Repub Policies Hurt Repub States

[Ravenseye]

I read somewhere about the dispersement of federal monies per state. For instance when a dollar of tax money is collected from Massachusetts over half of it leaves the state and is spent in another state. On the opposite side, a state like North Dakota collects a dollar of tax revenue, keeps all of it, and also takes in another dollar from other states.

When you look at the numbers, the 'Blue' states overall give out most of the federal tax money, whereas the 'Red' states collect it.

This of course begs the question...Why do people in the Red states hate our current system? For ever dollar they're taxed, they get 2 back.

The point though, is that if Republicans reduce the size of the government, reduce the taxes coming in, reduce programs and services, and leave more and more things up to the states such as health care, education, environment, and so on, and so on....

Won't the red states get screwed by this?

Heck that would mean that in Massachusetts they could get the same services they do now, but cut their federal taxes in half!

Whereas people in North Dakota would have to double their current federal taxes to retain the same services. Anyone in North Dakota interested in a modest federal tax rate of 50% to 70%? Thats what Republican policies are gonna get ya.

[hadrons]

1. the thing about this flow from 'Blue' states to 'Red' states is ...

that the $$$ are distrubuted as unequality once in those 'Red' states

[Ravenseye]

3. What do you mean...

unequality? Like how?

[9119495]

2. So I'll beat my dead horse again

Here is the emerging flaw of the Electoral college. One party can corner the market with a message or ethic and win because electorally "rich" states where few votes are needed to win allow that party to capture elections. WY=3EVs at 150,000 votes per EV. CA=54EVs at 611,000 votes per EV. UGH!

I say forget those states out West. If we don't win anyway, it is time to simply stop pushing thier interests. No more ag subsities or ranch support. Bye-bye federal highway money for roads to nowhere. So all we need say is vote for us so we can bring it to you...vote for them and we're done fighting your fight.

[Ravenseye]

5. If it weren't for federal money

there'd be nary a paved road or farm with electrical access in the upper midwest.

I guess my point though is that this unbalance of the electoral college is actually going to come back and bite those small states in the ass.

[Surf Cowboy]

4. They'll get exactly what their dumb asses deserve.

And then they'll love Bush for it.

[Ravenseye]

6. Probably True....

...and it makes me sad that people could be so hoodwinked and manipulated.

[Surf Cowboy]

12. By and large, we're dealing with the South,

and as a native Southerner, I can assure you that you shouldn't be surprised. We are very easy to hoodwink. Not as much between the ears as between the ventricles. Lots o' heart, but not much brains. Whaddya gonna do, eh?

[Yavin4]

7. Red State Republicans Won't Reduce Spending

That's how they keep their incumbency. The plan is to bankrupt the federal government completely, and then parse out whatever remains to the politically connected states. IOW, blue states will lose most of their federal spending, while the red states will still get their spending. The new political mantra will be: "Vote Republican if you want Federal spending in your state!"

[mitchtv]

9. that mantra is being used in Calif, now

in the race for senate.

[Ravenseye]

10. How though?

I mean....if they reduce federal spending and taxes, which is their whole point...they want to pass stuff off to the states, or get rid of it completely.

I guess what I'm saying is this....

I'm going to use fake numbers.

Lets say that the Department of Education spends 10 Billion a year. The Federal government cuts that 10 Billion, eliminates the department of education and says it's up to states, and then reduces taxes across the board (lets say...to the top 1%) so the government takes in 10 Billion less a year.

The people in Bluestateachusettes who used to put in 200 dollars a person to pay for the department of education, has their federal taxes reduced by that 200 dollars, and their state taxes increased by 100 dollars to pay for the increased state education budget.

The people in North Redadoka who used to put in 50 dollars a person to the federal government get that 50 bucks back, A TAX BREAK! YEEEHAW!, and have their state taxes raised by 100 bucks.

Am I looking at it wrong?

[Yavin4]

14. It Won't Work That Way

This is how it will work:

All taxes to the federal government, mostly taxes on wages will still be in place and will probably rise in order to pay off the interest and the debts that's been accumulated.

All government programs will be cut. So, your Dept. of Ed. would get $5 billion to spend, and they will spend most of that in the Red states because these states are politically connected.

[XNASA]

8. Exactamundo.

It's true.

Research the book "The Great Divide" by John Sperling. It's all in there.

Sperling doesn't call states 'Red or Blue'. He calls them, 'Retro or Metro'. Almost all of the Retro states receive more money than they put in. There is one noticable exception....Texas. Almost all of the Metro states receive less money than they put in...the biggest exception is Pennsylvania, I believe.

The state hardest hit by the Federal Government? It's a tie between NJ and CT with my own homestate of Illinois right behind.

Who get the most back? Montana and West Virginia with Mississippi and ND right on their tails.

These idiots want to keep the Bush Tax Cuts? Fine....they're cutting their own throats.

[Ravenseye]

11. I don't think it's PA

If I remember correctly it was something like 1.4 to 1 for PA. But I could be wrong.

[XNASA]

13. According to 1999 Federal Spending, PA receives $1.05 for every $1.

Not much, but 5% is nothing to sneeze at these days.

Here's the scoop:

[MisterP]

15. and a good thing on "Real Red Murka" vs. "Blue Coast Furners"

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html