts evidently don't speak well for your point of view.

I think the lesson here is that governments know where the money is and tax accordingly.

I think the lesson is you don't know what you're talking about. Every citizen, in every state, is taxed by the federal government at the same rate. In other words, they don't "tax accordingly," they tax everyone in every state the same.

[August1991]

It seems the Republican States don't pay as much in taxes, and they get more than a share in their take-- they get a higher share than what they contribute.

By the logic of the data presented, Canada gets a higher share too.

But then, Canada might be a blue state too.

[Guest American Woman]

By the logic of the data presented, Canada gets a higher share too.

But then, Canada might be a blue state too.

Really? The U.S. federal government gives Canada money for Canadian government programs?

[Kitchener]

I think the lesson is you don't know what you're talking about.

Right in the 10-ring.

[August1991]

Really? The U.S. federal government gives Canada money for Canadian government programs?

No, the US government buys goods and services from Canadians. Hence, it spends money in Canada. The data above refers to US federal government "spending" by state compared to taxes collected by state.

A more meaningful comparison would be to examine government "transfers" (distinct from government "spending") by state. Here too though, you would have to distinguish between "transfers" to state governments and "transfers" to individuals.

-----

In general, I think that it is fair to say that Democratic voters favour government transfers to individuals and Republican voters oppose them.

[Liam]

So the Republicans are hypocritical is the message?

It seems to me that based upon the statistical evidence presented here that the Democrats should be voting Republican.

If you like those statistics then go ahead and vote Republican. It seems they are the real caring/sharing party.

It could be that those states that contribute more than they receive are just taxed more. Doncha think?

If they weren't taxed so heavily the Democratic States would be red too.

So, basically there are two sides to give and get. The Democratic States are obviously taxed more heavily. They shouldn't mind though it is within their philosophical politically correct caring/sharing ideal. It seems the Republican States are not taxed as much but the Federal government gives them a share of their take as well.

Hypocritical? I think a more in depth analysis should be made before charges are laid.

I think the lesson here is that governments know where the money is and tax accordingly.

And Liam charges that Republican States are welfare States! I suppose statistics like those presented here prove that? Are you Canadian, Liam? There are welfare provinces in Canada but I don't think there are welfare States in America.

Divorce, domestic abuse and teen pregnancies are more prevalent in red States? A little more analysis could be put into that as well.

Do the blue states, being more progressive, even bother with marriage these days? I see Nevada is at the top of the list for divorces. I suppose that is understandable but if I look at the electoral map today I see they are leaning toward being a blue State this time around.

I have to go with Mark Twain who said about Statistics, "There are lies, damn lies and then there are Statistics."

I believe the hypocrite is the red state voter who stands there decrying the evils of welfare queens living off his tax dollars yet whose state economy is augmented with blue state tax dollars. I'd have absolutely no problem if the federal government reapportioned tax revenues so they could only be spent in states where they are raised but I think you'd have an awful lot of southerners rethinking their opposition to federal spending if they were to be cut off.

As it stands, though, there IS a national redistribution of federal tax money from mostly northern states to mostly southern states. Isn't it the GOP position that wealth redistribution is socialism?