Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
zherok:
--- Quote from: jaybug on October 15, 2012, 10:02:12 PM ---You can look it up for your self, I will not hold your hand for you, which states are net providers, and which are net takers.
--- End quote ---
I googled it. The list accounts for population and tax revenue. Fairly sensible to me, it makes little sense to pretend Wyoming should pay an amount commensurate with it's population but receive the same amount California does with 66 times the population of Wyoming.
The top 10:
10. North Dakota
9. Connecticut
8. West Virginia
7. Alabama
6. Kentucky
5. New Mexico
4. Hawaii
3. Maryland
2. Virginia
1. Alaska
I color coded them with the way they went in 2008 for the presidential election, some of them are obviously in play for the current one (well, really only Virginia, though it's leaning blue still). As the article relates, the reason for most of these states ending up on the list is due to military spending. Kentucky interestingly enough seems to be spending it largely on social welfare programs. Fucking blue staters, amiright?
jaybug:
Byron Dorgan, and Kent Conrad have nothing to do with the pork they bring home? Neither did the departed Richard Byrd of West Virginia? All senate democrats.
The other red states, either have very high costs of living, Alaska. Or have high cost government contracts, NASA-Alabama. Where did you think rockets were made? New York City? Or they have senior senators who knew how to get pork to their states. Gee, anything new there?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf
zherok:
Did you read your sources? I'm not sure you did.
The states that give the most proportionally to what they receive (highest proportional percentage down towards parity with taxing/spending):
Delaware
Minnesota
New Jersey
Illinois
Connecticut
New York
Ohio (toss up this election but currently leaning blue)
Michigan
Nebraska
Massachusetts
Colorado
Wisconsin
Texas
Georgia
Nevada
California
Arkansas
Washington
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
And Pennsylvania apparently more or less receiving what it earns in taxes.
In the red according to the Economist (least in the red to most in the red):
Indiana
North Carolina
Oregon
Kansas
Missouri
Tenessee
Utah
Oklahoma
Florida (though leaning red this year)
Idaho
Iowa
Wyoming
Vermont
Arizona
Louisiana
South Dakota
Kentucky
Hawaii
Virginia (toss up but leaning blue atm)
Alaska
Maryland
Maine
North Dakota
Alabama
Montana
West Virginia
Mississippi
New Mexico
Puerto Rico (doesn't get to vote in general election, but hypothetically would have leaned blue if their governor race is any indication)
So let's illustrate. California produced 336.2 billion dollars in taxes over what was spent in the state. Wyoming spent 19.1 billion dollars more than it generated in taxes. California covered Wyoming's federal deficit 17 1/2 times over.
So you'll have to pardon me if I'm skeptical in believing that all of mostly red-leaning fly over country has either incredibly successful Democratic legislators driving federal spending up in those states and/or housing costs that exceed California and the vast majority of New England.
jaybug:
Wow, I can tell you don't have a job. lol
Sometimes I post, because I am not a politician, and do not need to only show how righteous I am. And it does not mean that I am enamored of all that federal spending to begin with, let alone who gets to spend where.
Much federal spending in Oregon goes to counties, because the feds stopped timber production on federal lands. And guess what? Those counties all got hooked on those federal dollars! And guess what else! They're by and large all very RED counties. But it isn't as if anyone left has a job worth a shit to pay for all the goodies that federal spending had going, so they are in a world of hurt.
This is a good example as to why I am not very fond of 10% across the board cuts in spending, or just throwing numbers around like they do not affect anyone's lives. I care more about people, than I do about any particular candidate getting elected.
And Oregon was stupid to ever have term limits, all it did was to give power away to the South.
zherok:
--- Quote from: jaybug on October 16, 2012, 03:09:51 AM ---Wow, I can tell you don't have a job. lol
--- End quote ---
I don't, it's last semester at a JC before I transfer to a university. But it doesn't take that long to cross reference an election map with a list of states. Hell, you could have just eyeballed a guess of the breakdown from the map in the Economist article.
--- Quote ---Sometimes I post, because I am not a politician, and do not need to only show how righteous I am. And it does not mean that I am enamored of all that federal spending to begin with, let alone who gets to spend where.
--- End quote ---
I'm not really concerned with being right, it's just baffling to see conservatives like yourself stake out a position, provide facts, and then have those facts crumble around you. You don't change your position. The numbers say almost the exact opposite of what you wanted to prove. Instead you just race for exceptions, or let it stand alone. It's mind boggling.
--- Quote ---Much federal spending in Oregon goes to counties, because the feds stopped timber production on federal lands. And guess what? Those counties all got hooked on those federal dollars! And guess what else! They're by and large all very RED counties. But it isn't as if anyone left has a job worth a shit to pay for all the goodies that federal spending had going, so they are in a world of hurt.
--- End quote ---
There's a lot of state-based context missing from the figures, sure. And it's not like the numbers are a direct corollary to presidential voting (despite what Romney suggested with in the 47% video.) But that's sort of the point, you wanted to create the narrative that those large liberal bastions were just soaking up federal dollars, while those hard working red states supported them on their backs. I think the numbers, far from perfect, are still definitive enough to dispel that narrative.
And I'm not saying Democrats aren't spending federal money here, or even that they spend less, but the idea that Republicans actually stick to the fiscal conservatism they espouse so fervently when a Democrat is in office is a bunch of shit. If they practiced what they preached it'd be a different matter.
--- Quote ---This is a good example as to why I am not very fond of 10% across the board cuts in spending, or just throwing numbers around like they do not affect anyone's lives. I care more about people, than I do about any particular candidate getting elected.
--- End quote ---
I can agree with this. And honestly it's why I'm largely against Romney's tax plan. They're round numbers that sound nice but have little merit in reality. I want specifics not because I don't want him elected, I want to know what he actually intends to do with such a wide reaching plan. I don't think "trust us, the numbers will all work out" is exactly a very good starting point.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version