Follow the money: Red state welfare

Here are some more unpleasant truths for the freepers.

It reminds me of a pro-bush billboard during the campaign that said "Remember, it's YOUR money," as though we Democrats were out to steal the red-stater's money.


-----

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html

"There's a general perception out there that the blue states are big net recipients of federal subsidies," says Harvard business professor Herman "Dutch" Leonard. And there's a corollary perception that, in contrast to these welfare-queen states, the inland and Southern states are a heartland of self-reliance and private initiative, less dependent on federal spending. As Leonard says, "That historically hasn't been the case." And it's becoming less and less so.

In 2003, the top subsidy-sucking state, in percentage terms, was red-lite New Mexico, which received $1.99 in federal money for every dollar it sent to Washington, D.C. All the next eight net recipients of federal spending were redder yet: Kentucky, Virginia, Montana, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi and Alaska, which received $1.60 to $1.89 back for each tax dollar.

The list of net losers in the state-federal exchange, by contrast, reads like a Who's Who of Blue. Two of the top 14 were traditionally red Western states that are starting to turn purple, Colorado and Nevada. The other 12 are all blue: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Wisconsin and the biggest chump of all, New Jersey, where the federal government spends just $.57 for every dollar it collects. Clearly Tony Soprano did not negotiate this deal.

...

The results, when you crunch the fragmented state data, are striking. In 2003, according to the Tax Foundation data, the blue states contributed $966 billion to the federal Treasury and got $830 billion back. The reds paid $697 billion and received a whopping $909 billion. Welfare queens, indeed.

Isn't it strange that poor states went for Bush, while in just about every poll that has been done shows that people who make under the national poverty level voted for Kerry. Makes you think eh?

It's a battle over the middle class for the most part, not that I think it should be. Watch how the Red states react when their is no more welfare. The blue states will be at a financial advantage in terms of taking care of their own citizens, while the red states will see poverty and homelessness like know one can imagine.

instead of states.

Do Republican voters receive more money in direct federal subsidies than they pay in federal taxes as well? That would be an interesting analysis. If so, it would be great to use in all of these tax argurments I seem to find myself in.

The wealthiest 1% own 38.1% of the wealth in the nation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1534246

I would like to know the answer to your question as well.

There's an unholy alliance between the many poor rural voters and the very few super-wealthy. Given the one person, one vote nature of democracy, the wealthy just don't have the numbers among themselves to have the kind of government that they want, so they have to fool people from the underclass into voting for their policies. Which members of the general population are most easily mislead into voting against their own best interests? It's the people who are already too blind to see that they are being used by the Enrons of the world. They are the flag-wavers and bible-thumpers, the "patriots" and the "religious". Appeal to their ignorance, fear, pride, and prejudice, and you've got them on board.

This is the number one reason why California is running such a huge spending deficit.

:kick:

taught.