Blue states, Red states, and the flow of taxes

[Frodo]

P-I Focus: Red and blue and the color of money
Only five blue states are net recipients of federal subsidies; only two red states are net payers of federal taxes

By ERIC SCIGLIANO

November's presidential election sparked a boom in amateur political geography. You remember the maps that flew like rumors of war over the Internet. First, there was the plaintive spectacle of the election outcome: the blue-tagged Democratic states clinging to the Pacific, Great Lakes and North Atlantic shores, beachheads of civilization wrapped around a vast red wilderness.

One version showed how closely today's blue states matched the free states and territories before the Civil War while the red matched Dixie and the slave territories. Another, weighted for population, showed the red and blue turfs nearly equal (just like the Bush-Kerry vote), with populous blue states such as New York and California swollen like balloons, squeezing the shriveled red strongholds of the Plains and Rockies.

Another showed the United States broken up, Yugoslavia-style, into the various cultural and ideological divisions that this election seemed to reflect: Cascadia, Dixie, Yankeeland. One even showed the blue states as southern arms of a "United States of Canada," with the red bloc renamed "Jesusland."

Even as they chuckled over these maps, blue Americans fumed in ways once reserved for Dixiecrat rebels, neo-Nazis fleeing to Idaho and other fringe separatists. You probably heard the grumbling; perhaps you even vented a little yourself. In 2000, you could blame the outcome on butterfly ballots, Ralph Nader and the "compassionate conservative" stealth campaign. But November 2004 offered fewer excuses, and it posed the question: What if a large section of this country really cares more about putting God in government, keeping gays out of marriage chapels and cutting rich folks' taxes than about fiscal, environmental and geopolitical sanity? What if what we've got is what they actually want? And what if the country's relatively liberal, cosmopolitan and secular regions are paying through the nose to be captives in a political madhouse?

Follow the money, in this as in all touchy issues. Regional inequities -- who pays and who gets -- go back far and deep in U.S. history. One-way taxation without representation made the colonies rebel against Britain; the fight over whether the slave-holding South or anti-slavery North would prevail in the Western territories led to the Civil War. Discontent has bubbled up since then, whenever this state or that region lands in disfavor for federal spending, taxes and tariffs. But it's reaching a new boil now, thanks to two trends.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html

[Richard]

So stop it already...

[AuH2O]

So your argument is that Democrats are complete fools? They passed a lot of the relevant legislation.

[Richard]

So your argument is that Democrats are complete fools? They passed a lot of the relevant legislation.

Somehow this redistribution of wealth is bad.  I thought all liberals liked redistribution of wealth.  Makes one wonder why this shrub is complaining.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's a map showing the relative numbers


http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So your argument is that Democrats are complete fools? They passed a lot of the relevant legislation.

Somehow this redistribution of wealth is bad.  I thought all liberals liked redistribution of wealth.  Makes one wonder why this shrub is complaining.

It doesn't take into cost of living.
Why should someone making $30k a year living in Manhattan or San Francisco be subsidizing someone making $20k a year living in North Dakota?

[??????????]

So your argument is that Democrats are complete fools? They passed a lot of the relevant legislation.

Somehow this redistribution of wealth is bad.  I thought all liberals liked redistribution of wealth.  Makes one wonder why this shrub is complaining.

It doesn't take into cost of living.
Why should someone making $30k a year living in Manhattan or San Francisco be subsidizing someone making $20k a year living in North Dakota?

At least you've now figured out the whole argument behind the civil war. lol

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So your argument is that Democrats are complete fools? They passed a lot of the relevant legislation.

Somehow this redistribution of wealth is bad.  I thought all liberals liked redistribution of wealth.  Makes one wonder why this shrub is complaining.

It doesn't take into cost of living.
Why should someone making $30k a year living in Manhattan or San Francisco be subsidizing someone making $20k a year living in North Dakota?

At least you've now figured out the whole argument behind the civil war. lol

Here's the south:

Big time welfare states:
Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia,  Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennesee

Not so lopsided welfare states:
North Carolina

Break-even, or very slightly donor states:
Florida, Georgia, Texas


In other words, the south is a leech off the rest of the country.

[??????????]

The complaint you have is the same complaint southerners had in 1860. I love historical irony.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The complaint you have is the same complaint southerners had in 1860. I love historical irony.

Got any real numbers?
These guys only go back to 1981.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Big time welfare states:
Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia,  Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennesee

All of which have major problems with poverty, 5 of which have Democratic governers, 6 of which have Democratic State Senates, 7 of which have Democratic State Houses

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Big time welfare states:
Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia,  Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennesee

All of which have major problems with poverty, 5 of which have Democratic governers, 6 of which have Democratic State Senates, 7 of which have Democratic State Houses

NY and CA have poor people, too you know. It's way more complicated than you're making it. The federal government does not take into account cost of living when considering poverty. Are you going to tell me that it takes the same amount of money to live in rural Alabama as San Francisco or Manhattan?

Anyways, that's not the only reason.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

NY and CA have poor people, too you know.

True, but then both states have the ability to raise their own funds to deal with the problem in the way that (say) West Virginia and Oklahoma don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not making it not to be complicated. I was responding to you're over-simplistic and childish way of looking at it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but I still think that someone living in Eastern KY is probably a good deal worse off than someone living in a nice house in the SF Bay area. I understand that you are incapable of seeing this because you do not appear to realise that they are people too (and in Eastern KY almost all of 'em are Democrats).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you saying that Macon county, AL is relatively richer than San Francisco county, CA?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

NY and CA have poor people, too you know.

True, but then both states have the ability to raise their own funds to deal with the problem in the way that (say) West Virginia and Oklahoma don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not making it not to be complicated. I was responding to you're over-simplistic and childish way of looking at it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but I still think that someone living in Eastern KY is probably a good deal worse off than someone living in a nice house in the SF Bay area. I understand that you are incapable of seeing this because you do not appear to realise that they are people too (and in Eastern KY almost all of 'em are Democrats).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you saying that Macon county, AL is relatively richer than San Francisco county, CA?

Oh, yeah, poor people can afford a nice house in the bay area? What crack are you on? Cheap rundown sh**tty houses go for over half a million in the bay area.  You miss the point.   

Bush still won eastern Kentucky, anyways.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh, yeah, poor people can afford a nice house in the bay area? What crack are you on? Cheap rundown sh**tty houses go for over half a million in the bay area.

And?
How many poor people are there (% wise) in the Bay area compared to Central Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh, yeah, poor people can afford a nice house in the bay area? What crack are you on? Cheap rundown sh**tty houses go for over half a million in the bay area.

And?
How many poor people are there (% wise) in the Bay area compared to Central Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta?

If you take into account cost of living, it's probably comparable, perhaps a bit more poor people in the south. Maybe if the south wasn't so anti-intellectual they wouldn't be so poor in non-cost of living adjusted dollar terms.

Anyways, that transfer of money from blue states to red states isn't just because blue states tend to be richer. It's more complicated than that. A lot of it is pork for red states.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh, yeah, poor people can afford a nice house in the bay area? What crack are you on? Cheap rundown sh**tty houses go for over half a million in the bay area.

And?
How many poor people are there (% wise) in the Bay area compared to Central Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta?

If you take into account cost of living, it's probably comparable.  Maybe if the south wasn't so anti-intellectual they wouldn't be so poor in non-cost of living adjusted dollar terms.

You sir, are an idiot. And a bigoted one at that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh, yeah, poor people can afford a nice house in the bay area? What crack are you on? Cheap rundown sh**tty houses go for over half a million in the bay area.

And?
How many poor people are there (% wise) in the Bay area compared to Central Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta?

If you take into account cost of living, it's probably comparable.  Maybe if the south wasn't so anti-intellectual they wouldn't be so poor in non-cost of living adjusted dollar terms.

You sir, are an idiot. And a bigoted one at that.

Something tells me that top biology researchers, genetic engineers, and so on tend not to come from states than ban the teaching of evolution. Use some common sense here.

Oh, yeah, we in the blue states are the bigots because we don't like red staters using our money to trample our rights in our states, by ignoring our state's enviromental laws within our own borders, and trying to ban gay marriage within our own borders.

That's a bunch of bullsh**t.

[opebo]

In other words, the south is a leech off the rest of the country.

Hah - well said jfern!  And on top of their leeching, they want to impose their theocracy on the poor bastards who pay their way!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh, yeah, poor people can afford a nice house in the bay area? What crack are you on? Cheap rundown sh**tty houses go for over half a million in the bay area.

And?
How many poor people are there (% wise) in the Bay area compared to Central Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta?

If you take into account cost of living, it's probably comparable.  Maybe if the south wasn't so anti-intellectual they wouldn't be so poor in non-cost of living adjusted dollar terms.

You sir, are an idiot. And a bigoted one at that.

Something tells me that top biology researchers, genetic engineers, and so on tend not to come from states than ban the teaching of evolution. Use some common sense here.

Oh, yeah, we in the blue states are the bigots because we don't like red staters using our money to trample our rights in our states, by ignoring our state's enviromental laws within our own borders, and trying to ban gay marriage within our own borders.

That's a bunch of bullsh**t.

Archer, how can this remark not be bigoted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Y'know, if you actually anything about the people you're treating as subhumans, you'll realise that most people in the backwoods are not anti-intellectual as such. They don't like snobbish bastards like you but they value education.
Ever wondered why Carl D Perkins was the most popular politician in the history of Eastern Kentucky?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh, yeah, poor people can afford a nice house in the bay area? What crack are you on? Cheap rundown sh**tty houses go for over half a million in the bay area.

And?
How many poor people are there (% wise) in the Bay area compared to Central Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta?

If you take into account cost of living, it's probably comparable.  Maybe if the south wasn't so anti-intellectual they wouldn't be so poor in non-cost of living adjusted dollar terms.

You sir, are an idiot. And a bigoted one at that.

Something tells me that top biology researchers, genetic engineers, and so on tend not to come from states than ban the teaching of evolution. Use some common sense here.

Oh, yeah, we in the blue states are the bigots because we don't like red staters using our money to trample our rights in our states, by ignoring our state's enviromental laws within our own borders, and trying to ban gay marriage within our own borders.

That's a bunch of bullsh**t.

Archer, how can this remark not be bigoted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Y'know, if you actually anything about the people you're treating as subhumans, you'll realise that most people in the backwoods are not anti-intellectual as such. They don't like snobbish bastards like you but they value education.
Ever wondered why Carl D Perkins was the most popular politician in the history of Eastern Kentucky?

Well, Kentucky just voted for the guy that decided to get rid of Carl Perkins loans. That does not reflect well on Kentucky.

Anyways, why do you act like blue staters are the bigots? It's the red staters that are trying to inflict their so called values on everyone, it's the red-staters that have the federal government ignore California's laws. And guess who pays for that? The blue states of course.

What the hell do the red states do for the blue states?

1. The blue states give the red states money
2. The red states inflict their so called values, which include lack of civil rights and environmental laws on the blue states
3. The blue states grow more than enough food for themselves (California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Vermont all grow plenty)
4. The red states get the whole rest of the world mad at us
5. When a red-stater ignores terrorist threats, a blue state gets attacked

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, Kentucky just voted for the guy that decided to get rid of Carl Perkins loans. That does not reflect well on Kentucky.

First off George Bush did not (repeat not) promise to do that in his Presidential campaign. He did not run on domestic issues and made a point of ignoring them (which Kerry stupidly let him get away with).
If the loans do go, the House GOP better hope that old Hal Rogers (almost a quarter of a century in the House now) doesn't decide to retire in KY-5...

Besides, Kerry didn't do so bad in Eastern KY (voting patterns there were real strange last year. Probably due to evangelicals in the Hazard area who don't normally vote turning out to vote for the local boy in the Senate election and being turned off by Kerry's social liberalism in the Presidential race)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no such thing as a "blue stater" or a "red stater". You happen to be a bigot against a non-existent enemy.

I'm going to ignore the rest of what you wrote because it's disgusting.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, Kentucky just voted for the guy that decided to get rid of Carl Perkins loans. That does not reflect well on Kentucky.

First off George Bush did not (repeat not) promise to do that in his Presidential campaign. He did not run on domestic issues and made a point of ignoring them (which Kerry stupidly let him get away with).
If the loans do go, the House GOP better hope that old Hal Rogers (almost a quarter of a century in the House now) doesn't decide to retire in KY-5...

Besides, Kerry didn't do so bad in Eastern KY (voting patterns there were real strange last year. Probably due to evangelicals in the Hazard area who don't normally vote turning out to vote for the local boy in the Senate election and being turned off by Kerry's social liberalism in the Presidential race)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no such thing as a "blue stater" or a "red stater". You happen to be a bigot against a non-existent enemy.

I'm going to ignore the rest of what you wrote because it's disgusting.

So you don't see any problem with what red states are doing to blue states? State's rights never seems to apply to California.

As for Perkins, it's not a surprise that he's cutting it, since he is right-wing on economic issues, (in addition to be even to the right of crazy social conservatives like you).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So you don't see any problem with what red states are doing to blue states? State's rights never seems to apply to California.

To repeat: There is no such thing as a "blue stater" or a "red stater". You happen to be a bigot against a non-existent enemy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but he's never really campaigned on that (and certainly not in Kentucky).
People will only find this out if things like the Perkins act go.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm a crazy social conservative now? Jesus... get out into the real world please...

[opebo]

As for Perkins, it's not a surprise that he's cutting it, since he is right-wing on economic issues, (in addition to be even to the right of crazy social conservatives like you).

The student loan program will not survive Republican control of Congress - they're ideologically against it.  Though of course as well all know it is cleverly constructed to help only middle and upper-middle class kids, while being sorely inadequate for the poor.  

Pay no attention to Al, jfern - he hates the Sodom and Ghammora of the Democrat states as much as we naturally hate the breeding grounds of the Religious Party.  In spite of his socialism, he's a typical religious intolerant.