They look fine, from a Red State point of view: the average Blue state is still taking far less than the average Red State.
Okay, a quarter less from all blue versus all red. I suppose a roughly 20% difference could be considered "far less".
A single year's data tells us something about that single year, with all the variations in the conditions of a single year. 20 or 30 years' data tells us something about 20 or 30 years, with all the trends of an entire epoch. The latter tells us much more than the former about the way the world is moving.
This ought to be obvious.
It is obvious, and it should have been obvious to you that that wasn't what DJPlayer was talking about. IOW, he can't lose a game he was never playing.
As for trends:
News reports commonly interpret this to mean that "red state" lawmakers are more successful at bringing home federal spending than "blue state" lawmakers. It's often suggested that the way to correct this imbalance is for "blue state" lawmakers to step up efforts to capture additional spending for their states, and for "red state" lawmakers to pare back their voracious appetite for ever-growing pork-barrel spending.
This interpretation may be appealing, but it's probably wrong. The much more likely factor driving the persistent imbalance between federal taxing and spending isn't the relative ability of lawmakers to "bring home the bacon," but is the fact that higher income states bear a larger fraction of the federal tax burden—an imbalance that is sharply amplified by the progressive structure of the federal income tax.
Even if federal spending were equal in all states, wealthy states would still send substantially more federal tax dollars to Washington than they received in spending, simply because they earn a majority of the nation's income. This disparity is greatly magnified by the progressive rate structure of the federal income tax, which taxes higher income states more heavily than low-income states, regardless of the level of spending received.
Still think the problem is not enough federal spending in "donor states"? Consider the table below. In 2004 federal discretionary spending was about $895 billion. How much would the largest "donor states" have had to receive in federal spending to boost their spending-taxing ratio to New Mexico's 2.0, the biggest "beneficiary state" that year?
As the table makes clear, far more than is realistically possible. California alone would need to receive more than half of the nation's discretionary spending. The lesson? The distribution of federal taxing and spending is mostly driven by tax burdens, not the ability of lawmakers to divert spending to their home states.
So States with higher earning residents ultimately receive less then they pay in, seems pretty obvious, don't you think?
"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism.But under the name of 'liberalism',they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program,until one day America will be a socialist nation,without knowing how it happened - Norman Thomas,6-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America
The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people,too much authority from the States,and too much liberty with the Constitution - R. Reagan
About time. Burn it down and start again the right way.
All growth depends upon activity. There is no development physically or intellectually without effort, and effort means work. — Calvin Coolidge
"Under Barack Obama, the only 'change' is that 'hope' is hard to find" - Marco Rubio
For Republicans, Julia's story might seem like a joke too good to be true, but they should take it very seriously. Because buried within "The Life of Julia" is the ideological vision of modern liberalism -- to create a state that takes care of its people from cradle to grave. The story of Julia is a microcosm of Obama's vision for America and emblematic of his view of the government's role in an individual's life.
the only person that will watch over you from cradle to grave is yourself. Weaker people desire someone always there to catch them when they fall. Stronger people pick themselves backup, rather than waiting for someone else to do it. Reliant people typically become more reliant and self sufficient people typically become more self sufficient (as do their offspring). Judging purely by the increasing percentages of people on federal/state assistance, it's obvious what our future generations' mentality will be.
“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses." -Malcolm X-
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.
Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
that explains the features of our site.