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

[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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by tater

wonder why the dems get the "good guy" color of blue

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

OK you are drifting to the realms of the loony fringe there.
Keep it up and next thing is you will be posting about the secret concentration camps the evil government is setting up.

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

That doesn't work, you can take some states with small populations and they are at the top of the money to government pile not the money recieved one. Likewise you can take population density as a measure and you get some in each pile.

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 that might work on a money made per capita basis as a measure...but one of the top earning states comes out near the top of money recieved from the government list....so nice try, but that don't work either

the total dollars is still a tiny fraction of the welfare dollars sent to NY.

Since the whole purpose of the graph is dollars sent in relation to dollars recieved the specific amount of dollars is of little relevance...unless of course you don't like what the graph shows

[tater]

I don't like what the graph shows. I'd cut spending massively if it was up to me.

BTW, stealth, so the US debt went up 4 trillion in 8 years of Bush, and 3 trillion in one fiscal year (and some change) of Obama. Gotcha.

As for the red/blue thing, why do YOU always go off the looney edge? Red and blue have preexisting meanings in the US. Reds are communists, and the democrats have always had a communist component. In the military, blue means the good guys.

I'd prefer to see the press alternate the use of red and blue.

If instead of colors they assigned "good guys" and "bad guys" I'd equally want the press to alternate. I suppose the current use might rehabilitate the color red, which is otherwise associated with mass murder, among other things (that being the principle business of the extreme left—like national socialist Germany and the CCCP).

[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.

Originally Posted by August

Civics 101.

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

Well said, sir.

[August]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Well said, sir.

Thanks but it goes both ways. Obama really can't be blamed for spending those trillions today either.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

Civics 101.

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

So debt is in no way influenced by the actions of the administration in office... they can do absolutely nothing that will completely screw up the "purse strings" of the nation, nevermind the "purse"... right lol.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

So debt is in no way influenced by the actions of the administration in office... they can do absolutely nothing that will completely screw up the "purse strings" of the nation, nevermind the "purse"... right lol.

The President can't spend dime one without approval from congress. That is one of the balances of power.

The President asks (and you better believe that he asks, Presidents don't tell congress crap.) congress for appropriations. Congress controls the purse strings.

People are misdirecting their ire. It is congress we need to be bitchin about.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

So debt is in no way influenced by the actions of the administration in office... they can do absolutely nothing that will completely screw up the "purse strings" of the nation, nevermind the "purse"... right lol.

I didn't say that at all. Congress has many influences, certainly not the least of which is the sitting administration, but ultimately it is Congress who spends the money. So if you're going to play the blame-game then it rests squarely with the party that controls Congress, not which party controls the White House.