Thread: mississippi conservatives be a puzzlin' lot...

Originally Posted by goober

If we take race out of it, (Blacks vote democratic because their civil rights came largely from the actions of Democrats, they used to vote largely Republican, because Lincoln freed the slaves)

Among white people, the more education the more likely they are to vote Democratic. You'd have a hard time finding a Republican in the faculty lounge at a university, and when you get to the economics department, unless it's Liberty University or Oral Roberts, you'll find overwhelmingly Liberal views, they do after all study that stuff their whole lives, they aren't going to fall for "tax cuts balance budgets"....

You know what your attitude reminds me of the TV show The Big Bang Theory
where three of the four main characters all have their Doctorates and belittle the Engineer who although he has his Masters degree and works for Nasa is inferior in their minds because he lacks a DR title until something breaks and he is the only one who knows how to fix it. As the old saying goes people who can't do Teach.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Disillusioned_1,

me hearty, that means that havin' states like New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Nevada, Illinois, Delaware, Colorado, New York, and California (8 out of the top 10 "donor states") hand thar tax dollars o'er to the federal government, and havin' states like Alaska, North Dakota, Alabama and Mississipi gorge themselves on the monies from these left leanin' states is okies dokies then?

honestly, me friend...how do you parse the GOP message comin' outta conservative Mississippi? what is it they want to see come to pass? do them conservatives actually wish fer less federal money to pour into thar state?

- MeadHallPirate

Interesting info state-by-state here. Montana gets about $1.50 for each $1.00 generated.

The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

A couple of factors play into the equation. "Donor states" tend to have large cities or lots of large cities, and incomes in cities tend to be higher because of higher costs of living. Because of our progressive tax system, people with higher incomes produce more tax revenue. Rural states tend to have lower cost of living, so incomes tend to be lower there, thus generating less tax revenue.

Some revenue is distributed to school systems. For rural states its hard to get qualified teachers to move to a poor rural area, so they have to offer them a somewhat attractive compensation package. In big cities there are multitudes of qualified teachers applying for most teaching positions. Hence, its natural that rural/poor states receive more money for schools - per capita than urban states.

Some revenue is distributed to highway systems. In my own state of MT, it is 800 miles from east to west and 500 miles from north to south. Montana has less than 1,000,000 people to build, maintain, and plow the interstate and state highway system. Furthermore, it is necessary to build the highways over mountains, a much more costly endeavor than building a highway across southern Indiana. Hence, its natural that rural/poor states - esp in the Rocky Mountains or Appalachians receive more money for their highways than flatter urban states.

Lastly rural states out west tend to have lots of Indian reservations, I'm not sure how much funding they receive is counted in the donor vs leech equation. There are millions of acres of National Forest. There are also many huge national parks ... Yellowstone and Glacier in MT, how many national parks are in NY? All of those use some federal dollars to operate.

So there might be some reasonable reasons (not hypocritical) for some of the disparity, although some states getting more than twice as much as their state generates seems to be verging on the extreme.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

A couple of factors play into the equation. "Donor states" tend to have large cities or lots of large cities, and incomes in cities tend to be higher because of higher costs of living. Because of our progressive tax system, people with higher incomes produce more tax revenue. Rural states tend to have lower cost of living, so incomes tend to be lower there, thus generating less tax revenue.

Some revenue is distributed to school systems. For rural states its hard to get qualified teachers to move to a poor rural area, so they have to offer them a somewhat attractive compensation package. In big cities there are multitudes of qualified teachers applying for most teaching positions. Hence, its natural that rural/poor states receive more money for schools - per capita than urban states.

Some revenue is distributed to highway systems. In my own state of MT, it is 800 miles from east to west and 500 miles from north to south. Montana has less than 1,000,000 people to build, maintain, and plow the interstate and state highway system. Furthermore, it is necessary to build the highways over mountains, a much more costly endeavor than building a highway across southern Indiana. Hence, its natural that rural/poor states - esp in the Rocky Mountains or Appalachians receive more money for their highways than flatter urban states.

ahoy Disillusioned_1,

*mutters to himself*

whar on earth be JohnLocke and Jviehe when i need them?

matey, what about "free choice?".

what about "freedom?".

were these americans forced, at gunpoint, to reside in these conservative welfare states? be thar some kinda law preventin' them from movin' to New Jersey, or Colorado? is it a right to make yer home in a rural state and then expect the federal government to pay fer yer amenities (while bashing the federal government fer its gosh darn spendin'?).

are ye sayin' that because someone decides to reside in Mississippi, liberals must be forced to pay fer that citizen's lifestyle, whilst they bitch and moan about big liberal spending in government?

is bein' a poor conservative who recieves welfare from a liberal a GOP entitlement in Mississippi?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

were these americans forced, at gunpoint, to reside in these conservative welfare states? be thar some kinda law preventin' them from movin' to New Jersey, or Colorado? is it a right to make yer home in a rural state and then expect the federal government to pay fer yer amenities (while bashing the federal government fer its gosh darn spendin'?).

Well, that argument would work both ways: Who is holding a gun to the heads of the citizenry of donor states? Why wouldn't they move to the welfare rural states to poach from the gravy train? Its not conservatives fault that liberals are stupid.

The government figuratively DOES hold a gun to the head of people to require them to have a public school system and an interstate highway system. It also is the Federal government that establishes National Parks and the National Forest service and Indian Reservations. Because those are mandated, its fair for states to receive the help they need in those areas even if its 'welfare' assistance.

are ye sayin' that because someone decides to reside in Mississippi, liberals must be forced to pay fer that citizen's lifestyle, whilst they bitch and moan about big liberal spending in government?

is bein' a poor conservative who recieves welfare from a liberal a GOP entitlement in Mississippi?

- MeadHallPirate

I'd say that assistance for lifestyle (unemployment, welfare, etc) shouldn't be given more to one state than another, as that problem doesn't seem to scale with population. However, I'm sure those items are doled out in unequal portions, leading to GOP hypocrisy in the case of Mississippi (and MT and a dozen or two other states).

Also, some conservatives her want to do away with the progressive tax system, which would have the effect of reducing the number of donor states.

Originally Posted by Q of U

You know what your attitude reminds me of the TV show The Big Bang Theory
where three of the four main characters all have their Doctorates and belittle the Engineer who although he has his Masters degree and works for Nasa is inferior in their minds because he lacks a DR title until something breaks and he is the only one who knows how to fix it. As the old saying goes people who can't do Teach.

I'm just saying that people who get degrees in economics (or for that matter win the Nobel Prize for Economics) tend to be Liberal, because (and this is just my theory) they tend to understand economics more than say a bartender...

ahoy Disillusioned_1,

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Well, that argument would work both ways: Who is holding a gun to the heads of the citizenry of donor states? Why wouldn't they move to the welfare rural states to poach from the gravy train? Its not conservatives fault that liberals are stupid.

this be true, matey, but only to a point; fer its not liberals complainin' about big government spendin'...'tis the conservatives in Mississippi who are doin' it.

The government figuratively DOES hold a gun to the head of people to require them to have a public school system and an interstate highway system. It also is the Federal government that establishes National Parks and the National Forest service and Indian Reservations. Because those are mandated, its fair for states to receive the help they need in those areas even if its 'welfare' assistance.

as per me OP, 'tis Mississippi that we be talkin' about. if thar were vast Apache tribes roamin' the state that have had to be succored with federal monies fer reservations, imma unaware 'o it, avast ye!!!

Also, some conservatives her want to do away with the progressive tax system, which would have the effect of reducing the number of donor states.

aye mate, this speaks directly to me OP...so, what do ye think? are citizens 'o the conservative state 'o Mississippi puttin' thar money whar thar mouth is...meanin', are they arguein' fer the Federal government to stop pourin' monies into thar state?

or are they too stupid to comprehend that ramifications 'o what they be askin' fer?

...or do they really think that Federal spendin' must be cut, and cut at all costs (with no rise in taxes), yet they'll continue to receive a mighty boon from states like Conneticut and California whilst serious cuttin' happens elsewhere (just not in Mississippi)?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

as per me OP, 'tis Mississippi that we be talkin' about. if thar were vast Apache tribes roamin' the state that have had to be succored with federal monies fer reservations, imma unaware 'o it, avast ye!!!

Yes, I was extending the argument to leech states out west which tend to be fairly rural with national parks and Indian reservations. I can't speak for Mississippi since I hail from mightily different seas.

aye mate, this speaks directly to me OP...so, what do ye think? are citizens 'o the conservative state 'o Mississippi puttin' thar money whar thar mouth is...meanin', are they arguein' fer the Federal government to stop pourin' monies into thar state?

or are they too stupid to comprehend that ramifications 'o what they be askin' fer?

...or do they really think that Federal spendin' must be cut, and cut at all costs (with no rise in taxes), yet they'll continue to receive a mighty boon from states like Conneticut and California whilst serious cuttin' happens elsewhere (just not in Mississippi)?

- MeadHallPirate

I'm pretty sure they're just dumb, along the lines of tea party activists with signs saying "Keep your government hands off my medicare". My points in the posts above are merely pointing out reasons why some states look like 'leech states', but there are realistic and practical reasons for it in some areas.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Yes, I was extending the argument to leech states out west which tend to be fairly rural with national parks and Indian reservations. I can't speak for Mississippi since I hail from mightily different seas.



I'm pretty sure they're just dumb, along the lines of tea party activists with signs saying "Keep your government hands off my medicare". My points in the posts above are merely pointing out reasons why some states look like 'leech states', but there are realistic and practical reasons for it in some areas.

Agree!
Actually, if you look at which States contribute more to Federal, and who receive the most from Federal, it is amazing to see that it is mostly (not all, but mostly) "RED STATES" who are on the receiving end from the government, and "BLUE STATES" who are on the contributing end of the government. . .
This tells me that those "receiving end states" who are so supportive of balancing the budget ONLY by cutting government or cutting entitlement have no idea what they're asking for!

Link: United States Federal Tax Dollars -
www.visualeconomics.com
A colorful look at federal tax payments versus allotments by U.S. State. ... The federal taxes paid per capita vary widely by state. .... get more than they put in are in traditionaly anti-big-government, anti-handout republican states ...


They don't realize that, by pushing the GOP agenda, and refusing to ask that budget be balanced by a COMBINATION of entitlement cuts, smaller government AND tax raise on people who can afford it most, they are cutting their own nose to spite their face!

But. . .some people just don't have any ideas, or have a vision that stop at the end of their noses.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I'm pretty sure they're just dumb, along the lines of tea party activists with signs saying "Keep your government hands off my medicare". My points in the posts above are merely pointing out reasons why some states look like 'leech states', but there are realistic and practical reasons for it in some areas.

ahoy Disillusioned_1,

aye...i kinda agree too, its that conservatives in Mississippi be just kinda dumb. that depresses me though, i'd rather 'twas some kinda calculated plot.
the idear that folks can be out to sea to that degree saddens me.

and aye, each conservative state hath differin' reasons fer bein' the kings 'o gorgin' themselves at the federal trough...but not all 'o them be good reasons.

ye could go state by state.

North Dakota, fer example, be another red state that suckles heavily on the teat 'o federal dollars, and ye may wonder, "why is that?" North Dakota, afterall, be the lone state in our nation that isn't mired in budget horrors....they're doin' just fine.

the answer (as imma sure ye already know) would be farm subsidies. so, the question is; do the folks in conservative North Dakota really, really want smaller federal spendin'?

if so, thar yearly "gift" from the nation's taxpayers ought to be first one to be made to walk the plank.

do the folks in North Dakota grasp this, or do they suffer from the same affliction that folks in Mississippi be plagued with?

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

That's hilarious, Goober, especially since the uneducated, low income people most often vote Democrat. But nice attempt at calling those of us who tend to vote Republican "stupid"...too bad you're wrong...again.

Now Mrs. M... I thought you were above that type of stereotyping. There are of course TONS of uneducated people who vote republican, and there are TONS of extremely well educated people who vote democrat... and of course the reverse is also true. One's education level has much less to do with the way one votes than their ideologies (and the ideologies of their parents.)

But back to the OP... it's very true that the great majority of federal tax dollars do come from traditionally liberal states. California, probably the most liberal of all, has certainly had it's fair share of financial troubles over the years; but always seems to bounce back, and is in fact the fifth largest economy in the world. Conservative states like Mississippi may love to degrade oh so liberal California... but without California, Mississippi would be much worse off wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Agree!
Actually, if you look at which States contribute more to Federal, and who receive the most from Federal, it is amazing to see that it is mostly (not all, but mostly) "RED STATES" who are on the receiving end from the government, and "BLUE STATES" who are on the contributing end of the government. . .
This tells me that those "receiving end states" who are so supportive of balancing the budget ONLY by cutting government or cutting entitlement have no idea what they're asking for!

Link: United States Federal Tax Dollars -
Loans, Financial Infographics, Savings Accounts & CD Rates - VisualEconomics.com
A colorful look at federal tax payments versus allotments by U.S. State. ... The federal taxes paid per capita vary widely by state. .... get more than they put in are in traditionaly anti-big-government, anti-handout republican states ...


They don't realize that, by pushing the GOP agenda, and refusing to ask that budget be balanced by a COMBINATION of entitlement cuts, smaller government AND tax raise on people who can afford it most, they are cutting their own nose to spite their face!

But. . .some people just don't have any ideas, or have a vision that stop at the end of their noses.

It wasn't always like that, the taxes collected vs federal spending used to be very close to 1 to 1 for most every state, then in 1993, the pork machine known as the GOP House started using pork to sweeten their re-election chances, by larding up their home districts.

If we strip out the pork, it's going to be pretty tough for the Red states to get by with out their big federal handouts.

Originally Posted by wrxsti

Anti, of course, although I suppose it fits into the God category.

I had to add something to Obama's Pennsylvania observation. 2Gs makes no sense, no more than 50 states does.

OK, I'll stop digging now.

God, guns, and GOLD, son. Gold, not gays.

Originally Posted by goober

I'm just saying that people who get degrees in economics (or for that matter win the Nobel Prize for Economics) tend to be Liberal, because (and this is just my theory) they tend to understand economics more than say a bartender...

Do you think that Krugman knows what a short squeeze is?

And do you think that he'd be willing to teach you?