|
Red States Receive the Most Welfare From Blue States
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
The Tax Foundation recentely conducted a study to analyze where our tax dollars were going broken down by state. Their analysis was as follows:
Of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" --receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. The top 10 beneficiaries of federal aid are as follows (red states highlited):
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
Full report here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/tax...dingupdate.html
This leads me to the question of whether I really lose if Bush wins the election. First of all, if there were to be a draft I'll be too old for it by the time it were instated (18 to 26 being the likely draft age), no matter what the state of the economy it's extremely unlikely that I'll get laid off, I'll probably have lower taxes, political humor will be better than ever with bush in office for 4 more years, I'll have the satisfaction of seeing red states get less federal funding and get screwed as a direct result of their own stupidity. But hey they have the right idea ... if they can't compete and provide for themselves than screw them :). Irony inspires the sadist in me ... |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
This leads me to the question of whether I really lose if Bush wins the election. |
At least them homos will be put in thar place. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
At least them homos will be put in thar place. |
Indeed, and since I'm against all marriage hetero or homo, I think that would accomplish the greater good for all parties involved. :p |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Indeed, and since I'm against all marriage hetero or homo, I think that would accomplish the greater good for all parties involved. :p |
I'm simply against the government sanctioning marriage - hetero, homo, or polygamous - altogether.
Look at the mess that has created.
If Rev. Billy Bubba Bob doesn't want to perform homosexual or polygamous weddings, then that's fine, and if Rev. Joe Jambalaya Jim does, then that's fine.
That's America. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| I dont think its a big deal. Theres only a 2 or 3 state difference. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
The Tax Foundation recentely conducted a study to analyze where our tax dollars were going broken down by state. Their analysis was as follows: |
Or in otherwords, DUH.
Or in the words of Jack Welsch to the former Govenor Pitaki, "You don't build new roads in the neighborhoods that don't vote for you". |
|
|
| imokruok |
These numbers come up every few years, and it's usually the same states - for good reason. The title of this thread is incorrect. It's not welfare. Well, some of it is naturally. But rather, it's federal spending. And if you actually think about the states on the list, you can see why those states get money.
First of all, West Virginia and South Dakota are obvious. Senator Byrd is the first reason, and Senator Daschle the second. Alaska gets disproportionate amounts of money because of the numerous expensive military installations as related to the tax paying population. Arkansas = Clinton...and so on.
The web site actually states these issues, for those who bothered to go there.
| quote: |
One factor affecting rankings is that federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful members of congress. Also, state governments can grab more federal grant money by manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.
Another factor is demography. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements tend to rank high. Similarly, high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.
Finally, states with higher incomes per capita—such as Connecticut—pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the income tax's progressive structure, which increases federal taxes per dollar of federal spending received in return. |
|
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
PER CAPITA
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
These numbers come up every few years, and it's usually the same states - for good reason. The title of this thread is incorrect. It's not welfare. Well, some of it is naturally. But rather, it's federal spending. And if you actually think about the states on the list, you can see why those states get money.
First of all, West Virginia and South Dakota are obvious. Senator Byrd is the first reason, and Senator Daschle the second. Alaska gets disproportionate amounts of money because of the numerous expensive military installations as related to the tax paying population. Arkansas = Clinton...and so on.
The web site actually states these issues, for those who bothered to go there. |
It is welfare in the sense that these states are receiving federal entitlements more so than they contribute to the rest of the country. I didn't actually mean that all this money was going to welfare because that's just silly. However, what it does mean is that if major cuts in discretionary spending occur (which I support), than the states that will suffer the most are red states and I find that extremely humorous given the fact that their political alignment shall contribute to their detriment. That is of course assuming bush finds some sense of fiscal responsibility some time this decade. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Or in otherwords, DUH.
Or in the words of Jack Welsch to the former Govenor Pitaki, "You don't build new roads in the neighborhoods that don't vote for you". |
Mmm The country of the free world .. YaY! .. the example of Democracy, goooD! |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Mmm The country of the free world .. YaY! .. the example of Democracy, goooD! |
Yup, if you think this is different in any other democracy or country for that matter in the world, let me know, ok?
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Yup, if you think this is different in any other democracy or country for that matter in the world, let me know, ok?
:rolleyes: |
It is different in Chile I can tell you that much .. :rolleyes:
We are not talking a country helping an enemy country.. we are talking about the President of the United States.. why should there be differences, with that in mind, you can see how he divides he's side to the others, if it's been that way for a time with past presidents, Shame really.. I didnt expect that kind of attitude coming from the "United States of America ". << Can you see a keyword there? .. |
|
|
|
|
