Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"Red" states in the US are the primary beneficiaries of "socialism" yet constantly whining about others and slapping labels on anything they don't like. Most of the states that receive more federal aid than they bring in are Red states by a wide margin over their blue conterparts. More hypocrisy and demagoguery in action from the fact challenged among us.

Hah.
By the way, socialism does not mean giving people money.

Joey wrote:Hah.
By the way, socialism does not mean giving people money.

I think that was a slight dig at the folks that say that any government spending is "redistributing whealth" and "socialism".

In my home town the freaking bus is considered socialist.

Joey wrote:Hah.
By the way, socialism does not mean giving people money.

In the US it means Communism.

d-usa wrote:

Joey wrote:Hah.
By the way, socialism does not mean giving people money.

I think that was a slight dig at the folks that say that any government spending is "redistributing whealth" and "socialism".

In my home town the freaking bus is considered socialist.

Yeah, I live in a country where literally everything is because of political correctness, I fully understand.

I wouldike to know what hear the tax data is from and why 2004 was used. Are the colors based on the presidential election, congressional, state legislature, etc? Slightly useless without those details IMO.

d-usa wrote:I wouldike to know what hear the tax data is from and why 2004 was used. Are the colors based on the presidential election, congressional, state legislature, etc? Slightly useless without those details IMO.

The details would be nice, yes. Could be made using very oddly put together numbers.

On cursory glance though it appears to prove my long-standing belief that both dems and reps are tax and spend parties, the reps are just better at denying it.

Melissia wrote:

d-usa wrote:I wouldike to know what hear the tax data is from and why 2004 was used. Are the colors based on the presidential election, congressional, state legislature, etc? Slightly useless without those details IMO.

The details would be nice, yes. Could be made using very oddly put together numbers.

On cursory glance though it appears to prove my long-standing belief that both dems and reps are tax and spend parties, the reps are just better at denying it.

If you have an alternate method of funding government services to "tax and spend" I'm sure the world would love to hear it.

I've seen some obtuse rhetoric in my time, but damn that is obtuse.

I didn't realize, for example, that Iowa was Republican.

dogma wrote:I've seen some obtuse rhetoric in my time, but damn that is obtuse.

I didn't realize, for example, that Iowa was Republican.

Source was "based on 2004 election".

Oh hai there, statistics from 2005.

1) would be nice to see with 2008 or 2010 data.

2) I think using presidential data is kinda useless. I would much rather see the colors based on congressional data since house members and senators actually set spending and request earmarks.

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

d-usa wrote:I wouldike to know what hear the tax data is from and why 2004 was used. Are the colors based on the presidential election, congressional, state legislature, etc? Slightly useless without those details IMO.

The details would be nice, yes. Could be made using very oddly put together numbers.

On cursory glance though it appears to prove my long-standing belief that both dems and reps are tax and spend parties, the reps are just better at denying it.

If you have an alternate method of funding government services to "tax and spend" I'm sure the world would love to hear it.

I don't look down on the term "tax and spend", that's what Republicans do.

d-usa wrote:I wouldike to know what hear the tax data is from and why 2004 was used. Are the colors based on the presidential election, congressional, state legislature, etc? Slightly useless without those details IMO.

It's 2004 because it was in the wake of a disappointing 2004 electoral campaign that some Democrat supporter bothered to put this together. These figures have been floating around the internet since then. I'm guessing we don't have more up to date figures than that because no-one bothered to put them together in the wake of 2008, because they weren't angry because the Democrats won.



Meanwhile, there's basically two things impacting the figures, relative wealth and farming. Relative wealth, because the higher the average income in your state, the greater the tax burden (especially if you have a concentration of really, really rich people like most major cities have). The second factor is farming, not just because of subsidies, but also because farming simply requires more infrastructure support than, say, an accounting practice in downtown Chicago, despite both making more or less the same amount of money. No matter how prosperous a farmer is, he simply isn't going to be shelling out the cash for the 200 miles of large haul certified road needed to service his farm.

Mining and other natural resource extraction has the same issue, but government can make most of that money back (and hopefully a little more) through royalties.

That doesn't dismiss the overall point, though, that people complaining about 'socialism' have little to no clue how government moves about, or what it does. My biggest issue is people steadfastly refusing to understand how much of that 'socialist' government spending is actually there to support and underpin capitalist enterprise.

Joey wrote:
Source was "based on 2004 election".

I know, but deciding that state X is Republican or Democrat based on one election is even worse than deciding that a state is Republican or Democrat.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
Source was "based on 2004 election".

I know, but deciding that state X is Republican or Democrat based on one election is even worse than deciding that a state is Republican or Democrat.

Especially considering that a President has actually very little say over how much money gets moved to the different states.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
Source was "based on 2004 election".

I know, but deciding that state X is Republican or Democrat based on one election is even worse than deciding that a state is Republican or Democrat.

A cursery glance shows that the more liberal states contribute the most and the more conservative states take the most.
You could chart it on a graph vs political party membership if you could be arsed.