Dems Agree to Drop Government-Run Insurance Option

Yehaaw.

 

I do not understand.
United States average 39,751
23 - Texas 38,575

Does not compute.

 

This doesn't address the original question at all. The question is: why are conservative states the one contributing the least to the nation and taking in the most federal dollars?

 

Read his last few posts to gauge his level of interest addressing any question - why should he? Shovel/Southern/Artesicle figured it all out a few years ago at the tender age of 19, and is content to blame faceless enemies for his unfortunate situation, which from an Objectivist perspective, resonates in failure. The damned U.S. Postal Service is holding the poor white kid down.

 

I'm well aware that he won't answer questions. I just wanted to make sure he knew no one was fooled into thinking he had answered the question.

 

You are really missing the correlation.

First, conservative states are not taking in the most federal dollars. The ratio of GDP to fed received might be high, but states like New York and California take in much more, dollar for dollar.

You either have not taken a trip out to rural America or you are simply ignoring the point; Rural America is very poor. States like New York and California have vast amount of resources and wealth, but yet they continue to need additional money.

 

States like New York and California also have vast amounts of rural areas.

 

No, that's not true. Each state in the country contributes to the federal government, and each receives money from the federal government. The big blue states give more than they receive. Virtually all the red states take more than they give. (Texas is an exception as a basically neutral state - it gets about as much as it gives)

 

Here's the data if you're interested:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

 

Agricultural subsidy? Financial centers that handle the peoples money in rural areas are also often based in NYC. The movies they go see are made in Cali (canada).

Military contracts, bases included in that data? What all does federal spending count? Anything spent in the state?

 

My understanding is that it includes everything that flows from the federal budget into a particular state and vice-versa, so that would include ag subsidies, military contracts, etc. People spending money on movies and people putting their money in a NY bank is not part of the federal budget, so those kinds of transactions wouldn't count.

 

But the money made goes to pay federal taxes and the taxes would be counted as from the blue state.

 

and those states don't produce anything used by larger states?

 

Sorry, you might have misunderstood me when I said "dollar for dollar". New York and Cali give more than they receive, but the actual dollar amount they receive is much higher.

This statistic you have provided only shows where the wealth disparity lies and has very little to do with republicans and democrats. Large cities tend to be democratic and large cities tend to have the wealth. Further, large cities have a higher cost of living, higher wages and therefore pay more and have higher taxes.

This is how its always been since our country was founded. The rural areas are just as dependent on the urban and vice versa.

 

But blue state people also buy things like food from red state people. And the money paid for the movie and the popcorn bought, etc. also goes to a red-state theater.

Unless you believe the red state people all run a trade deficit with the blue states, I'm not sure the relevance. If that's the case, then it means the red states are that all about "self reliance" and "anti-federal government" are not only dependent on the federal government for funds but they also are dependent on other states for their goods & services. I don't see how that helps the case.

Overall, imagine there's not much of a net importing from red states, though.

 

I would think in most of the states it would be wiped out by the agricultural subsidy.

 

Gotcha - I did misunderstand. Sorry about that!

That's true that they pay higher taxes - but shouldn't they also then receive more money? They have more expensive construction costs, urban centers will have more welfare needs, etc.

But here, we're seeing that the urban areas are essentially subsidizing the rural areas, while the rural areas are the ones that tend to rail most against subsidies.

On a sort of related note (now we're way off the topic of healthcare), it also brings up the question of why wealthy areas tend to vote Democratic, and which is the chicken and the egg. Are those states wealthier because they tend to have more liberal policies, or is the wealth causing them to become more liberal, or is it just a big coincidence?

 

taking the example to the extreme but to counter it theaters make hardly anything on the tickets.

I would say it should be pretty obvious the money flow goes out of the rural places to cities and the government flows money back in.

I am not sure if it helps the case because I don't know what the case is. Just wanted to chime in on this aspect, but saying the states are weak because they have to use the other states services is a weird statement.

 

This bill is frankenstein.

 

I don't understand, if you count the subsidy that counts against them. unless your argument is that the subsidy benefits other states by making the prices cheaper?

besides that its more than agriculture. States like louisana, they also provide natural resources such as oil or coal, or other minerals.