Southerners more charitable?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah, northerners pay more in taxes and living expenses. Our taxes go to subsidize the ungreatful people in the south.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It should also be pointed out that people with lower incomes tend (just about everywhere) to give a higher % of their income to charities than people with higher incomes. The top ten states are:

1. MS
2. AR
3. SD
4. OK
5. TN
6. AL
7. LA
8. UT
9. SC
10. WV

Spot a trend? With the exception of Utah (and we all know why Utah is so high) these are low income states.
I should probably point out that church attendence in New England is actually pretty high for the most part.

Let's see here's those states rankings in getting money from the feds.

MS $1.83 (3)
AR $1.47 (13)
SD $1.49 (11)
OK $1.48 (12)
TN $1.29 (20
AL $1.69 (6)
LA $1.47 (14)
UT $1.19 (22)
SC $1.36 (15)
WV $1.82 (4)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Notice a pattern? Not one of those states got back less than $1.19 for every dollar they sent to the feds.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see here's those states rankings in getting money from the feds.

MS $1.83 (3)
AR $1.47 (13)
SD $1.49 (11)
OK $1.48 (12)
TN $1.29 (20
AL $1.69 (6)
LA $1.47 (14)
UT $1.19 (22)
SC $1.36 (15)
WV $1.82 (4)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Notice a pattern? Not one of those states got back less than $1.19 for every dollar they sent to the feds.

So? These are (as pointed out before) poor states (with one exception. And that exception has a serious poverty problem in places). What's the problem with a bit of redistribution now and again?

You fail to take into account cost of living. Also, in 2000, the average Republlican congressional district had $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Much of this is just pork that doesn't help the poor, while the poor in CA, NY, and so on are being ignored.

You have previously shown that you don't give a sh**t about the poor in states like NY or CA.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You fail to take into account cost of living.

No matter how you measure it Central Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta are a hell of a lot poorer than the San Francisco Bay Area. I don't really see the problem with taking money from rich areas to spend on poor areas. But then again, I'm not a hypocrite.

The federal government fails to take into account cost of living. Here in the bay area, the average house is pushing an even $1 million. Something tells me that's cheaper in Central Appalachia. And you really think that money is all going to poor people? If the federal government really helped out poor counties, then Buffalo county, SD would have a life expectancy longer than 50 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? The party in the Majority gets to spend more money on it's incumbents than the party in the Minority. And?
[/quote]
You don't see anything wrong with the Republican party spending lots of money in Republican areas that doesn't help the poor, all while screwing over the Democratic areas? And I'm the hypocrite?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have I? Don't think so.
[/quote]

So do you think that the federal government should take into account cost of living, or should it just have poor people in San Francisco, Boston, and Manhattan subsidize upper middle class people in West Virginia, Mississippi, and North Dakota?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

The money isn't going to poor people fool. If the federal government gave a sh**t about poor people, Buffalo and Shannon counties South Dakota wouldn't be worse off than most 3rd world countries.

Note that the people living there know who would help them. Shannon, SD was Kerry's best county (unless you consider DC a county) in the United States.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The federal government fails to take into account cost of living.

And, with a few exceptions, they shouldn't. There is no need to; even in a rich city like San Francisco there are still areas with very low incomes and poverty problems.

But it costs more for them to live, you San Francisco hater.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? House prices have NOTHING to do with poverty whatsover. The very fact that house prices in your area are topping $1 million on regular basis indicates pretty damn strongly that it is NOT a poor area; sure like everything in your part of the world the value is certain inflated, but not so much as to obscure a very obvious point that you are blinded by your own selfishness from seeing.

[/quote]
Yeah, they are absolutely no homeless people in the bay area. Your reasoning is seriously lacking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, and I never said that it does. I would certainly say that enough does to more than justify it though.
[/quote]

This is America. Poor people don't get sh**t.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say that there was anything right or wrong with it. The majority party gets to spend more money than the minority party. The Democrats did it when they ran things. That's life.
[/quote]

The Democrats did not spend $600 million per Congressional district.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No I do not as it does not really effect poor people very much, unless the cost of basic things like food is stupidly high. Even so, it would make more sense for the state governments to deal with that particular problem.
[/quote]
The cost of food is pretty expensive in the bay area. Bread is close to $4 a loaf.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poor people in San Francisco, Boston and Manhatten do not subsidise rich people in West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota, unless the amount of money spent on this sort of redistribution makes up almost all of the federal budget. And it doesn't.
What, in effect, happens with this sort of thing is that money from rich people in the San Francisco Bay area and other rich places, goes to poor areas like Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta. Could you explain what is so very wrong about that?
[/quote]
Poor people in San Francisco may make more money than upper middle class people in West Virginia. You like the fact that the government doesn't take into account cost of living, because you hate San Franicisco.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

It is kind of funny actually.  All for redistribution of wealth until it is redistributed AWAY from them, and then they hate it.

I have often made the same point as jfern about the fact that a high income in one section of the country is not worth the same amount as a high income in another section.  I am well aware of the fact that people who live in high income states are effectively penalized with a higher level of taxes for their standard of living than people in lower income states with a lower cost of living.  A person making $75,000 per year, as an example, would be struggling to get by in New York if he/she had to raise a family, and very well off in Mississippi, yet they'd both be taxed the same, other than the deduction for state and local taxes, which would be higher in New York.

But since it's the Democrats who often argue that anybody making more than $50,000 per year is fabulously rich, I think jfern is barking up the wrong tree.  Also, the people in the higher income areas (i.e., New York, California) have voted for high taxes repeatedly, so it's not too easy to sympathize with their plight.

This is all ignoring the larger problem of where the money is spent. In 2000, the average Republican congressional district got $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Very little of the money is helping the poor, much of it is sh**tty pork projects.

Also, maybe people would earn more in the south if they weren't so anti-education.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

It is kind of funny actually.  All for redistribution of wealth until it is redistributed AWAY from them, and then they hate it.

I have often made the same point as jfern about the fact that a high income in one section of the country is not worth the same amount as a high income in another section.  I am well aware of the fact that people who live in high income states are effectively penalized with a higher level of taxes for their standard of living than people in lower income states with a lower cost of living.  A person making $75,000 per year, as an example, would be struggling to get by in New York if he/she had to raise a family, and very well off in Mississippi, yet they'd both be taxed the same, other than the deduction for state and local taxes, which would be higher in New York.

But since it's the Democrats who often argue that anybody making more than $50,000 per year is fabulously rich, I think jfern is barking up the wrong tree.  Also, the people in the higher income areas (i.e., New York, California) have voted for high taxes repeatedly, so it's not too easy to sympathize with their plight.

This is all ignoring the larger problem of where the money is spent. In 2000, the average Republican congressional district got $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Very little of the money is helping the poor, much of it is sh**tty pork projects.

Also, maybe people would earn more in the south if they weren't so anti-education.

Ah, who actually ends up getting the money?  The locals that are provided jobs.

3 serious flaws

1: Most of the money doesn't go to the poor
2: What about the poor who live in Democratic areas?
3: The cost of living is much higher in some Democratic aras