Donor states vs. receiver ones

[question everything]

Some months ago someone posted here a list of the ratio of getting federal funds to sending tax money. The conclusion was that "red states" get a lot of money from the federal government, while "blue" ones send more taxes.

Can anyone find that post or reference?

Thanks

[Nite Owl]

1. Oh, I'd love to see that list.

I'm a New Yorker and I'm sure we give lots. I remember Sen. Moynihan
always talking about that.

[eridani]

2. Here ya go!

http://www.ppinys.org/nybalpayments.htm

Democrat voters support parasite Republicans with their taxes. I put the numbers in my own spreadsheet for calculations. If you want to check them, I could post comma-delimited text for you to put into your own spreadsheet.

-Year 2000 states voting Gore had a $180,149 million dollar net deficit to the federal government with (12 of 20 states paying more than they get back)

-Year 2000 states voting Bush had a $71,868 million dollar net surplus from the federal government with (22 of 30 states receiving more than they pay)

[MI Cherie]

3. Here's an interesting one:

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/misc/Maps.htm

[blm]

8. Good map for bumping.

.

[Nadienne]

11. It seems as though some of the net takers

(Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri)

might be net takers because of farm subsidies...

[democratreformed]

19. How much do you know about farm subsidies?

We are, of course, a big farming state too. Traditionally, I remember growing up with my mother always harping on those "poor farmer" whose houses and vehicles and such were generally fancier than ours. I think that was one of her pet peeves. For large family farmers (and I'm not talking corporate here), that is still true for the most part. I was a teenager when a lot of the family farmers were losing their farms b/c their loans were being called in. I remember, in my naivte at the time, thinking "Well, everyone else has to pay their bills. Why shouldn't they?"

Today, I'm a little more mature and understand that the issue is more complex than a teenager realizes. I don't know much about subsidies except that, I've always heard it referred to as "the government paying the farmers NOT to grow something."

Even though I don't know much about subsidies or even farming, I do know a little about the processing industry. My family has always worked for farmers and processors. My dad started when he was 16 years old. My husband started when he was 16 years old. My dad's business doesn't work very much for farmers any more b/c the money is in working for the proecessors- the rice mills, feed mills, seed plants, etc.

And I have seen with my own eyes that - the larger the processor (corporation - think Riceland, Bunge, etc), the greater the waste. Meaning some of them will pay a contractor to install machinery one way and, the next week, pay them to take it back out and install it a different way. I can also tell you that when farmers are doing well (pricewise), in general, the processors are hurting and vice versa. My husband works mostly for the farmers - building storage bins and installing the related equipment. This year, the farm end of the business is booming and the commercial facility work is slower than normal.

I keep hearing people say that farm subsidies are corporate handouts. And, I understand that many family farms were taken over by corporations - although I don't know any personally. I have seen some farmers get together and form partnerships or corporations though.

Do you know any more about this - so that you can help me better understand?

[Nadienne]

20. You probably understand more than I do.

I'm guessing that farm subsidies are called corporate handouts because larger farms get more subsidy money...

As to farmers getting money to not grow something... I can understand why this would be. The more corn farmers grow and harvest, the greater the supply. The greater the supply, the lower the price per bushel. The lower the price per bushel, the more farmers have to grow in order to afford to pay their bills. And the more they grow, the lower the price gets... One way to curb this is to compensate farmers for not growing the big-money crop.

My dad had a trucking business, a partnership with his brothers. They hauled livestock, for the most part. My mom sent out the bills. It was small-town Iowa. I was a town kid. Most of my classmates were country kids. They wore name-brand clothing; I wore hand-me-downs. But part of that may have been because sometimes my dad's customers didn't pay their livestock-hauling bill...

How's that for "small-town values"?

But anyway, you're right: farming and subsidies are complex issues, and I don't understand them completely.

[question everything]

23. Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for

In response to an idiot RWer who posted (on a different board which is supposed to be non-partisan, yeah):

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
Presidential election:
Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,2427,000
States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1
Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government- owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

[sandnsea]

4. My Red/Blue tax map

[Rockholm]

18. They hate us for our pocketbooks.

[question everything]

22. What do the numbers mean?

Net inflow per capita?

All the numbers are positive. Thus, we are not talking about "net donors" but rather a difference in the goodies that come from Washington. Is this interpretation correct?

Thanks

[tkmorris]

5. This one fascinates me

The above posts demonstrate the truth of the statement that red states tend overwhelmingly to receive more than they give while the opposite is true for blue states.

But why? I have a few pet theories but it is hard to really pin it down. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[eridani]

6. That's easy

On average, those states have lower populations, and therefore far more electoral clout per capita. Therefore they vote themselves bread and circuses.

[tkmorris]

7. But they AREN'T

voting themselves bread and circuses, although I am certain Heinlein would believe otherwise.

They are in fact voting themselves into further misery. Why do they do that?

[Nadienne]

9. That question is one that Thomas Frank

answers with his book What's the Matter with Kansas?

[dorktv]

16. One reason is they tend to look at the surface and social issues.

A lot of these places have populations that love guns and God. Which we know is something most of the GOP represent.

[democratreformed]

10. Less wealthy people live there?

They have poorer economies and therefore their citizens pay fewer taxes?

They have more poor people that need help?

[Nadienne]

12. The irony, though, is that they vote for the party

that doesn't approve of giving help.

[democratreformed]

14. I was thinking on this

I'm not sure how big an issue it is, but there is a LOT of talk about decreased federal funding. Here in Arkansas, they have already closed a couple of National Parks and are talking of closing more.
I'm not sure that's exactly what they are called (National Parks) but it's the places on the lakes and rivers that are run by the Corps of Engineers - the ones where you can camp, put your boat in the water, and go swimming, etc.

Our state income tax had a surcharge this year - the first time ever in my memory. The state sales tax has been raised several times in the past three years. Every state and every county almost has intiated a county and/or local sales tax.

I think there should be more talk about these things. I think this a winnable issue for us. Sure, there will be those rich ppl. who do not care about "community services". But, for the most part, this poor state being hard hit by Bush's policies.

On the other hand, cutting into the recreational facilities of those "rich" people just might get their attention too. And, I just don't think these things are getting enough attention.

[Nadienne]

15. You're right: they're not getting enough attention.

If you want something (parks, public schools, law enforcement, roads that are in decent condition, etc), it has to get paid for by someone. And if Republicans want the burden to be borne by those who don't have enough money to spare, Arkansans (and Iowans, for that matter) ought to know the truth about it.

[The Magistrate]

13. This Point Cannot Be Driven Home Too Hard, My Friends....

Republican voters are leeches on the state, pewling piglets sucking for their sustenance from the government teat.

Their claims of go-it-alone self-reliance and independence are lies, shams, contemptible dishonesty; the best that could be said for them is that they are delusional.

The country-side is subsidized by the city heavily, and is absolutely dependent on those subsidies. Between farm subsidies and corporate subsidies and interest payments to bond-holders, Republicans are the welfare queens of the country, and without the taxes of hard working Democrats to spend, would be reduced to eating their young in short order....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[DURHAM D]

17. MILITARY SPENDING ??

I can't quote stats but military spending (always very political regarding base placements and closings and will send benefits to states with long serving congressmen on important committees) will help a state receive more than they contribute to the public funds.

[democratreformed]

21. That makes sense too.

Yeah, I can see where military spending would affect this map.