Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

Usually I choose not to post things that can be construed as "left vs. right", but given that what I am about to post is a known fact, and in light of all the dis-info about social programs, (i.e. "evil welfare socialist liberals taking money from conservatives" etc.) that I see purposefully spread around here on ATS, I think the truth needs to be told for what it is, and lies pointed out for what they are. I want to debunk, and dispel, some of the lies, myths, and disinformation that I have seen propagated on many of these threads that discuss social programs here on ATS.

I also want to point out that my only "agenda" is the truth. (as I'm sure I will eventually be accused of having some evil, devil-worshiping, commie, hitler, agenda) I am for neither party. They are both the same corporatist party run by the billionaire criminal class and I support neither, so please don't accuse me of being an "obama apologist" or "evil commie" or any other similarly ridiculous ad hominem. This thread is about correcting the record, and setting the truth straight. That's it.

First, so you don't think I'm making this up, these are some of the comments/threads that got me motivated to post this thread:

There's the people who defend corporate welfare:

The difference between babysitting welfare liberal socialists and what you call 'corporate welfare for oil companies' is that these people who you are babysitting, they can't make your automobile run.

source
The myth that "conservatives work" while "liberals mooch":

The liberals are supported by the largest blocks of voters that are supported by government subsidies such as welfare and social security...You can be elitist and look down your nose at them but more conservative voters are paying their own way than liberal voters.

source

We all know half of Liberals are system grubbing welfare suckers

source
There's the 'ol "liberals are forcing a gun to my head" meme:

This is what so many liberals forget. It is NOT up to the government to take from one and give to another.

source
There's people who think it might be a good idea if we just kicked the poor and other "undesirables" (i'm assuming gays and liberals are probably included here too) out of town.

Back in the good old days if you were a vagrant hippie scumbag, you got ran out of town or thrown in a workhouse. "

source
And the idea that welfare is for illegal immigrants (a lie, by the way, immigrants can't get welfare, see source)

Yep, that's pretty much how the liberal welfare socialist system works. If someone makes it across the border, getting the welfare money is the easy part.

source

No matter how much welfare you give the illegals........they will continue to steal.

source

(I can find many many more, but I think the point is made) Listen people, the idea that liberal states are mooching off the system, that welfare recipients are a bunch of illegal immigrants / minority black "baby mamas" etc. They are all not true. Here's the truth:

Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

US 50 States MapThe report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):


States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.

Read the report from Tax Foundation here

Now I also want to point out that I have absolutely no problem with states taking federal money, nor do I have any problem with the discrepancy between "blue" and "red" states. (As the study points out, this discrepancy is likely due to differences in income, the fact that those working in blue states tend to make more money). However, I DO have a problem with conservatives in congress (paul ryan et. al), tea party folk, and people here on ATS spreading dis-info and making blanket insults about how all "liberals" are all a bunch of lazy government mooches, and then using this as a pretext for eliminating/privatizing programs like Social Security and Medicare. (this editorial essentially says the same thing)

He imagines what would happen, if like countries have to do when negotiating debt with each other, if the "debtor" states had to negotiate the continuance of their funding to the "creditor" states.

“Hmm, Mr. Foghorn, let me see if we have this straight … You have called for smaller government, yet it seems you want all the ‘smallering’ coming at our expense. By the way, did you actually say we were nothing but a haven for transgender drug addicts, Muslim terrorists and former Weatherman radicals still on the lam? Would you care to clarify your views?”

There are many reasons red states are debtor states: older populations, limited “import replacement,” poorer residents, reliance on subsidies, intractable social problems, more rural and small towns, weaker schools and self-destructive traditions among them. They also have the highest divorce rates, lowest life expectancy and lowest per capita revenue generated.

Surely you know all this. The numbers are dramatic. Of the 10 states reporting the highest life expectancy, nine are blue. Of the 15 states reporting the lowest life expectancy, all 15 are red. Of the 15 states with the highest per capita income, 13 are blue. All 15 of the lowest income generators are red. And so on.

Given the reality of the situation, frankly, I’m continually amazed that, together with your Limbaugh and Fox News red state lemmings, you are out bashing the federal government. Godless and liberal though it might be, it’s all that stands between your red state constituents and “Brother, can you spare a dime?”

Source

Personally, I think there might be a bit of "epistemic closure" among certain conservative populations (see this thread I posted a few weeks ago) and a failure for some to keep believing what the MSM tells them, without looking into the actual facts/reality of the situation...I think it's also a case of people voting against their own self interest, which I always thought to be particularly amazing when billionaire corporations get regular working folks to commit economic suicide in toeing to the same old neo-liberal economic agenda (see this thread for more on billionaire funding of the T-party). The same phenomenon was also documented in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" Source. It's the age old conspiracy of duping the public into believing one thing, while turning around and doing another, incidentally, this also describes Obama's presidency, although in all honestly, it's pretty much every presidency from the past half decade. And this should just be further evidence to people that there's no difference between the parties, whether you call them "Democrat" "Republican" or "Tea Party" of "Conservative" or "Blue Dog Democrat" etc. They don't work for us, they work for the criminal corporate class, the millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street...and this is why these lies are so prevalent in the MSM and continue to be spread around by people, because the truth doesn't matter so long as the lies serve the corporate global agenda.

I hate when people make a post and identify a problem but do not offer up a version of a solution. Just another rant thread.

reply to post by kro32


Irrelevant. This is about telling the truth. I already said that. And telling the truth and denying ignorance is exactly what this site is about. There are hundreds of informative posts on ATS. Why don't you try addressing the actual subject matter instead of just making a blanket dismissal because of some abstract idea like "not proposing a solution".

Your not giving a solution because there isn't one. The government is working as intended per the founding fathers as laid out in the constitution.

You may not like the amount of influence corporations have but that power also is available to the people. The problem is the people rarely get organized enough to exert that right.

Take AARP, one of the most powerful organizations in the country with 34 million members, founded by one lady who was upset that the government was not providing well enough for senior citizens. They command an extreme amount of influence in washington.

The problem with posts like yours is that you would rather sit back and whine about bad corporations instead of standing up and doing something about it.

Jefferson was worried about corporations, he called them factions back then, but he specifically said that you cannot have a successful government while denying liberty to certain factions. Corporations have as much right to plead their case and influence decision makers as the normal citizen does.

This is why the supreme court recently allowed them to contribute to campaigns. They realize what the Constitution says while most everyone else just sit's back and lay's blame.

Originally posted by kro32
The problem with posts like yours is that you would rather sit back and whine about bad corporations instead of standing up and doing something about it.

You are still missing the point. I can't help but ask, is this intentional because you don't like the facts I referenced? No where in my post did I "whine about bad corporations". My post has nothing to do with corporations except in reference to the status quo/Washington establishment. It certainly has nothing to do with AARP or campaign contributions or any of the other irrelevant distractions you mention. I hate repeating myself...but I'll say it again. This thread is about addressing a common myth and lie that I have seen spread throughout ATS regarding social service programs and recipients. Characterizations made about recipients and broad generalizations with no basis in reality or FACT. This is about setting the record straight. This is about dispelling common myths and lies. This is about pointing out the truth. This is about referencing an actual study on taxes and federal spending in order to shine light on this truth. So if you really want to get technical. The actual problem here is people lying and spreading mis-information with nothing to back it up. The problem is ignorance. The solution is to speak the truth and present FACTS for all to see.

There are hundreds of thousands of informational threads here on ATS...there are hundreds of thousands of informational threads that debunk common myths, lies and disinfo (here, here, here, here, here, here, here to name some). Do you go into all of these threads and post comments about how the OP is "ranting" and "not finding solutions"? You do know that the first step in "finding solutions" is to identify a problem and lay out the facts. Do you not realize that the motto of ATS is "deny ignorance", and not "lets find solutions". Again, why not address the actual issue / evidence brought up in my post? I can only conclude that you either don't like the facts presented in my post and so just decide to insult it calling it a "rant with no solutions", or you are attempting to derail the conversation by making irrelevant references to corporations, AARP, and speculation about the constitution and founding fathers (for whatever reason).

Good thread op, its interesting info. It really shows off the hypocracy of poloticians.

oh come on 2004?

dude its 2011

so please.

I hate when people make a post and identify a problem but do not offer up a version of a solution. Just another rant thread.

Just being able to identify the problem is half the battle. Seeing through the hypocrisy of some of these red states is another problem identified.

reply to post by kro32


I disagree. The OP put a lot more work into the thread than you did with your one line criticism that also offered no solution.

Identifying a problem or an issue is often half the battle. You claim to be educated in the sciences, surely you would realize that. Not everyone who identifies the disease also comes up with the cure.

Edit, lol. You go Blackmarketeer. Great minds and all.

I must say, that is an extremely vague report, by The Tax Foundation. They even qualify the implied disparagement with

Some federal spending patterns are easily discernible. The large number of retirees collecting Social Security in Florida increases the flow of federal “retirement and disability” funds somewhat. An even bigger difference is created by the disproportionately large federal grants funneled to Alaska and the District of Columbia.

This sentence alone contradicts what the OP implies, about who carries who.

On the other hand, direct payments to individuals tend to be more evenly distributed across the country.

There is just a whole lot of missing information, needed to make any real comparisons. Populations, average salaries, rural vs. urban population densities, costs of living, etc.

Source

Originally posted by kro32
Corporations have as much right to plead their case and influence decision makers as the normal citizen does.

This is why the supreme court recently allowed them to contribute to campaigns. They realize what the Constitution says while most everyone else just sit's back and lay's blame.

Absolutely false. Corporations were not given the right to contribute to campaigns because they have a "right" to. The founders were incredibly specific who had rights in America. Its no accident that various groups were left out. Including corporations.

Corporations have been waging an over century old battle to get themselves defined as persons, and not all rulings have come down in their favor. Corporations are not people. They were not intended to have the same rights as human people. There is no amendment granting them personhood. Its purely based on case law, and it can be overturned. Citizens United vs FEC overturned an earlier ruling in the opposite direction.

You may know geology, but you seem awful light on law.

I think some of the information in your opening thread post is misleading.

New Hampshire is not a very large state and mostly rural.

It is also very true that there is no reason the feds can not give money to states needing it.

A enormous amount goes to the military.

I actually got lost reading your post because I could not remember what the red states and the blue states meant.

So basically the red states want to commit suicide? If they kill the social programs, the red states will probably die. Mhm that's interesting. Why do the blues states want to keep feeding the red states even though the red states hate them? Government directed income redistribution is bad.

D.C is disgusting, btw, they should immediately cut all funding to that state/capital. I live there and sometimes in Sweden with my dad. Nothing but a bunch of crack heads and criminals in D.C having babies for government checks, very few good people living there.

reply to post by neo96


The information is actually from 2005. (Source) However, it still holds true today...there had been no major demographic or legislative changes. Furthermore, they got the data from the Census. The new census was done just this year, so the Tax Foundation is planning on updating their information, however, the info is in the public domain, and anyone can verify it for the more recent numbers.

reply to post by meeneecat


not hardly its 2011 and 4 more trillion dollars have been filtered to whoever controls the country.

its out dated bigtime

reply to post by neo96


Geez. I hate repeating myself. They got the data from the census...you can go online and verify the recent census data yourself (2010), as I said Tax Foundation is going to also update their information.

From the report:

Each year the Census Bureau releases the Consolidated
Federal Funds Report, which
estimates the amount of federal spending in
each state and territory during the prior fiscal
year.

You saying it's from 2004 doesn't make it untrue. Is that the best you can come up with?

Originally posted by WTFover
I must say, that is an extremely vague report, by The Tax Foundation. They even qualify the implied disparagement with ...

There are always going to be exceptions to trends. That's what this paragraph was noting, where some of the spending could be accounted for (DC being in federal jurisdiction, old people in Florida, subsidies to oil companies in Alaska, etc.). Also, while individual "direct payments" include things like Social Security, they do not include things like expenditures for health care (Medicaid, Medicare which we know is a big chunk of federal spending), or spending on things like housing, loans, education, earmarks, infrastructure, and so forth. I would just stress that despite these exceptions, this doesn't make the report false. The numbers still add up, and the overall trend still holds true. However part of my motivation for this post was not to show "red state vs. blue state" spending, it was to address some of the misinformation that was being spread here on ATS (as exemplified by some of the quotes I included)...and also to point out how these same lies were being used partly as an argument for cutting services like Medicare, Education, etc.

Originally posted by IamJustanAmerican
I think some of the information in your opening thread post is misleading.

New Hampshire is not a very large state and mostly rural.

It is also very true that there is no reason the feds can not give money to states needing it.

A enormous amount goes to the military.

I actually got lost reading your post because I could not remember what the red states and the blue states meant.

With regard to states like New Hampshire, there are always exceptions to any trend, and the report does point our exceptions...however, certain exceptions doesn't invalidate the overall pattern which one finds when analyzing the federal tax data, which is that "red" states, in general, collect more money from the federal government than they pay out in taxes, and vice versa for blue states.

In response to your other point, again, I wasn't arguing against giving money to states, I explicitly say this in my OP. I agree with you and think states should get money if they need it, whether "red" or "blue". My motivation for this post was not to start a "red state" vs "blue state" battle...although I understand how it can come off that way. However, if you read my post, you will see that my motivation is to dispel some of the lies and misinformation that was being spread on ATS/the MSM, and the blanket characterization of certain groups of people, i.e. "liberals", "immigrants", "minorities", etc. as a bunch of "lazy" "mooches"...and to point out that this same misinformation and lies was being used as an argument/pretext by some for cutting social services programs like Medicare and Education.

reply to post by meeneecat


The problem is that "red" states are not all "red" - and "blue" states are not all "blue.

Further - here in Missouri, I will get about 20-30% more for the same job in the city because the cost of living is that much higher in the city. That will offset my tax contribution considerably - even though I can afford a higher quality life living and working in an area with a lower cost of living placing me into a lower tax bracket.

You also have to factor in things like social security retirement spending versus "income security" spending. States with large populations at the retirement age are going to be consuming more - regardless.

Also, there is a greater correlation between tax contribution and urbanization. New York and California are known for their business offices, and Houston is a large industrial hub. The same goes for Chicago, Detroit, etc. Urbanized areas tend to be "blue" - but that's going to vary, as well. Areas near anything with the name "Martin Luther King" in it are likely going to be the 'hood' rich with crime and poverty, as well as recipients of income tax credits and other government aid. Yeah - I'm aware of how that sounds - but take a drive through Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, etc and see what I mean.

But, in all - you're not going to solve this with a simple "red state versus blue state" argument.

It is often just as simple as urbanized areas have higher average incomes to accompany their higher costs of living. Since the income tax brackets are applied uniformly and without regard to localized costs of living - anyone living and working in urban areas is going to automatically pay more in taxes for the same lifestyle that one can afford for far less (and paying far less taxes) in a more rural area.

Thus, since urbanized areas (and states) have both higher average wages while being more populous - their share of the tax-burden is inherently going to be greater than that of the more rural areas/states.