How's that taxation and socialism werkin' out fer ya?

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So, which side do we Brits sign up for in the Civil War take two? I'm confused.

Easy! You'll do the British thing!

Wait and see who wins ... As the rest of us ...!





.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Easy! You'll do the British thing!

Wait and see who wins ... As the rest of us ...!





.

Good point that man!

[tater]

NM wins entirely because of the weapons labs, and military bases compared to a tiny population. This is a rare case where discretionary spending will rule that table, most of the rest are almost certainly programatic (entitlement) spending. Note that NM (like many of the states listed) is very closely divided politically.

The most important factors in the tax vs spending table are obviously tax base (large population—cities), and poor people that get entitlements. The south has loads of poor demographic groups, but not enough of a tax base. Happily for NY, the scum in the inner city are offset by investment bankers, etc.

[CaptainHaplo]

Good points Tater.

The reality is that if you stopped the entitlements - or at least put some real work restrictions on most of them, you could solve alot of the issues facing poorer demographics. But when you "entitle" people to cash payments, food and in some places - transport - they have no reason to get off their arses and work.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't like Palin any more than I like Obama. Palin is goofy. The hard right wing is scary. The Democrats, on the other hand, complained that Reagan ran up the biggest National Debt in history. Obama's is a lot bigger.

I have one small quibble with that picture though: California is listed as giving more than they get? I though Cantafordya was bankrupt.

I have one small quibble with that picture though: California is listed as giving more than they get? I though Cantafordya was bankrupt.

But the picture given is Federal not State.

[tater]

Yes, it's federal money sent vs received.

Attaching value to the state being 50.1% democrat vs 50.1% republican in the last presidential election, of course, is absurd.

Since 2/3 of all that money is spent on "programatic" social programs, the spending is automatic. Clearly it would be in the best interest of the populous, affluent, "blue states" (wonder why the dems get the "good guy" color of blue---probably because "red" is too close tot he truth, but I digress) to have their elected representatives disassemble the welfare state, since it clearly hurts them the most.

Of course in terms of dollars sent to dollars received, you really need to remember to look at thew TOTAL dollars here.

NM only have 1.5 million people, and most pay virtually no taxes (being in that bottom 50% of "tax payers"). There are probably more people in NY that make a million bucks a year than there are taxpayers in NM who pay even 1 per capita share per family member. So while NM gets $2 per $1 sent, the total dollars is still a tiny fraction of the welfare dollars sent to NY.

That's the real pattern, small population states vs large population states.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The Democrats, on the other hand, complained that Reagan ran up the biggest National Debt in history. Obama's is a lot bigger.

Actually, the debt Obama has now was inherited from Bush in October 2008. As for Reagan, I don't know who's been saying that (I'd like to find out) nor do I know how they figured this up. While the debt did increase during the Regan-Bush era, and continued to do so throughout the Clinton era, the greatest increase came under George Jr.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-..._b_132732.html

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The numbers from the Treasury Department in September 2008 showed the national debt then stood at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9% increase on Mr. Bush's watch.

http://agonist.org/amc/20090123/bush..._national_debt

Right now, the debt stands at $12.759 trillion; not that much of an increase given all the s*** President Obama has had to sift through to try and sort this all out, let alone the national situation he faced when he took office.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/investheld.html
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/

One of the biggest reasons why we can't recover from the current economic situation we find ourselves in is because we no longer are the industrial, self-sufficient nation that we were during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. The reason why we fully recovered from the Great Depression was because we had the manufacturing capabilities to do so and the motivation, following the outbreak of World War II. We had factories people could find jobs in, we manufactured almost all our own stuff (we didn't import things in as great of quantities as we do now), we had regulations on the markets that kept people from buying and taking our more than they could afford and pay back, and perhaps most importantly, there was no organized "global economy" crap going on in the world, with "service countries" and "manufacturing countries", etc.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/files/events/2009/0309_lessons/0309_lessons_romer.pdf

The stimulus package and the Recovery Act have been doing their jobs, that much is evident despite all the semantics that will try to convince you otherwise. The reason I have found in the years since this began that so many scrutinize these plans and indeed the government is because these plans didn't work and solve the problems they were addressing immediately. But simply put, you cannot have your country in this kind of shape and expect a quick, easy fix of any kind- let alone when you have hardly any industrial/manufacturing self-sufficiency anymore (as a service country in the global economy concept, it's not our job to worry about these things... it's left to countries like China, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, etc.). Indeed, that's one of the most important lessons of the Great Depression. Twelve years on from Black Tuesday and we were still in the process of recovering; had we not have had the Second World War to finally get us out of it, who knows how long it would have taken. Perhaps another decade!




Based on data from: Dr. Louis D. Johnston and Prof. Samuel H. Williamson, "What Was the US' GDP: A Historical Report", p.8, 24 April 2006

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I have one small quibble with that picture though: California is listed as giving more than they get? I though Cantafordya was bankrupt.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California

The largest economy of any state in the United States, and is the eighth largest economy in the world.

EDIT: And for the record, Thorvald, it's working out pretty good for me personally.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Actually, the debt Obama has now was inherited from Bush in October 2008.

Civics 101.

Congress controls the nations purse strings. Debt is created by them, not the administration.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Actually, the debt Obama has now was inherited from Bush in October 2008.

As was said by the Republicans when Bush's debts started climbing in 2001. I don't know the reality, but that's what they always say.

As for Reagan, I don't know who's been saying that (I'd like to find out) nor do I know how they figured this up. While the debt did increase during the Regan-Bush era, and continued to do so throughout the Clinton era, the greatest increase came under George Jr.

Sorry. I wasn't talking about now, but then. That was the Democrats' biggest shouting point while Reagan was in office.

Didn't mean to confuse.