Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

[Grad Students are the Worst]

D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

EDIT: I meant dark blue; it already was dark red.  I'm a moron.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

There appears to be a fairly strong positive correlation between the money they get back and whether they voted Bush, and a negative correlation with their population.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

There appears to be a fairly strong positive correlation between the money they get back and whether they voted Bush, and a negative correlation with their population.

I suppose that is fairly logical, but the correlation seems to be more population than politics (hence Georgia, Texas, and Rhode Island), although it doesn't explain Vermont.

Is there any information on what formula they use to calculate the fundings?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

There appears to be a fairly strong positive correlation between the money they get back and whether they voted Bush, and a negative correlation with their population.

I suppose that is fairly logical, but the correlation seems to be more population than politics (hence Georgia, Texas, and Rhode Island), although it doesn't explain Vermont.

Is there any information on what formula they use to calculate the fundings?

The formula is based upon how much pork you can get.

Despite the fact that Democratic areas include a lot of poor people and a lot of high cost of living areas, Republican Congressional districts averaged $612 million more in spending than Democratic Congressional districts in 2000, and I'm sure it's worse now.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069049

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Like Senator Hatfield used to say about his "bringing home the beef" (he hated the term pork), Oregon never got its fair share back in taxes paid out, he was just trying to balance it out.

Looking at the list, and Oregon's place on it, it seems we (Oregonians) could use a little "bring home the beef" balance again.   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Like Senator Hatfield used to say about his "bringing home the beef" (he hated the term pork), Oregon never got its fair share back in taxes paid out, he was just trying to balance it out.

Looking at the list, and Oregon's place on it, it seems we (Oregonians) could use a little "bring home the beef" balance again.   

You're only 3 cents short. Well over a quarter of the country lives in a state that is at least 21 cents short.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Like Senator Hatfield used to say about his "bringing home the beef" (he hated the term pork), Oregon never got its fair share back in taxes paid out, he was just trying to balance it out.

Looking at the list, and Oregon's place on it, it seems we (Oregonians) could use a little "bring home the beef" balance again.   

You're only 3 cents short. Well over a quarter of the country lives in a state that is at least 21 cents short.

Oregon is one of the most cash strapped and economically destabilized states in the Union, and those 3 cents out of every dollar ADD UP QUICK. 

Oregon deserves its fair share, particularly when it is at a time of crisis which has been brought on and lengthened by the unfunded mandate and federal environmental regulations.

I don't feed trolls, so don't bother to respond to my comment, as I refuse to reply to anymore of your posts.

[True Democrat]

I'm quite surprised West Virginia isn't number one.

[Smash255]

Like Senator Hatfield used to say about his "bringing home the beef" (he hated the term pork), Oregon never got its fair share back in taxes paid out, he was just trying to balance it out.

Looking at the list, and Oregon's place on it, it seems we (Oregonians) could use a little "bring home the beef" balance again.   

You're only 3 cents short. Well over a quarter of the country lives in a state that is at least 21 cents short.

Oregon is one of the most cash strapped and economically destabilized states in the Union, and those 3 cents out of every dollar ADD UP QUICK. 

Oregon deserves its fair share, particularly when it is at a time of crisis which has been brought on and lengthened by the unfunded mandate and federal environmental regulations.

I don't feed trolls, so don't bother to respond to my comment, as I refuse to reply to anymore of your posts.

The point Jferm nrought up was a good one.  yes Oregon gets shorted and they should get their fair share, but they do get closer to their fair share than many other states including jefern's state & mine

[Nym90]

It's definitely an interesting map.

I do think the Republican states are a bit hypocritical in terms of being willing to benefit from federal spending but complaining about taxes. I guess it just goes to show that a lot of people want to get something for nothing if they can.

[MaC]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

It's an interesting map.  I have to wonder what is was like during the nineties though, was Clinton any different?

[muon2]

Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.

[ATFFL]

Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.

Leave your "logic" and "reasoned responses" at the door.  There is no place for that in this thread.

[Nym90]

Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.

Leave your "logic" and "reasoned responses" at the door.  There is no place for that in this thread.

Well, he is correct, of course, although the more urban states tend to be more Democratic, so the correlation still holds. I agree that the causation is not caused by the politics of the states directly, but it is still a relationship nonetheless.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

States should get back money equal to what they put in. No more subsidizing west virginia.

[opebo]

Oregon is one of the most cash strapped and economically destabilized states in the Union,

Why is that?  I've always noticed that OR is generally suffering very high unemployment - particularly for such a white state. 

I don't feed trolls, so don't bother to respond to my comment, as I refuse to reply to anymore of your posts.

You call jfern a troll!  That's rich.

[muon2]

Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.

Leave your "logic" and "reasoned responses" at the door.  There is no place for that in this thread.

My bad. Must be something about us teachers.

[ATFFL]

Some of the correlation is with rural vs. urban areas. States with big metros did poorly regardless of party leanings. Texas is a good example. Northern New Englad lacks metros, but they are small in area. For instance road funds depend in part on miles of road, not only the number of users.

Leave your "logic" and "reasoned responses" at the door.  There is no place for that in this thread.

Well, he is correct, of course, although the more urban states tend to be more Democratic, so the correlation still holds. I agree that the causation is not caused by the politics of the states directly, but it is still a relationship nonetheless.

Yeah, but there are a lot of factors and the politics is not on top of the list.  Also on the list is how long the senators and representatives have been in Congress and which committees they are on.

[Sam Spade]

Texas, meanwhile has gone almost the opposite of California. It was a donor in the 80s (oil boom, methinks?), but after that has shifted towards the receivers almost breaking even a few times.

Yep, looking at the numbers that's the biggest reason (oil boom to oil bust in the mid-80s.  But there was a recovery after that.

The reason why federal receipts from Texas lowered after 2001 was because of a change in the law that allowed Texans to deduct a part of their sales taxes (which they hadn't been before).

[jimrtex]

These figures include things like Social Security, so states with sluggish job growth tend to do "well".  The young people have to leave the state to find work, while those who are retired are sent their SS check.  because they live in poorer states, they may not have much income other than social security, and don't pay any income taxes.

Two of the slowest growing states in the wealthy Northeast, PA and RI are Blue on this basis.  Also federal employee income, and spending with contractors make Virginia and Maryland dark blue.