Most generous states are 'red'; most selfish are 'blue'

[Joe Republic]

Al was implicitly defending it since he claims I'm a conservative for pointing out that California is subsidizing the hell out of other states.

You just lost more credibility, if that was even possible.

You're hilarious, and apparently the only person who sees these 'implicit messages' in other peoples' posts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Al was implicitly defending it since he claims I'm a conservative for pointing out that California is subsidizing the hell out of other states.

You just lost more credibility, if that was even possible.

You're hilarious, and apparently the only person who sees these 'implicit messages' in other peoples' posts.

Al was attacking me when I said that California subsidizes the heck out of a lot of red states because of pork and failure to take into account cost of living.

Do you stand with Al in supporting pork for the majority party, and screwing over people in high cost of living areas?

[Alcon]

Shannon County's issue (as well as the issues of Buffalo, Corson, Ziebach, Dewey, Charles Mix and other counties in South Dakota with high Native American populations) is not its lack of federal funding, but its total lack of economic infrastructure, something that will not be remedied by unmarked federal spending.

Their life expectancy is around 50 years. Don't give me excuses for why they're worse off than most 3rd world countries. The Indians have only been there for hundreds of years, surely would could have figured out a reasonable solution by now.

Excuse me, but I have relatives who live on the Reservation and I know very well how horrible it is.

Do you think the solution is throwing money at them?  No.  Then they will rely only on government funds and never develop infastructure.  Drinking has become a major problem.  The real solution is better education (even if that requires money, certainly) and less reliance on welfare.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Shannon County's issue (as well as the issues of Buffalo, Corson, Ziebach, Dewey, Charles Mix and other counties in South Dakota with high Native American populations) is not its lack of federal funding, but its total lack of economic infrastructure, something that will not be remedied by unmarked federal spending.

Their life expectancy is around 50 years. Don't give me excuses for why they're worse off than most 3rd world countries. The Indians have only been there for hundreds of years, surely would could have figured out a reasonable solution by now.

Excuse me, but I have relatives who live on the Reservation and I know very well how horrible it is.

Do you think the solution is throwing money at them?  No.  Then they will rely only on government funds and never develop infastructure.  Drinking has become a major problem.  The real solution is better education (even if that requires money, certainly) and less reliance on welfare.

Well they obviously aren't getting sh**t of any of that with those numbers. Eduction would obviously be important. I'm not sure if I'd trust someone with a 6.75 economic rating on how to help the poor.

[Joe Republic]

Do you stand with Al in supporting pork for the majority party, and screwing over people in high cost of living areas?

NEITHER OF US SUPPORT IT.  NEITHER OF US EVER SAID WE DID.

It's merely a fact that whichever party has a majority in Congress is in a far better position to serve its own members' constituents, at the expense of the minority party.  Its simply the way things work in that kind of parliamentary democracy.

Would you like us all to declare "...and this is a bad thing" after we present every fact you don't like to hear?

[Alcon]

Well they obviously aren't getting sh**t of any of that with those numbers. Eduction would obviously be important. I'm not sure if I'd trust someone with a 6.75 economic rating on how to help the poor.

I'm curious as to why you put so much creedence in the Political Compass, considering how terribly flawed it is.

What numbers are you referring to?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Do you stand with Al in supporting pork for the majority party, and screwing over people in high cost of living areas?

NEITHER OF US SUPPORT IT.  NEITHER OF US EVER SAID WE DID.

It's merely a fact that whichever party has a majority in Congress is in a far better position to serve its own members' constituents, at the expense of the minority party.  Its simply the way things work in that kind of parliamentary democracy.

Would you like us all to declare "...and this is a bad thing" after we present every fact you don't like to hear?

Al was arguing that it was a good thing.

Well they obviously aren't getting sh**t of any of that with those numbers. Eduction would obviously be important. I'm not sure if I'd trust someone with a 6.75 economic rating on how to help the poor.

I'm curious as to why you put so much creedence in the Political Compass, considering how terribly flawed it is.

What numbers are you referring to?

Where?

[Alcon]

Well they obviously aren't getting sh**t of any of that with those numbers. Eduction would obviously be important. I'm not sure if I'd trust someone with a 6.75 economic rating on how to help the poor.

I'm curious as to why you put so much creedence in the Political Compass, considering how terribly flawed it is.

What numbers are you referring to?

Where?

Here:

Well they obviously aren't getting sh**t of any of that with those numbers. Eduction would obviously be important. I'm not sure if I'd trust someone with a 6.75 economic rating on how to help the poor.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well they obviously aren't getting sh**t of any of that with those numbers. Eduction would obviously be important. I'm not sure if I'd trust someone with a 6.75 economic rating on how to help the poor.

I'm curious as to why you put so much creedence in the Political Compass, considering how terribly flawed it is.

What numbers are you referring to?

Where?

Here:

Well they obviously aren't getting sh**t of any of that with those numbers. Eduction would obviously be important. I'm not sure if I'd trust someone with a 6.75 economic rating on how to help the poor.

I was refering to how much each state gets back from the feds for each dollar they send there. I was refuting Al's argument that somehow all of that extra money goes to helping the poor. If California is losing $50 billion or whatever a year, you'd think some of that could go to making life expectancies in Shannon and Buffalo counties South Dakota be longer than 50 years.

[riceowl]

I think we've witnessed the dawn of a new jfern talking point.

Take notes, people.

[Alcon]

This is going into territory that I'm not familiar with, jfern, so you'll have to help me out here.  A few questions:

1. Do you have a county breakdown of this information?
2. Are you sure that this money would go through the state of South Dakota, not the reservations?  I ask because they have odd sovereignty rules with reservations.

[A18]

The cost of living might matter for welfare. I have to wonder if it really matters much for road construction, or typical education expenses.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is going into territory that I'm not familiar with, jfern, so you'll have to help me out here.  A few questions:

1. Do you have a county breakdown of this information?
2. Are you sure that this money would go through the state of South Dakota, not the reservations?  I ask because they have odd sovereignty rules with reservations.

1. No, it's at the state level.
2. I think all federal money spent in South Dakota is counted there.

Let me make it clear, my argument is not what Al has been straw manning it to be, that wealthy people in blue states shouldn't be helping poor people in red states with their tax money. My point is most of that money moving from blue states to red states isn't helping the poor, and blue states have their own poor to take care of.

Here's the numbers at the state level.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/b4fe1c704862b2ca580ad2a2e31d4961.pdf

[Joe Republic]

Those reservations in SD have a Democratic senator and a Democratic congresswoman.  No wonder they're not getting any federal spending.

[A18]

Except they also have a Republican senator, and until recently had a Republican representative too.

[Alcon]

I've heard that reservation funds are handled by the state differently, so are you absolutely sure?  After all, the government identifies economically distressed areas and tracks them seperately.  These statistics must be possible somewhere.

It may be a case of South Dakota not getting much money because it is economically far from the worst state.  That is, if they earmarked money for South Dakota, some of it would go to areas that don't need it - while money for Mississippi would go almost entirely to poor areas.

It's the government, though - who knows.

[Joe Republic]

Except they also have a Republican senator, and until recently had a Republican representative too.

Fair point.  Either way, they've been getting raped by their congressional representatives, so to speak.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Except they also have a Republican senator, and until recently had a Republican representative too.

Fair point.  Either way, they've been getting raped by their congressional representatives, so to speak.

South Dakota gets plenty of money, there's just not enough going to the poor.

[WalterMitty]

jfern=elitist.

[A18]

Are we talking about federal grants to state governments? Because if so, the map changes dramatically.

[Alcon]

Except they also have a Republican senator, and until recently had a Republican representative too.

Fair point.  Either way, they've been getting raped by their congressional representatives, so to speak.

South Dakota gets plenty of money, there's just not enough going to the poor.

Again, I don't know much about this stuff.  Where is it going?  I am surprised to learn that South Dakota gets a lot of money, considering that its economy is actually decent considering what the state has to work with and its road systems could be worse.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern=elitist.

At least pretend to think for yourself next time.

[WalterMitty]

jfern=elitist.

At least pretend to think for yourself next time.

i cant help if everyone has the same opinion about you.

if someone said they didnt like blacks, youd rightfully call them a racist.

it's obvious you dont like southerners, which makes you just as ignorant.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern=elitist.

At least pretend to think for yourself next time.

i cant help if everyone has the same opinion about you.

if someone said they didnt like blacks, youd rightfully call them a racist.

it's obvious you dont like southerners, which makes you just as ignorant.

Of course I don't like southerners who get pork barrel money that they don't need from the north, and then hate us northerners who are subsidizing them. As I said before, I'm not talking about the poor, this is America, they don't get sh**t.

Anyone who thinks that it's OK that the average Republican district has $600 million more in spending than the averge Democratic district, and that high cost of living blue states are subdisizing the heck out of low cost of living red state is just a Republican apoligist.

[David S]

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005

States are ranked from most generous (i.e. giving proportionally more than they have) at the top to most selfish at the bottom.

New Hampshire, often touted as the most libertarian in the country, is dead last.

Following are the results of the 2004 presidential race for New Hampshire from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NH/


Democrat Kerry   50%
Republican  Bush 49%
Independent Nader 1%
Libertarian Badnarik not shown -presumably <1%.

Assuming that the vote is indicative of party preference it would seem that there are at least 50 times as many Democrats as Libertarians in New Hampshire and at least 49 times as many Republican as Libertarians.

Isn't it just a bit disingenuous to blame  New Hampshire's lack of generosity on the Libertarians?