States most and least dependent on federal govt

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Mar 26, 2014.

  1. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,822
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    Just out of curiosity I checked the state last on the list.

    Governor - Phil Bryant (R)
    Senator - Roger Wicker (R)
    Senator - Thad Cochran (R)
    Rep - Steven Palazzo (R)
    Rep - Gregg Harper (R)
    Rep - Bennie Thompson (D)

    2008 Presidential Election - McCain
    2012 Presidential Election - Romney

    But it's the Democrats grabbing all that federal money right?
  2. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,871
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,315
    My favorite case was a guy who had spent his whole life working under the table doing farm work (while receiving welfare) and had no idea how modern life worked. He accidentally bumbled into a car dealership and found out that he could get a nice car for free if he just signed his name on all the papers put in front of him. He and the car disappeared for two years before they finally caught up with him and repossessed it. They couldn't do anything to him--he didn't even have a bank account. He turned around and paid cash for a car from a private party, and didn't give it a second thought.

    The guy he worked for owned the farm, while working another job to finance it. Every year, he claimed 100% destruction of his pecan trees and claimed a total loss of his pecan crop. He had not had any pecan trees on his property in 20 years, but nobody checked. It's just government money.

    The black market (meaning in this case: no transactions reported and therefore no taxes paid) is estimated to be about 10-15% of the U.S. economy. Who do you think is involved in all the black market transactions? Teenagers mowing lawns?

    Your fantasies are far more delusional. Maybe you should open your eyes once in a while. At least I am willing to admit that welfare does help people once in a while, even though the vast majority are suckered into being non-productive citizens.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,976
    Likes Received:
    2,830
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,981

    Well said...
  4. gatorjd95
    Offline

    gatorjd95 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +145
    How in Sam Hill did you come up with that response? My post intimated that the libs were using this metric to paint red states as moochers and one of the factors underlying the math would be Soc Sec payments to seniors - of which a disproportionate amount live in some red states. You then suggest that pointing out this factor means that I am the one calling seniors moochers. Are you really that addled?
  5. cjgator76
    Offline

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,442
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +582
    This whole business of states being hypocritical and states taking from other states is just nonsense.

    States don't "take" from other states. The federal government doesn't even take from states. It may take - via taxation - from individuals and businesses located within states, but it doesn't take from states. By the same token, states don't "give" to other states. No legislature in New England has ever voted on how much to pay the state of Alabama.

    I understand that liberals feel the need every few months to remind themselves that their states are better than conservative states. That's fine. Bring out the stats that say blue state residents are richer, better educated, pay more taxes, are better in bed, whatever - do the whole Stuart Smalley thing and leave it at that. But the claim that states give to and take from each other is a ridiculous way to seek validation.
  6. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,822
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    Here's your explanation for why the red states are moochers.

    So, a large population of people living in blue states pay their income tax. Over years, many of them retire and move to FL/AZ/NM/etc where they pay little to no tax, but receive their Social Security payments.
    And I agree with you that for states like Florida, it's part of the problem. Retirees are moochers, or "takers" if that phrase bothers you when describing retirees. 2/3rds of the people who pay no income taxes and no payroll taxes are senior citizens, but those who complain about the takers like to pretend that's not the case.
  7. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,871
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,315
    If you look at Social Security as a forced savings program (which it used to be), then you can look at retirees as not being moochers for taking benefits and not being moochers for not paying taxes, because they don't make enough income to pay taxes. They aren't living off of anyone's money but their own, since they put money into the system for 40+ years. The system may need adjusting to stay cash neutral, but it's not really their fault.
  8. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,871
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,315
    The blue states are blue largely because they have plenty of money. They have mostly given up agriculture as a way of life years ago, and have turned to more modern pursuits. States in the NE have had large established populations for over 150 years. They went through the industrial revolution, and manufactured weapons for WWII, and established large ports for trading with Europe. These things don't happen overnight. California has Hollywood, which is a high dollar, low-risk industry that pays for things, as well as one of the biggest ports in the world in L.A. The southeast still relies heavily on agriculture. The Gulf Coast has the chemical industry, and auto manufacturing is slowly moving south, but both of these industries are larger in the NE. As the population in the SE grows, and infrastructure like education improves, you will eventually see a slow shift in the wealth from the blue states to the red. Unions are pushing manufacturing out of business in the NE, and have been for years. Eventually, hard times hit, and people who are heavy spenders are not prepared for it. And then you see things like abandoned textile mills in Massachusetts, or abandoned industrial towns in Ohio (the Rust Belt).

    What does having excess money lead people to do? Be wasteful with their money. Come up with gov't programs to try to help the "less fortunate". Spend money on boondoggles. Jack up gov't salaries and pensions. After all, they've earned it. Now, what are democrats known for?
  9. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,822
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    Regardless, when you're talking about the 47% who don't pay taxes, i.e. "the takers", you're talking about a lot of retirees. Something many Republicans don't seem to grasp.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,630
    Likes Received:
    453
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,360
    No, the states don't vote to give to another. But money does move from one place to another thru the federal govt. Are you really going to claim it doesn't? And if you read the methodology, you see that one was the percent of state revenue that comes from federal sources.
    Another was the percent of federal workers in each state. Where do you think the money to pay them comes from?
  11. cjgator76
    Offline

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,442
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +582
    Others explained the role of the federal government earlier. I'm not going to waste time rehashing it. Let this one go, man. It's just silly.
  12. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39,884
    Likes Received:
    3,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,695
    'your favorite case'. calling me 'delusional' doesn't make reputable links appear to back your claims up.
    'delusional'..haha. where's dave, when i need defending against a 'too hot' insult? lol.
    so, let's see some sort of statistics that prove your assertions, regarding how much of the population actually indulges in this behavior. and another link about this 'fave case' of yours. otherwise, it's just talk.
    and we can all be creative if need be.

    is 'boondoggle' the 'conservative word of the month'?
  13. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,871
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,315
    They aren't taking anything they didn't put in, specifically for the purpose of taking out later. Social Security was created as a program separate from the rest of gov't, even though Congress eventually robbed it. The money that workers put into SS was never intended for the general fund.

    What republicans define as a taker or a moocher is someone who gets income from the general fund without contributing to it. (Republicans would not have a major problem with takers if they didn't make a lifestyle out of it without any attempt to pay it back.) Retirees do not fit this description in a general sense. They do get services from the government's general fund without contributing, but they do not get income. You are the one that does not seem to get it.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,871
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,315
    Only a simple mind cannot recognize that an "insult" received was the same as the one given. Sometimes one should pay more attention to one's own posts. People are normally able to do a better job of this when they are more mature.

    No, "boondoggle" is the mantra and way of life of the democrats. It's hard to talk about democrats without talking about their boondoggles.

    It is a little difficult to collect statistics on the black market, because the definition of black market transactions involves two things:

    a) there are no records of the transactions

    b) the transactions themselves are generally illegal (according to the IRS), and people naturally are reluctant to talk about the crimes they commit. It is remarkable that you seem to not want to believe that these transactions occur. Have you always been this naive?
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,871
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,315
    You might want to adjust your meds. I just re-read the post you quoted, and could not find "boondoggle" in there anywhere. You might be racked with guilt for voting democrat all these years.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,116
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    Interestingly, as our economy shifts to a more capital based economy, in which labor income constitutes a smaller and smaller portion of the income of the country, many of these "gains" in Southern states that you theorize don't happen. People move labor there because it is cheaper to purchase labor in those locations. The multitude of areas allows firms to play those areas off against each other, looking for lower and lower cost labor. Meanwhile, in order to participate in a big way in capital markets, you need money to start with for investing. So the gains from that lower cost labor go to those with money today. And where did you say those people are more likely to reside? So the poor states won't really benefit that much from how the economy is developing.
  17. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,871
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,315
    I think most of the states in the SE are going to do fine. Your "capital-based" economy has to invest in something. Why not chemical plants and auto manufacturing plants? Manufacturing jobs are coming back to the U.S. (China has trouble finding qualified factory workers these days, and has mis-applied a lot of its capital in redundant factories, worn-out infrastructure and ghost towns). Where will companies put manufacturing plants, in the NE and deal with high labor costs and high state/local taxes, or the SE (low labor costs and low state/local taxes)? If all things were close to equal, they would take the NE with the better education systems. But its not close to being equal. Detroit and the troubles of the Big 3 automakers are glaring examples of the future of manufacturing in the NE. That's why almost all of the foreign car makers have avoided the NE like the plague when they selected factory sites in the U.S.

    The SE is about where the NE was 50-60 years ago in terms of economic development. They have the advantage of modern technology and those 50-60 years of experience to avoid most of the environmental disasters and human tragedies that occurred back then, but are not saddled with the greed and corruption of the unions and incompetent management.

    The SE also has a number of areas where modern high-tech innovation centers are sprouting. That includes places like Gainesville (UF) and Altanta (Ga. Tech), as well as Research Triangle in North Carolina. I know that some of the larger chemical plants on the Gulf Coast have their own research facilities that are impressive in size (Dow Chemical's Texas site had over 1200 people in research at one point). The SE is probably not as backwards as you think.
  18. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,822
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    I didn't label the 47% who don't pay taxes the "takers", so your beef is with whoever did. As for social security, it was my understanding that the problem was that people end up taking more out of it they put in.
  19. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,116
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    They will invest in capital. They just won't invest as much into labor. That is how the new capital based economy is working. That is why real wages have been declining for well over a decade. That isn't going to stop. It has nothing to do with politics (beyond the support for free movement of capital in a world that does not have free movement of labor). It has nothing to do with Democrats/Republicans. It is purely about corporations finding ways to make investors more money at the expense of labor markets (which to be fair, is a goal of any for-profit business). And the South, as a poor region in this country, is hurt by it as economic mobility has traditionally occurred through labor income. So as this portion of the economy shrinks, economic mobility shrinks.

    They are absolutely "saddled" with greed, as the attempt to make more money is a driving force of capitalism. So, claiming that they aren't saddled with greed is a bit ridiculous. What they are is desperate enough to take jobs for lower pay so that firms can distribute more money to the capital markets. Not the corporations fault for doing it, just describing the system.

    BTW, given the relatively recent explosions, deaths, and massively polluted water in the South due to a lack of effective government monitoring (not to mention the environmental disaster that was the oil disaster in the Gulf), you might not want to claim that the South is avoiding most of the environmental disasters and human tragedy that occurred 40-50 years ago. In fact, part of what Texas sells businesses is a lack of monitoring. While some good businesses will also want less monitoring, this is obviously most attractive to businesses that have good reason for not wanting monitoring.

    As far as your counter-examples, I would point out that you just named three of the most liberal areas in the South. The research triangle is hardly culturally Southern at this point in time. The people there largely resemble their counterparts in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, etc. This is especially true for those living in some of the more upper class sections of that region. Atlanta is consistently pretty liberal outside of Cobb county. Gainesville is obviously liberal college territory.

    Obviously, there are (mostly liberal) successful and educated regions in the South. You could have added Austin to your list, btw. But they tend to be surrounded by very poor, very low education territory, which tends to be very dependent on the federal government for their livelihoods.
  20. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,871
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,315
    The people who are taking out of the system are taking out more than they put in only because they are living longer and both parties (since Reagan) have been lacking the courage to make adjustments to the program. I blame Congress and the weak presidents we've had since Reagan, not SS recipients.
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page