HULK SMASH!!!
I've never been certain waht this tells us about America.
Is it saying that by and large the people who are less educated, less wealthy, and need more federal assistance are those who tend to vote Republican? Likewise, is it saying that the better educated, more well off tend to vote Democratic?
Or is this saying that because the Federal government is dumping money into these states, they are somehow ending up in worse shape due to ineffeciencies created by their participation?
I tend to believe the former; that the less educated people who tend to need the help of progressive taxation more also tend to be those who are less educated and vote Republcian, but I haven't seen firm reasoning.
What is true however, is that a smart candidate for the Dems would make this a selling point in the South. The Democrats are the party that helps out the poor far more than the Republicans. The Republicans want the south to pay a higher share of the nation's income tax load, and any smart Democrat should be able to use that to their advantage. It might be enough to overcome some of the gun issues in states, if we play it properly.
Visit my web page, please
Atrios, your second link is a duplicate of the first one.
Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party — their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic.
You mean (gasp) Repukes are fucking hypocrites????? Stop the presses!!!
great story Atrios. Thanks for the links. Yet another club with which to bash the right-wingers over the head.
Number one leech on the tit? Texas, of course. Where they despise all that big government stuff, but are always happy to take federal bailout dollars. Dumabass hypocrites. But then again, we live in a nation of idiots.
Calpundit had a great post about this back in September:
http://www.calpundit.com/archive...ves/
002155.html
I've never been certain waht this tells us about America.
It means that the Republicans have their lying, hypocritical mouths placed firmly on the teats of the Democrats. Small government for Democrats big for the Republicans.
Democrats need to seize the "tax cut" issue. Reduce the spending on "welfare" states.
The republicans would have a hard time arguing against the "tax cut."
That should be "teat," Atrios. Let's get the saying correct. 
It breaks down to population density.
Densely populated states like New Jersey and Massachussetts have larger tax revenues simply because they have more people per square mile.
States like Nevada and Wyoming have low population densities and a high-percentage of the land is owned by the federal government (national parks).
Is it saying that by and large the people who are less educated, less wealthy, and need more federal assistance are those who tend to vote Republican? Likewise, is it saying that the better educated, more well off tend to vote Democratic?
OT: If someone can help me with this:
the e-mail address that appears with my name will soon be deactivated (someone is using it to send viruses to others). Should I erase the haloscan cookie so no one here thinks someone else is posting as me (since the e-mail link will be different). Does it matter?
Is it 'pay to play' or 'play along for pay'?
Is this OT?
What do others think of Catherine Austin Fitts and Solari.com?
Big surprise, their man in the White House is spending like money is going out of style. The "small gummit" types sure love them some gummit dough and lots of it.
Sweet Lord Jesus, haven't the Republicans been puking at us for years about lazy shiftless Cadillac-driving welfare mamas taking all the hard-earned money away from Joe Sixpack thanks to those cheese-eating Volvo driving Harvard Yard liberal elites?
All Phil Gramm's rhetoric about "the people riding in the wagon" and "the people pulling the wagon" turns out to be...horseshit? It turns out the swarthy striving masses in the amoral cities are pulling the wagon and the red states are the ones riding in it?
Granted, this is an argument made everywhere the GOP lives - many, many a man's been elected to Albany by vowing to make NYC "pay it's fair share," yet NYC sends a lot more tax revenue to Albany than it gets back.
As much as I'd like to label Mississippi one big state full of redneck welfare queens living off of those volvo driving latte sippers in Massacussetts, isn't it also true that my tax money is going to "taker states" in the form of national parks, something that people in the giver states use?
Big surprise, their man in the White House is spending like money is going out of style. The "small gummit" types sure love them some gummit dough and lots of it.
Hold the phone! All of Phil Gramm's talk about Republicans being "the people pulling the wagon" versus Democrats being "the people who ride the wagon" turned out to be...hypocritical demagoguery? Sacre bleu! You mean the hard-earned tax dollars of the heartland aren't all being squandered on Cadillac driving welfare mommas after all? The giant sucking sound flows into the heartland, not out? All this stuff about "returning tax money to the people who pay most of it" is specious reasoning? Madonn'!
Note that this is not just a red state / blue state issue for the GOP - many a man's been dispatched to Albany after vowing to make NYC "pay their fair share." Of course, NYC sends Albany a lot more tax $ than Albany ever pays them.
I grew up in the Red West (Utah) and led me assure you: the Reds (ha!) use national parks just as much if not more than liberal coastal city-dwellers do.
It looks as if Howard Dean suceeded in getting Vermont a bigger share of the federal pie:
35th in 1992 and 26th in 2002
I seem to remember Pat Leahy trying to get Lake Champlain declared a Great Lake in order to bring federal funds into the state. I don't think he suceeded though.
I wonder what exactly puts states like Mississippi on the bottem since they don't have much in terms of federal projects anyway.
I'm guessing military bases are included, which means, if you live in a dirt poor state like Mississippi, a military base is a big deal. In New Jersey or California, it would be a much smaller percentage of the state's revenue and would be dwarfed by the larger tax base and private industry.
Specifically, shifting government revenues towards state income taxes which are deductible from federal taxes and away from sales taxes, user fees, property taxes, etc...
Atrios, property taxes are deductible to the same extent as state income taxes. I can understand why, from a policy perspective, you might perfer income taxes over property taxes, but you can't say the latter aren't deductible.
It's not just Blood and Oil, it's Blood and Oil and Soil.
Killing the oceans means blue states can't secede and eat via fishing. We're all hostage to these inbred children-of-the-corn chainsaw-wielding yokels.
I remember a Sherlock Holmes quote, something about while there is plenty of evil in the city, you gotta go to the country for the real sicko retardo crimes. Or something like that.
mithras,
oops. tahnks.
mithras,
oops. tahnks.
To be fair, it's also worth historicizing this phenomenon.
California, for example, is currently the "worst off," but we'd do well to remember that at least part of the reason for California's post-WW II boom is that the state was the recipient of massive federal investment, particularly with respect to defense-related industries.
California may still have "given back" more than it got, but it would be worth asking at what point California became a tax "exporter" rather than an "importer" - if it ever was an importer.
Did somebody say "tit?"
(¤)(¤)
I actually took the time to run a regression test on this a few months ago.
At first when I had looked at the data it looked like there was a correlation. It looked those states that collected more in federal aid than they sent in taxes voted Republican and those states that sent more in taxes than they got in federal aid voted Democratic.
But when I ran the regression test it turned out that there was no significant or even close to significant correlation. Like .2 or something like that.
Run some tests for yourself.
my bad - two redundant rants
when in doubt, blame Haloscan
That should be "teat," Atrios. Let's get the saying correct.
Eli Stephens
Flattered though I am, never underestimate the greed of Republicans. They'd never leave one free.
sorry, i don't buy this "red states leachig off blue states".
it's a little more complicated -- i think blue states tend to have greater concentration of wealth and indusutry, therefore contribute more to the tax base. It doesn't mean that the average person is receiving less than his fair share if he lives in a blue state.
To give an example, lets say we have two states, each containg one hundred identical people who are paying taxes and receiving income equitably -- no problem, right?
Now put Bill Gates in one of those states. suddenly that state is contibuting much more to the tax base. However, in general the rest of the people in Bill's state are not contributing any more or less -- and they are still getting their share.
See, all 200 people are now splitting Bill's contribution equitably, but from each state's perspective it appears one state is contributing more than the other.
hope that makes sense.
Excellent, Woot, now lets see a picture of a bushtit.
Easy equation. Buy the jobs, buy the votes. The Red States are filled with federal bases and funded programs. Even those don't have bases, are liberally funded with things like farm supports, which of course, are also supported by most farm state Dems.
It's always galled be to no end to see a bumper sticker on some farmer's pickup truck lamenting the federal government, or taxes, while they're on the way to the bank to deposit their latest "farm support" check. Can there be a higher level of hypocrisy? Just proves, "welfare" is OK, as long as it's THEIR welfare.
I seem to remember Pat Leahy trying to get Lake Champlain declared a Great Lake in order to bring federal funds into the state. I don't think he suceeded though.
Yes, he did try. In fact, for something like 6 days Champlain was considered a Great Lake. That silliness was dropped, but we do now get the funding that was the object of the charade in the first place.
yeah, but dumbass farmer in the pickup truck isn't getting the subsidy. Twenty % of recipients get 81% of the subsidies. Who gets the biggest subsidies.
HOLY CRAP. Riceland Foods got $110 billion dollars in subsidies, in 2002.
woot, awwwww, that was the cutest boobie ever.
satiRic, you can erase the cookie, or you can just replace the email name when you post again.
Don't worry, we shall know ye by your words! (not much chance anyone would think you were a troll, bud.)
Anyway the virus is using everyone's emails, they get them from programs that crawl through the blogs. It'll burn itself out eventually. I doubt anyone thinks that you're actually sending the virus.
er, I meant million, not billion. Still, fucking enormous!
cut it out, Woot...yer gettin my blood pressure up waitin for that picture to load while i'm tryin to chew on this latest piece of friggin bass-ackward news about whats really goin on behind our backs...jeebus!
Can everyone take a deep breath and relax a moment? Federal spending isn't just welfare and national parks. I live in a Blue state that gets lots of Federal money due to biotech and medical research grants. Our ratio looks lousy, but that's because wages and taxes are relatively high. The net benefit to the state in terms of jobs, and to the country in terms of advances in R&D, are much greater than indicated by our 25cent-on-the-dollar "loss." The Feds _should_ be redistributing income, as long as it is done for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Poor people in rural states - help them out. Invest in R&D - good idea.
So, farmer in a truck getting hosed by agri-corps needs someone to kick around...... welfare queens and immoral libburals anyone?
Now put Bill Gates in one of those states. suddenly that state is contibuting much more to the tax base.
You use a hypothetical that is one-sided...."what if microsoft moved to north dakota - it would pay more taxes!" The state with microsoft would be much better off - jobs, corporate taxes and benefits, etc. or at least it SHOULD be much better off - atrios is saying and that report vindicates that is NOT happening; that many of the 'red' states have cherry military contracts, military bases, etc. In other words a disproportionate amount of tax revenue flowing into the state. and this would include pork projects, etc.
This type of math to me is just like the electoral college....3 electoral votes in vermont; but they have less people than my CITY which has only 2 electoral votes. the one-man one-vote ideal does not exist in Amerikkka and the founding fathers knew it!
Wait til you see how the colors/numbers look after the Mad Cowboy subsidies are divvied!
Not to mention GMO reparations!
Oy.
Mike Royko had a great column about this nearly forty years ago as well.
The Blue states should secede and form their own country, maybe the United States of Elites or something like that. We could import our champagne from France, and our caviar from Russia. Since we all drive expensive foreign cars anyway, that wouldn't be a problem. Leave the Red states to their monster truck shows and hog-calling contests. Let's see how they get along then.
Schroedinger's Cat --
what i am saying is that to make a fair comparison of red vs blue contributions, we need to use the median contribution per person for the states you are comparing, rather than the aggregate mean.
in other words, it is possible that in red states the median contribution is higher per individual -- i don't know that that's true, in fact i doubt it, but i think that would be the more meaningful comparison.
(or medianful comparison or whatever.)
buffalo gal, thats all well and good, but I think that everybody here is getting a little tired of the urban welfare queen myth that is being spread around like so much manure by the media. I'm all for a little redistribution of wealth, but I think one of the biggest myths out there is that it is getting redistributed from rich to poor, rural to urban. And frankly, I think that people on this comment board are tired of the rich and the rural folks whining about it.
Many posters have have uncritically accepted the media whore Atrios's false premise regarding Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes by State and voting patterns.
The sheep are easily fooled by demagouges.
As I noted a simple regression test would reveal that the claim is unsupported. The results are not statistically significant. Not even close.
It is true that a lot of states with positive Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes voted for Bush.
It is also true that most states have a positive Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes.
Only 16 states have a negative Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes.
Of those Bush won 6. Hardly a compelling case.
Run the regression test yourself and see if Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes correlates with voting habits.
It doesn't. But don't trust me. Check it out yourself.
or
BAAAAHHHHHHHHH BAAAHHHHHHHH BAAAAAAAAHHH some more.
The real welfare queens are the suburban soccer moms. Everything from the gas they put in their SUVs (not to mention the SUVs themselves) to the roads they drive on, to their mortgages etc. are subsidized by Uncle Sam.
Remember after 9/11 a few elites were calling for the death of irony. To me it was just the beginning of the most ironic and hypocritical era in America.
Isn't it rich that folks in W. Va and my low IQ state of Ky., having voted Repukes in office will now get shafted by these same Wingers on their way for unemployment benifits and welfare help?
Speaking of Ky., looks like the last honest Republican died last hight.
Louis Nunn was Govenor in the late 60's and was of the old Republican variety that believed in working with the opposition for the betterment of the state. Guess those kind are gone forever.
BigMacAttack:
Believe it or not (sheep though I am) I probably agree with you.
But since I'm not a statistician, cwould you be able to rephrase that in a way that a layman could understand more easily.
It's also fallacious to assume that just because a state is a net recipient of government dollars, that the money is going into the hands of individuals and interests that vote Republican.
How much of these outlays come in the form of pork, economic development, R&D, etc., versus HHS distribution to the needy?
Is there something that shows, for example, whether Alabama gets $1.64 back because of outlays to the impoverished in the Black Belt? Those folks aren't voting Republican.
And to whoever said that Texas is the #1 state at the tit, you couldn't be more wrong. Texas actually is one of the 15 net donor states.
Perhaps government dollars are spread pretty evenly around, and the apparent discrepancy is based more upon relative wealth of the states? Wouldn't that be a GOOD thing from a progressive point of view?
This is just Limbaugh-esque demagoguery.
yeah, and the way DeLay is going after Dems' ability to get funding for their districts I imagine that this discrepancy is going to get even higher. how's that old saying about taxation and representation go again?
Maybe it's time to rethink our whole anti-seccession thing. We'd be a rich progressive country and the South would beg for assistance.
The Blue states should secede and form their own country, maybe the United States of Elites or something like that.
Perhaps the Northeast, the Industrialized Midwest, and the Left Coast can secede and apply for provincial status within Canada? Meanwhile, the Red States can work out some sort of federal deal with Mexico. It's a win/win situation!
Maybe it's time to rethink our whole anti-seccession thing. We'd be a rich progressive country and the South would beg for assistance.
URGENT
Attn: Trent Lott and John Ashcroft
Dear Confederate States of America:
Your request for secession has been approved. Please accept our apologies for the delay.
Sincerely,
The United States of America
Do you have the figures on how this compares to military spending?
Is there something that shows, for example, whether Alabama gets $1.64 back because of outlays to the impoverished in the Black Belt? Those folks aren't voting Republican.
Sounds like a winner. No sled dog races, though.
"Maybe it's time to rethink our whole anti-seccession thing. We'd be a rich progressive country and the South would beg for assistance."
So you're willing to sell out millions of devoted black Democratic voters? No wonder they think the Dems take them for granted.
"Maybe it's time to rethink our whole anti-seccession thing. We'd be a rich progressive country and the South would beg for assistance."
H.L. Mencken wrote an article called The Tragedy of Appomattox speculating about what the US would have been like had the South been allowed to secede.
It's a pretty funny article. Needless to say, he was in favor of dumping the South.
Your request for secession has been approved. Please accept our apologies for the delay.
Just think of it:
No more Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, evangelicals in general, Strom Thurmond, Bob Jones University, NASCAR, bad country music, Civil War re-enactments, (or civil war chess sets).... the list goes on oand on. I guess MLK could be their Nelson Madela. We could grant slaves political amnesty up here.
What a wonderful world it could be.
The Civil War was such a waste.
I just ran the statistics. BigLieAttach was, well, lying.
Pearson's r for the coorelation between $'s spent and the dummy "voted republican" is .347024. If that number is greater than .279 then it's statistically significant at a 95% confidence level.
I'm in love with Woot...
I'm in love with Woot...
Well, I guess it bore saying twice. Oops!
The real welfare queens are the suburban soccer moms. Everything from the gas they put in their SUVs (not to mention the SUVs themselves) to the roads they drive on, to their mortgages etc. are subsidized by Uncle Sam.
No they are not. They work hard and all the liberal layabouts sponge off of their fortunes.
Like most rightwing zealots, BigMacAttack lies, and then expects us lefties to have a big heart and feel sorry becuase he is just stupid, not a liar. (Just like the unelected semi-retarded Republican president and his lying excuse for invasion.) Of the 16 "giver states" the Royal Asshole won 4, not 6. Net give back per state won or awarded to Bush is 31.2 cents. Net giveback per state won by Gore was 3.3 cents. AND DON"T FORGET GORE WON THE POPULAR ELECTION. If you give Florida (and the election) back to Gore those numbers don't change. Red states are taking money from blue states.
Big Mac--
Actually, isn't the article about electoral politics?
"78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.
76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.
Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25... If the Democratic candidate won all 16 Giver states plus the District of Columbia in November, he'd collect only 254 electoral votes, short of the majority needed to capture the White House. The electoral votes of all the Taker states, by contrast, add up to 273 — two more than Mr. Bush won in 2000."
Big Mac--
Actually, isn't the article about electoral politics?
"78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.
76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.
Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25... If the Democratic candidate won all 16 Giver states plus the District of Columbia in November, he'd collect only 254 electoral votes, short of the majority needed to capture the White House. The electoral votes of all the Taker states, by contrast, add up to 273 — two more than Mr. Bush won in 2000."
Folks, this is easy. There are a number of low-income benefits programs that tilt Federal largesse toward the poorer states, exs. Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, low income housing etc. These are done on a revenue-sharing basis. with the lower the state income level the lower its percentage of contribution to the the program.
Rural and Southern states are lower in income & thus receive a disproportionate share tax-wise. Also, people living in rural areas tend to be traditional & thus vote Republican. Incidentially, for some of these states, Southern, a good percentage of program receipients are minority & likely to vote Democrat.
SWR,
About my beloved home state, Mississippi, it gets boatloads of money for its school system. Mississippi State, for example, gets federal dollars for its big ol' catfish hatchery - catfish being big money in the Magnolia state. They also get money for - and I love this - growing pot. Yep, the Bulldogs have a big field where they grow primo weed for "medical studies". That sort of shit would get you busted in California.
My ex-roommate and his now bride drove up to Alaska last year to visit his old man, and he told me they pay almost zero in income taxes compared to what they get from the government. They get hoppin' mad if they have to pay the one or don't get the other.
"Federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful congressmen, and state governments can grab more federal grant money by skillfully - some would say slavishly - manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.
However, demography is at least as influential as politics. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other large federal entitlements are bound to rank fairly high. Similarly, the high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.
On the tax side of the equation, states with higher incomes per capita - Connecticut stands out - pay much higher federal taxes per capita because of the income tax's progressive structure. The citizens in these high-income, high-tax states do not always live better or save more than people in low-income, low-tax states because the higer cost of living is usually that much higher or more."
What's the deal with New Mexico? Is that all about Los Alamos?
Carter,
Don't forget the Tennessee Valley Authority, which supplied electricity and running water to much of the South, in particular my home are of Tupelo. My uncle, a righteous Republican and born-again Southern Baptist, is always trying to engage his liberal nephew in debate, generally on how immoral us lefties are and how we hate America. Every time he says something about how "liberals never did anything for poor people," I wanna throttle him and holler, "Hey, old man, you'd still be shittin' in an outhouse if it weren't for the liberal TVA!"
But I was raised to respect my elders, or at least show 'em respect...so only go home on holidays. Much less stress for everyone involved.
"Rural and Southern states are lower in income & thus receive a disproportionate share tax-wise. Also, people living in rural areas tend to be traditional & thus vote Republican. Incidentially, for some of these states, Southern, a good percentage of program receipients are minority & likely to vote Democrat."
This is what I was saying. The states may vote Republican, but the money is going to the poor. A disproportionate number of the poor in, for example, Southern states, are minorities who tend to vote Democratic.
The plurality of military spending in this country goes to California, Virginia, Florida, and Texas. It's not going to the states at the top of the Tax Foundation list.
These are HHS dollars going where they need to go -- to the poor. This is in spite of the prevailing political view in those states which is to say F-you to blacks, Latinos, and other poor.
This means the federal government is doing its job.
Another Bruce - Point taken. At the time I wrote, it seemed (at least some) people were buying the all-federal-money going-to-welfare-queens line.
SteveO,
I did not lie. Though I was mistaken. Apparently you don't understand or don't care that there is a difference. I had quickly used the 1992 totals.
4 out of 16 or 6 out of 16 I think you will find if you bother to take the time and run do a rgeression test that results are not even close to being statistically significant. In the sense that being a taker or giver state results in voting Republican or Democratic.
Even if it was true, as others have noted the correct progressive reponse should not be this inane partisan rage. Instead real progressives would be happy that income was being redistributed from rich to poor and perhaps a bit of despair that cultural affections were causing red states to vote against their own economic interests. (Coupled with ignorance that cultural affections were causing rich states to vote against their economic interests.)
Flay away nasty troll and do some regression testing.
The real welfare queens are the suburban soccer moms. Everything from the gas they put in their SUVs (not to mention the SUVs themselves) to the roads they drive on, to their mortgages etc. are subsidized by Uncle Sam.
No they are not. They work hard and all the liberal layabouts sponge off of their fortunes.
When BigMacAttack writes that SteveO should do some regression testing and that he did not lie he negelects to mention that he did lie about doing the regression testing himself.
DJW: It's all about Los Alamos, Sandia National Labs, White Sands Missile Range, DOE, a couple of top-secret Naval weapons/research labs and four Air Force bases. ( I TOLD you we had WMDs here) Uuh....also LOTS of Indian reservations (but don't know if monies that go to them get figured in with the tax burden, though). The Federal government is the number one employer here.
But we most certainly ARE NOT a red state, Atrios. So we can continue to suckle away, no?
Angry elephant & backslider:
ae: You've noted the revenue side of the equation: Federal revenue is based on progressive taxes & thus people from wealthier states provide more Federal revenue.
Regarding it mainly going to minorities, this is a misconception. Rural poverty is worse than urban poverty. Sure, for some states such as Mississipi, S. Carolina, Alabama etc. its mainly going to blacks. However, for most states, exs. W. Virginia, Montana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Colorado, its mainly going to poor whites.
So far, I haven't seen anyone here argue that the distribution of federal funds with respect to each state's contribution is, per se a bad thing, but rather that the notion that the "blue" states are full of "welfare mothers" that are taking the tax dollars of good "red" state Americans is, well, more complicated than that.
If my tax dollars are going to help impoverished people in rural areas, I support that. I just want to make sure that Americans know about it.
(cont'd)
Pork & special projects like TVA are not a significant proportion of federal aid to states. Incidentially, with the Republicans in control of Congress, pork spending is the highest its ever been (depending on who totals it, between $20-$40 billion annually). Army bases, NASA, though good for a state's economy, do not count as Federal programs for a state.
Re. N. Mexico, what the figure is indicating is aid to the low income Indian & Hispanics, which make up significant percentages of the state's population. I left out farm subsidies, which really skew things, as they mainly go to middle class & up residents, including wealthy corporations. Thus, farm belt states get nice amounts of Federal aid to people who are, for the most part, less than poor.
"Regarding it mainly going to minorities, this is a misconception. Rural poverty is worse than urban poverty. Sure, for some states such as Mississipi, S. Carolina, Alabama etc. its mainly going to blacks. However, for most states, exs. W. Virginia, Montana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Colorado, its mainly going to poor whites."
So they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. It's not hypocrisy, it's economic self-destruction in the name of reactionary social beliefs.
Hipocrite,
WTF is with calling me a liar? Weird.
No I did do regression testing on this.
About 3 months ago. I don't even know if the data I used is the same as the data Atrios linked to.
Maybe I entered some data wrong when I did. Maybe I didn't test properly. Or maybe I did everything right. I took one stat class a long time ago. But I did not lie about regression testing.
And again just re-eye balling the data I doubt it is statistically significant.
And I wanted the data to be statistically significant. I thought it would be a neat bit of evidence, even considering all of angry elephant's points, about how culture might be trumping economic interests when it comes to voting in this country. But alas my results disagreed.
So please go prove me wrong. I want to be wrong. Go ahead call me lair again, whatever floats your boat. Just do me a favor and do the testing and post your results.
Since it's the red states we're talking about, I figured words wouldn't make a dent: hence, visuals!
In response to Noah re: Texas
Sorry to have to tell you that Texas is a net exporter of tax money -- that is, Texas sends more money to Washington than it gets back in Federal expenditures, at least from 1983 to 1999. Over that 17-year period, Texas sent $111 billion [in 1999 adjusted dollars] more to Washington than it got back.
For this, see Appendix Table C-6, entitled “17-Year Cumulative History” of "The Federal Budget and the States, Fiscal Year 1999", published December 2000 by the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the JFK School of Government, Harvard University.
I suspect that this is still true, because in Fiscal Year 2002, Texas got back only 92 cents for every dollar it sent to Washington.
Derek
The tax foundation's data is misleading when it comes to DC. It appears to count all federal wages paid in DC as aid to DC. Nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of those wages are paid to commuters from the suburbs. These dollars aid the suburban tax base and economy, not DC.
actually New York City is the worse off than any State because NYC gets doubly screwed
First from federal government then from NY State government
The outrage is not so much directed at the red states receiving a disproportionate amount of federal dollars. It is that as the largest recipients of these dollars, they seem to be in a form of denial that they are sucking the teat to a larger degree, eventhough they are the largest proponents of "self-sufficiency"
Reminds me of an article by (of all people) Amber Pawlik, who is a Georgist as well as an Objectivist.
She pointed out that Gore votes tended to cluster in areas with the highest levels of ground rent. The implication, she said, was that the public tended most to support bread and circuses and other statist redistribution programs when they were deprived of direct access to the means of subsistence by greedy landlords.
Interestingly, taking this up pronto with his good friend W and getting California's "fair share" back from DC sas one of the first things our California Governator was going to do, according to his campaign bloviation.
When he tried to raise it, W dope slapped him on the subject and AHHnold hasn't mentioned it again.
While I haven't looked at the numbers in a while, the last I knew things like farm subsidies and grants for biotech/gm co.s were where the bulk of this money was going to. Eveyone should shut up about how "poor layabouts", or anyone poor in general is getting any real percentage of this money. That's fucking bullshit. Poor black and latino/a people get squat compared to elderly whites, straight up, but they get squat of the squat compared to monstanto, agribusiness, etc. No people, maintaining national parks has absolutely nothing to do with any of this at all. The overall sad point is, that for all of their talk about reducing spending (as if the cons can even use this as their bedrock argument anymore...) Republican politician do what it takes to get that money back home. They network, they schmooze, the make the deals and the money comes in. No one complains about huge government spending when it means a huge grant coming their way, or even their friends' or neighbors' way. When these companies come to an area, they are paying tens of millions to PR firms in the liberal areas, CA, NY, etc to sell themselves and their backers to the people in the area where they're doing their shit, and it works, as there is often no counterpoint offered, and no perception that one is called for.
shouldn't welfare states get jobs?
Hey Reds, all of us educated "libruls" in the blue states will just keep all our tax revenues. We can continue to invest in schools, daycares, healthcare systems, infrastructure, and so forth. All you red-stated ditto-heads can keep your paltry tax revenues for yourselves, meaning you can essentially live in a third world (or "turd world" as their hero Michael "Savage" Weiner would call it) country. Have fun, and don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
In the 90s, I used to go around muttering at Texan, What do ya mean don't mess with Texas, I bought the damn thing in the savings and loan bail out.
BigLieAttack, here's a repost of what I did:
I just ran the statistics. BigLieAttach was, well, lying.
Pearson's r for the coorelation between $'s spent and the dummy "voted republican" is .347024. If that number is greater than .279 then it's statistically significant at a 95% confidence level.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
