If you were to write tax policy...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...which once again demonstrates the sheer stupidity of Redstatebluestate. What actually happens (to put it extremely crudely) is that money from areas in "blue" states which are mostly Republican is redistributed to areas in "red" states that are mostly Democratic. An example would be money mostly raised from Northwest New Jersey taxpayers going to East Kentucky. It's not as though money from Bronx taxpayers goes to Cobb county, GA or anything...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

you take the philly burbs, the richest counties in all of PA (Montgomery, Bucks, Chester)...which generally (2/3rds at least) vote dem up top, but republican underneath...I think as tax money goes, we're a net loser...but its one of those (I think) examples of how Blue states really aren't subsidizing blue states, once you get away from the aggregate state numbers, which are decieving.

...and if you look at the voting patterns of those counties in more detail you find that the very rich areas in those counties have no problems voting for Bush at all: Yes it's another FairData map. Take a close look at it, then switch to "median hh income" on the compare maps table...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To tell you the truth...almost all of the counties...save maybe one or two townships/boroughs...are well above the state and national income averages.

Its not Westchester NY by anymeans...but even the blue collar families are comfortable.

True but not really the point; the amount of money (in % terms) that gets redistributed in the U.S is pretty small; in effect the only areas that could be argued to be "subsidizing" (in a meaningful sense) poorer areas are the very rich areas (which is where the extra money that goes on redistributive stuff comes from. More or less).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

WV, ND, and NE.

Out of the 6 Senators from those states, 5 are Democrats