Author Topic: Government Spending  (Read 1895 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shaolin

  • Daddy
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
  • Liked: 3
  • Would really like some hardcore sleep
Government Spending
« on: April 19, 2010, 11:58:48 PM »
http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/04/government-spending/
Quote
Perhaps more interesting is looking at where federal spending is directed. The red states in the map below are states which received more than $1.00 in federal money for every $1.00 in taxes paid by residents of that state. Blue states are states which received less than $1.00 in federal money for every $1.00 paid by residents of that state in taxes (information from a 2005 study by the Tax Foundation).




There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization).

All of this makes current Republican rhetoric frustrating, to say the least. Republicans tolerated spending under Republican presidents for 30 years, accounting for 59% of our total national debt, all the while benefiting from federal spending at the expense of their counterparts in blue states, only to then go bananas when a Democratic president and Congress spend money to rescue a floundering economy.
Interesting stuff.

Offline Bigred

  • Violating the Princess Bride since 1987
  • Big Daddy Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • Liked: 0
Re: Government Spending
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2010, 07:16:04 AM »
I wonder what it would look like now (in 2010).  I would have figured California and Michigan would have been red not Blue.

I think maybe another theory behind the colors is that the government is giving to those states so the people vote for them in coming elections. 

Some states just may not have the population base to support themselves.  I wonder how much of what they call taxes given to federal government come from corporations or people, do they include the payments for the oil/mineral leases.  Do the payments to the states include the funding for military bases and government projects like NASA, or the Pentagon, etc....  What about Farm subsidies, are those included as payments to the state?

Also, you have natural disasters, and the southeast is usually pelted by them.  2004 and 2005 was a big year for them with regard to hurricanes.

It would be interesting seeing this map for more than just that one year, and also seeing just how much over $1 the red states got.  nevermind here is the link giving actual values. 

Link

Actually this link below shows the ratio from 1981 till 2005, there doesn't seem to be any information like this past 2005, bummer.

link #2




Offline z_randy

  • hurricanes suck
  • Assistant Admin
  • Big Daddy Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 11517
  • Liked: 55
  • Don't Panic!
  • Children?: 2
  • First Name?: Randy
Re: Government Spending
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2010, 08:41:10 AM »
It also seems to be that the more affluent states are the ones in blue.  NY, NJ, CA are all more affluent than the mid west and the south.  That could have something to do with it also.  Gov't feels they don't need as much.



Every day, from here to there,funny things are everywhere

Offline vegaskiller73

  • Too good to be caught around Damian and Joey
  • Big Daddy Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3586
  • Liked: 0
Re: Government Spending
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2010, 08:49:57 AM »
Red, in your 1st link that shows FY 2005, Louisiana is ranked #4 with Miss. ranked just above it. Seems that may corrolate(sp?) with hurricane Katrina and the flooding of N.O. . Miss's coast getting devistated also.



Offline Bigred

  • Violating the Princess Bride since 1987
  • Big Daddy Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • Liked: 0
Re: Government Spending
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2010, 12:21:31 PM »
Also you have to figure from the states stand point.  If they put $1 into the pot they want that $1 back for state projects or as close to it as they can get.



Offline joey791

  • Big Daddy Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 6155
  • Liked: 0
Re: Government Spending
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2010, 07:01:24 PM »
Also you have to figure from the states stand point.  If they put $1 into the pot they want that $1 back for state projects or as close to it as they can get.

As Chad stated above we had Katrina the Federal FEMA fiasco, what money was wasted by government employees. Also the federal government matches above and beyond on road projects, Louisiana that was in the plus has been doing alot of roadwork, so in another words this map means jack without explanations on the spending and why, its the same thing as posting a picture of an apple and saying this apple is delicious without ever tasting it.

Offline Bigred

  • Violating the Princess Bride since 1987
  • Big Daddy Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • Liked: 0
Re: Government Spending
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2010, 08:39:34 PM »
Red, in your 1st link that shows FY 2005, Louisiana is ranked #4 with Miss. ranked just above it. Seems that may corrolate(sp?) with hurricane Katrina and the flooding of N.O. . Miss's coast getting devistated also.

Yeah that was what I thought too.  I would say for 2004 and 2005, after all in 04 you had Ivan, and in 05 you had Rita and Katrina.  But on the other hand for  more than 15 years LA has been slightly on the plus side.

Like I said earlier and what Joey said there are many factors that are not being explained here.  When you start looking at this and thinking of all the things the federal government pays for, they could be including those values in what they send to the states.  Also are they including everything that is paid to them from the states or just federal taxes paid.





Offline vegaskiller73

  • Too good to be caught around Damian and Joey
  • Big Daddy Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3586
  • Liked: 0
Re: Government Spending
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2010, 09:32:41 PM »
Yeah that was what I thought too.  I would say for 2004 and 2005, after all in 04 you had Ivan, and in 05 you had Rita and Katrina.  But on the other hand for  more than 15 years LA has been slightly on the plus side.

Like I said earlier and what Joey said there are many factors that are not being explained here.  When you start looking at this and thinking of all the things the federal government pays for, they could be including those values in what they send to the states.  Also are they including everything that is paid to them from the states or just federal taxes paid.

I can say without a doubt, just traveling along I-10 isince 2005, there has been alot of Fed funding for Interstate highways. I've seen signs all over. Not to mention alot I-49 corridor upgrades. Louisiana had some of the worst roads. Now they are pretty good. All this has taken place in the last 10 years or so. Also you have to take into account all the "Coastal Restoration" that has been taken place in the past years. It's a lot..
Roads, bridges, hurricanes, and coastal restoration to secure oil and gas comapnies takes a bit of money. I'm not saying politicians are sugarcoating anything. but in the past 10-15 years, I've sen alot of money going into infrastructure here.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2010, 09:34:18 PM by vegaskiller73 »



 



Sitemap Multimedia Forum
Daddy's Deals DP Daily News Blogs
EBooks Donations Contact Us
Daddyplace Constitution