feel free to thank us....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:15 am

....those of you who live in states run by Republicans:
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/fir ... y/6923257/

why is it that the Democratically led states have less dependence on Federal money than those run by Repubs, if the GOP crew is so dead-set
against 'big government'? Hmmmmm.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:19 am

Because the more honor and integrity a person has the higher his price to corrupt him?

think of like dems=street whores
repubs=call girls

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:27 am

what the heck does that mean, will? Your comment runs exactly counter to the reality.....the GOP led states are the TAKERS here.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:07 am

It takes more pork to buy a repub than it does to buy a dem.

They are all whores but the repubs are a higher priced whore.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:43 am

The more likely explanation is that, on average, red states are poorer than blue states. But then you might ask why that is though...

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:08 am

yup, Jeff, that is exactly correct. The GOP states have a larger percentage of the populace out-of-work or in very low paying work(ex. Texas).

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:02 am

I guess the validity of your point depends on what the definitions of 'Red' and 'Blue' actually are.

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:35 am

Will Robinson wrote:I guess the validity of your point depends on what the definitions of 'Red' and 'Blue' actually are.

Will, this article only cites other articles that agree with it and none of those articles links to any data.

The article slick posted is about another article, which does not link directly to the study data, but describes where the data was taken from:

"Data in this report is courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service, the Census Bureau, Transparency.gov, US Department of Commerce - Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

Obviously the people who wrote the article have a copy of the study since they were able to supply fancy tables and graphs. Would be nice if they just released the paper.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:58 pm

This paradox looks like it's a holdover from the days of FDR and LBJ, when the South was controlled by poor Southern Democrats and they were the generous recipients of all those Democratic bleeding heart benefits. Since they've now turned into Republicans courtesy of Nixon's strategy, I think that even though they are technically "conservatives", there is still some holdover Southern Democrat thinking in their minds. Ya can't take the South out of those Southerners ya know. So now what do we to do with the Southern Republican moochers, who like all those moocher bennies, but don't like it when others get those moocher bennies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-1 ... tates.html

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:32 pm

vision, I can assert all kinds of things based on data I got from the IRS, etc.
It doesn't mean my conclusions hold up to scrutiny of an unbiased review.

The article I posted a link to doesn't introduce new data per se, so it doesn't need to link to an outside source to give it weight.

It simply points out that many of the "Red" and "Blue" labels are incorrectly assigned according to relevant criteria.
They did give examples of election results which I'm sure could be checked if you dispute their challenge.

slick is just echoing left wing talking points like a smug troll.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:43 pm

Slick might want to look up who is running the top states recovering from the Obama depression.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:51 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I guess the validity of your point depends on what the definitions of 'Red' and 'Blue' actually are.

Even if you take issue with the common definition of red vs. blue state, the question can still easily be posed without that terminology: why, on average, are states that voted for Romney poorer than states that voted for Obama?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:56 pm

And that begs the question, if those states are poorer, why are they voting Republican and it seems, against their own self interests? 2 words, at least for rural areas and the South. Guns and God take precedent over poverty issues with these people.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:03 pm

further begging another question, TC:
Why do the working people of the US, who SHOULD be united in political purpose, keep allowing themselves to be distracted(and thus split into less powerful factions)by side issues like guns and God?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:52 pm

So red states receive more federal money than blue states, and I can guess that blue cities receive more federal money than the red areas around them…so the question is….

Where does this silliness end?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:42 pm

Jeff250 wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:I guess the validity of your point depends on what the definitions of 'Red' and 'Blue' actually are.
Even if you take issue with the common definition of red vs. blue state, the question can still easily be posed without that terminology: why, on average, are states that voted for Romney poorer than states that voted for Obama?

Certainly you can ask but has slick offered any credible evidence as to why? He has echoed an assertion that isn't supported by the raw data.

There can be any number of reasons that don't support the conclusion and subsequent smug attitude that slick wants everyone to accept.

Quite a few states that slick would call Red, or that you would call Romney states, are recently converted from Blue Clinton states etc. and vice versa, many that he would claim as Blue, or you might call Obama states, are really more Red in many ways and their current Blue label means nothing in the context slick implies.

Just take the billions out of military bases and the dollars 'from Washington' might have a whole different ratio. Just because the military consumes lots of federal funds in a state doesn't mean the state is more of a welfare case by that amount in the way slick and his liberal talking points say they are.

I smell weak sauce fueling his foo.

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:06 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Quite a few states that slick would call Red...are recently converted from Blue Clinton states etc. and vice versa...

Wait, wait wait... So you are telling us that things that happened in the Clinton era are affecting funding today? But if that is true, wouldn't the things Bush did as president affect what Obama is capable of doing today? Where is the consistency? I smell a dodge here.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:46 pm

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Quite a few states that slick would call Red...are recently converted from Blue Clinton states etc. and vice versa...
Wait, wait wait... So you are telling us that things that happened in the Clinton era are affecting funding today? But if that is true, wouldn't the things Bush did as president affect what Obama is capable of doing today? Where is the consistency? I smell a dodge here.

Where have I ever said events from the Bush Presidency didn't effect conditions today?
I have never said that. I don't let him claim Bush ate his homework which he likes to do but I have never blamed Obama for something he isn't responsible for. Why would I bother, he provides plenty of his own problems.

Just like I never bought into the notion that Bush caused the economic downturn that was the result of the bubble busting right after he came in behind Clinton.

What you smell is a red herring that you carried into the conversation....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:02 am

Spidey wrote:So red states receive more federal money than blue states, and I can guess that blue cities receive more federal money than the red areas around them…so the question is….

Where does this silliness end?

you would be likely wrong.....much of the largesse goes to the rural poor.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:10 am

No, while the poverty level is higher in rural areas, the amount of aid goes disproportionally to urban areas…in many ways, beyond just welfare payments.

Everything from housing, education, transportation to health care and beyond.

I’ve already looked into it, but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:25 am

If true, that would be an interesting twist, but I would like to see the numbers.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:30 pm

It’s not a “twist” it’s just the way it is, first of all, I wasn’t really speaking of the “poor” I was referring to services in general. (slick started the “poor” divergence)

The topic here is Federal Government and the States, I simply added cities into the mix. I think it’s pretty well established that population centers get the lion’s share of services…from the mundane like arts and sports all of the way to the very important, such as disaster relief…(just look at the concentration of public transportation)

Therefore money that flows from the federal government into a state (be it red or green) then continues to flow into the cities. (which tend to be blue, as pointed out on this very board)

And my point remains…this is a silly issue.

As far as the poor in rural areas receiving less services than the poor in the cities…that info is out there to anybody that wants’ to find it.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:43 pm

Spidey, while I don't have any numbers at hand on the total breakdown, you are overlooking the substantial largesse to agriculture in the Federal budget, as well as to oil, gas and military related infrastructure. Little of that is located in cities. That is a major issue in such discussions. Folks from a certain side of the political spectrum think that all Federal spending, or even most of it is on welfare, the arts and other 'urban' concerns. The truth is that defense, corporate welfare, agribusiness and Medicare/Social security eat up FAR, FAR more than welfare.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:01 pm

So you are just going to ignore the idea that it was “you” that turned this into a discussion about the poor, and my original point had nothing to do with it.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:11 pm

Spidey wrote:So you are just going to ignore the idea that it was “you” that turned this into a discussion about the poor, and my original point had nothing to do with it.

my original post, nor anything after it, did not hinge on poverty, other than the aspect of low taxes paid, which DOES reflect the income levels in the states. I wasn't the one who brought up welfare.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:21 pm

You responded to my post about the cities receiving services with the comment about rural poor…now this is getting silly as always.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:34 pm

Spidey wrote:You responded to my post about the cities receiving services with the comment about rural poor…now this is getting silly as always.

that was only in response to a tangent you took. How is that my fault. I don't think, as I said above, that the outflow of Federal money is to poor people to begin with, nor do I feel that the bulk(per capita) goes to cities, as I stated. Now, if we've settled this little tangent, do you have a response to my observation that the problem isn't money to poor people so much as tax revenue from Red states with dubious wage structures being deflated? For example, Delaware has a pretty high per-capita income, and a minimum wage of $9.25. Your home state, to our north, managed to not raise the minimum above the Federal minimum, and has other issues which supress the average income further.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:31 pm

Spidey, why would blue states take less federal money per capita than red states if the blue parts of the blue states--the very thing making them blue--were more of a drain than their red parts? I suppose we could keep exchanging intuitions all day long, but I'd rather see the numbers to justify your claim.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:39 pm

Well, I do believe someone either on that site or elsewhere stated that blue states and cities have higher taxes to compensate. (I can certainly vouch for the fact that Philadelphia does)

But, my only real point here is...this entire line of reasoning is silly....

..........................

Ya know Delaware was a red state for decades before it went blue. (and I doubt they took much more from the feds back then) I listened to the governors (Delaware) state of the union address, and if he gets half of what he wants…they are going to need plenty of federal money, or a huge tax increase.

.........................

I wasn’t aware that cities made states blue, I always thought that was just a dumb color pundits painted them based on their last election results.

Don’t all states have cities?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:31 pm

slick you are, once again, being quite dishonest.

You took the raw data and used it to imply hypocrisy on the part of individuals...you chimed right in harmony when the "Romney voter" label was used to describe the subject of your post, etc.

You started this thread by specifically stating that 'people' (not select organizations) who live in states run by republicans can 'thank you and your fellow blue staters for the federal handouts'. So don't try to tell us you were talking about agriculture and military institutions etc.!
You ignored the way those entity's receipt of huge chunks of those federal funds skew the results your flawed premise was built on when you needed it to dish out the initial insult but now you claim to be fully aware of those factors when it suits you on a different page of the discussion! Totally dishonest.

The only time 'Red and Blue States' is a useful metric is when talking about winning and losing electoral college votes....taking a state to move ahead in the Presidential election. All the rest of the time, like in your example it is useless. The people in each state are a cross section of red and blue and green and non voter, etc. Of course you know that. But you aren't one to let the facts stand in the way of your rhetoric are you?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:13 am

callmeslick wrote:Spidey, while I don't have any numbers at hand on the total breakdown,

Why don't you take the time to find the numbers instead of trying to make a guess into a fact.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:25 am

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:Spidey, while I don't have any numbers at hand on the total breakdown,
Why don't you take the time to find the numbers instead of trying to make a guess into a fact.

on the first part, I simply don't care, and suspect few here really do(most seem hell bent on making some sort of Rand-like judgement on social safety nets, when those aren't even the major expenditures), on the second, I clearly wasn't making a guess into anything other than a guess(which is the same point the poster to whom I responded made....it was just a guess). Kind of a bitter guy, aren't you?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:51 am

SOLUTION:

No more posting these kinds of “studies” without making the data available as well.

And saying ….well I got the date here and here, is unacceptable…post the actual data, and how it was used. (comprehensive)

No data….it’s just propaganda….period.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:57 am

The OP listed the source data in the body of the article.. I see utterly no need to hand-hold a bunch of net-savvy adults through the process of double-checking the data. I frequently have, on this board, gone back and done just that, and reposted such details as seemed to refute or support conclusions. But, to suggest listing multiple links to data that was summarized in a news article seems to insult the intelligence of all here.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:29 pm

I see no source data listed on either of those sites, just the data sources themselves.

What do you expect me to do…go to those data sources and recompile the entire damn “study”…you must be out of your mind!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:40 pm

I've done likewise, here, many times, and reported the results. Do you seriously doubt the data, or are you just pulling my chain for some sort of cheap rhetorical effect?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 pm

There is no “data” for me to doubt, only the study itself. And I’m not doubting the study, but I would like the proper context to decide for myself.

No I’m serious…there is no way I could go to those sites listed and get the SOURCE data and recreate this “study”.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:54 pm

here is 3 year old data. I think the study in question used 2012 data.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is ... ral-taxes/

this is, obviously, simplified into graphical form. If really interested, a couple of REALLY long PDF documents can be located at taxinstitute.org(I think that was the name), which are pretty old(based on 2007 data, I think). The data tends to remain consistent insofar as the deep south so-called 'conservative' states take far more than they give and the northeast/mid-atlantic states receive the least. Odd is that the Pacific Northwest does well in the largesse department. This reflects what I was getting at earlier: Defense spending makes up a HUGE part of overall Federal monies.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:32 pm

You obviously don’t understand the difference between source data and information, and I’m not going to explain it again.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 pm

Spidey wrote:You obviously don’t understand the difference between source data and information, and I’m not going to explain it again.

source data would have to be provided from a breakdown of all Federal expenditures(likely available from the Government, but where, I have no clue) and the IRS, for revenues received. I understand the difference in an academic sense, but are you suggesting that you would even attempt to wade through that much data? I've listed short and long form sources for compilation of exactly those numbers. I don't know about you, but I have better things to do than re-compile reports that are readily available.

It seems more and more as if you are using this tangent of debate as a rhetorical tool, sort of a form of gamesmanship, and don't wish to address what you know to likely be VERY accurate compilations(seeing as how very similar figures can be located from several professional organizations).