Do Red States Really Receive More Money than Blue States?
Blue States: Majority Democratic Party votes for presidential candidates Red Sates: Majority Republican Party votes for presidential candidates Purple States: Mixed between Republican and Democratic Parties when voting for presidential candidates
An often touted fact is Red States are "welfare states." That they take more money that Blue States.
We've come to accept this as a fact and I've even stated this as fact, as well.
But is it true? Where does this fact come from?
It's seen in many forms such as percentage of taxes collect vs. percentage of the state's budget that has federal subsidies.
This article does a great job of breaking down how this actually plays out, and it is a recent article:
Yup, red states get more money as a percentage of their total state budget.
So this is an open and shut case, right?
Not so fast...
What about on a per capita basis? What about federal dollars given to each state on a per person basis? Would that not be the fairest representation of which states get the most help from the government?
Let's see which states get the most federal dollars, per capita using that same data:
(please log in to view the image)
Hmm...
(please log in to view the image)
But wait!
That's just "intergovernmental transfers from the federal government to the states." That amounts to only 15% of the federal budget! There's still 85% more of the federal budget left so how does it get to the states or the people in each states? Is this debate over?
Pew to the rescue, again. 62% of payments went to individuals in each of the states as part of benefits. Such as social security. That might explain some of the per capita issue because blue states have a higher median income than red states.
So, honestly, I think that solves all angles of this discussion. It's not a clear cut and dry argument and I've read arguments from both pro-Democrats and pro-Republicans - and they are both at each other's throats. We are more polarized than ever and using these misleading facts is not the best way to go about federal spending reform.
We are consistently over budget. Decreasing our spending while also have a truly fair tax system should be our goal. We are in desperate need of tax reform. We also need the White House and Capitol Hill to better serve the people.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
You must be one of those "tolerant" and "loving" liberals I keep hearing about.
__________________ Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.-- Alan Feduccia-a world authority on birds, quoted in "Archaeopteryx:Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science 1994, p.764-765
That's racist. Over half the population of African Americans in the USA lives in the south.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Out of curiosity, does everyone on welfare get the same for the same type regardless of where they live. Like is unemployment payments the same in every state?
__________________ All the silver-tongued suits and cartoons that rule my world
Are saying it's a high time for hypersonic missiles
Re: Re: Do Red States Really Receive More Money than Blue States?
Seems to be a win win win. I do worry about a UBI. I am with Yang in that a UBI should be just enough to survive but not live very well. Something to encourage people to seek for more.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
There are 4 different perspectives presented. The one you talk about is the first one presented. A per capita argument is just as valid especially if you consider blue states have more people than red states, on average.
People can pick and choose which one of the arguments they choose to believe but my actual point is this which was the the closing "argument":
Ron Paul and his son Rand are both libertarians (and damn good ones too). Libertarians lean slightly to the right. You're no right-winger.
__________________ Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.-- Alan Feduccia-a world authority on birds, quoted in "Archaeopteryx:Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science 1994, p.764-765
Last edited by eThneoLgrRnae on Apr 27th, 2020 at 06:07 AM
For example, many red states are farm states. Just from this, we see two problems:
1. An argument can be made that the farm states should be subsidized by the Federal Government because it create a national security problem to depend heavily on other countries for food.
2. Ethanol is being strongly pushed as a renewable source of energy and has been since George Bush Jr. made a pledge. It's obviously got tons of dollars pushed into subsidizing the ethanol industry in farm states.
So are those red farm states REALLY to blame for forced national security interests and renewable energy goals? Also, many farmers are beholden to the trade wars going on so it is really the fault of the US farmers if the market is flooded with certain goods and prices (a la Rockefeller in the early 1900s to his oil competitors) out of their control? Should the government, who created the artificial problem, be responsible for addressing this?
Example 2:
Federal Bases and the fight for bases.
1. Part of those federal dollars goes to bases. Those bases count towards those figures. Those dollars can and do get injected into the local economies. Many red states have these military base (more land, in some instances).
2. Red states are more pro-military. This makes it easier to get certain pro-military initiatives pushed through. This makes their states more conducive to military operations and bases. They get more of these federal dollars as a consequence.
Hence why California was fighting so hard for that military base.
Example 3:
Just two states, New York and California, have a large amount of Fortune 500 companies. Texas is a purple state and is the only state that can rival the two.
1. This will throw off the dollar figures assuming these companies pay even a moderate to small share of stocks. That does seem to be the case.
2. These large companies are also major employers. More people employed and at higher salaries equates to less needs from the federal government such as Welfare. This is just simply application of the law of probabilities. When you dig deeper and look at states with higher numbers of Fortune 500 companies, you do see this trend. This is also part of why many red states are fighting hard for big companies to move to their states: more jobs, more money, more taxes, less reliance on federal funds, more Independence, more power among the 50 states.
We could get into Black and Latino populations also having an impact on these figures - whether Americans want to acknowledge it or not, Black and Latino populations are more likely to assistance from the state in various forms and this is part of those figures. I did not dig into these numbers on red vs. blue states so it could help either side of this argument.
Also, if you want to see a nice "correlation does not equal causation but holy shit, does this look suspicious" stat, look at states with higher Asian population numbers and compare it to the federal dollars spent on red states vs. blue states.
All of these and many more are reasons I think the entire argument is rather futile.
I totally understand your point about multivariance. But I am more wondering what your prescription is based on it. You say that the argument is futile, does that mean you think how it is currently is good and doesn't need to be changed? You are from Oklahoma, right? Do you believe the state of Oklahoma should get more, or that the people of Oklahoma should pay more?
KMC Community Forums
Apr 26th, 2020 02:24 PM
