Found an interesting article on the taker states

[gabeana]

There are various ways of thinking about what Wallet Hub's "state dependency" map tells us. One approach is to shine light on the red-states-as takers paradox: Dominated by Republican voters who profess their distaste for the federal government and its social programs, these are the very states that rank highest on the dependency index. That, for example, is how Business Insider handled the story:

[W]ho really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers. . . .

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

article is from 2014

[SheilaT]

1. The article keeps on calling New Mexico a red state.

It's not. We do have a Republican Governor, but our House and Senate had been very blue for quite a while. In 2014 the House got a Republican majority.

The main reason we get so many federal dollars is because of Los Alamos National Labs, Sandia Labs, and several air force bases.

We have high levels of child poverty, and a not very good public school system. But it's not really a red state.

[gabeana]

4. They don't mean red state in the political sense

this is what they mean

Analysts there set out to determine how states compare in terms of their reliance on federal funding. The states deemed "most dependent" by the analysis are bright red on the map, those "least dependent" are bright green. You can move your cursor around on the map to see how each state ranks. (There were some ties.)

[SheilaT]

8. Okay.

It's just that red state almost always mean Republican. Thanks for setting me straight.

[MisterP]

2. that's actually why they're so pampered, flattered, and in denial

it's not so much cognitive dissonance--north LA being told by Duck Dynasty that they're all that's keeping CA afloat--but because the political system can't admit that it's failed the people it flatters and pours money into: they just see the subsidies coming in and don't think where the come from--same story from suburbia to Quebec

[former9thward]

3. This has been debunked so many times.

The article was written by economic illiterates who have no idea how the federal budget works. And of course it is sucked up by those who like to broad brush state bash.

The reason federal money goes into so-called "red" states is that federal military bases and federal land are dis proportionally located in the south and west. More than 50% of the West is owned by the federal government. That land has to be maintained and the military facilities (along with their payrolls) are expensive. Also many people in the north retire to the south so S.S. benefits flow with them.

[gabeana]

5. Here is the "illiterates" background

John Tierney is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and a former professor of American government at Boston College. He is the author of Organized Interests and American Democracy (with Kay L. Schlozman) and The U.S. Postal Service: Status and Prospects of a Government Enterprise.
by the way California has a lot fed land and has military bases

[former9thward]

6. Why did they write an article so easy to debunk?

CA does NOT have a a lot of federal land and bases given its size. The federal footprint in CA is much smaller as a percent than most western and southern states.

[gabeana]

7. I don't know about that

Federal land a percentage of California is 45.8%, California has more federal land than any southern state
and California has the 3rd most total of Federal acreage behind only to Alaska and Nevada,
and many of the states with lowest federal land are southern red states

Alabama 2.6% is fed land
Louisiana 4.6%
Mississippi 5.1%
South Carolina 4.4%
and Texas 1.8%

here is the link
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

[Kingofalldems]

9. Kaboom.

[former9thward]

11. Oh, clever.

You ignore all the land the Native Americans have in the West which federal funds go to. The federal government controls 80% of my state (AZ) but your article says 39%. Nice try. Try again.

[gabeana]

13. don't get so defensive

what is your source on the 80%
plus you were already wrong in saying California doesn't have much Fed land, you seem to have a lot opinion but nothing to back it up

[former9thward]

16. Private land ownership is 18% in AZ.

"For every acre of land declared public, there is an acre of private land lost, and in Arizona, only about 18 percent of the land remaining in the state is privately held."

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2015/04/13/fact-check-gosar-correct-private-land-arizona/25740527/

I'm sure you wish it was 0%.

[gabeana]

22. Good for you, you go

with the Arizona Republic I'll go with the congressional report, according to your paper 12.7% of the number is state land,
we are talking federal land because the initial breadth of the thread was how Those southern red states are takers from the fed gov't and you made the argument that the article was easy to debunk because of all the federal land in those states, well your assertion wasn't true was it? And I ask you for your source and you try to slyly pass off state land as federal land,



and you use a source that endorsed Romney over democratic President Obama
http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/20121024november-endorsements-recap.html

There reasoning

"The nation's best opportunity to escape the compounding woes of spiraling debt and economic stagnation lies with a president who believes in the free market's capacity to heal its own wounds."

Now in 2008 they endorsed McCain that is understandable won't hold that against them since McCain represents AZ in the senate
but still had Palin on the ticket

[former9thward]

23. Do they also say the sun rises in the East?

Better be suspect about that claim also. Actually if a R in AZ read your comment they would be chuckling. The AZ Republic is regarded as a liberal paper here and is very critical of state Republicans. The are hated by local right wing talk radio.

[gabeana]

26. R wingers hate fox news

Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

because not right wing enough, whats your point
They also endorsed W for prez

some kind of liberal paper

[former9thward]

28. They endorse Democratic candidates

at the state and local level. Try again.

[gabeana]

29. so what

for president, endorsing republicans, and what I posted early in their justification for endorsing Romney is nothing but rightwing drivel
you need to walk away from this, It is okay not everyone can always be right 100% of the time, God knows I am not right all the time


the bottom line is that a lot of the red stats are takers deal with it, you made an assertion that it was because they have a lot of federal land you were wrong, now you need to go away from this thread

good luck next time

[former9thward]

32. No, you go away.

I am not going anywhere. See post #17 which is a post of a map (by one of YOUR allies in this) which completely backs what I said about AZ and what the paper said. Good luck next time ...

[gabeana]

37. you lost

again it's okay
now tell me again how California doesn't have much Federal land,

[former9thward]

41. You lost.

You said AZ is 38% federal. Yet you are silent about the map YOUR ally posted. Its okay.

[Marr]

36. +1, good on you for holding the goalpost in place.

The sudden attempt to pick it up and run down field was pretty funny.

[former9thward]

42. And you are silent about the map also.

[gabeana]

46. I know you lost

and you lost big, moving the goal post as the poster above said

you argue like a right wing troll, meaning a child
can't stay on topic at hand

[Orrex]

48. You should check that DUer's profile

Interesting choice of vocation, considering.

[former9thward]

59. I put in out there.

Unlike almost all in this thread...

[former9thward]

60. You said federal land was 36% of AZ.

You lose per post #17.

[gabeana]

62. I reported on what the congressional report

reported and I stand by it,

were you wrong when you said California didn't have much Fed land?
you haven't responded to that now have you, or that the ( Southern Red States" on a whole are takers)
all you contentions have been wrong in this thread
but you ignore that, you stick to your AZ 80% land and even that 80% included state land,
you have serious problems where you can't admit you were misinformed
it is fun dragging this out to see what irrelevant remark you will post next
Please don't disappoint me

[NaturalHigh]

47. You are embarrassing yourself.

[former9thward]

58. Thank you for your concern...

[OrwellwasRight]

30. It seems simplistic

to conflate "federal land" and "Native American land."

"Not open for private ownership" is not the same thing as "federal"--and it's even misleading to presume that all federal land is not open to private ownership. I grew up in CA where tons of people owned land and homes in the Cleveland National Forest and other federal land was available for mining rights, grazing rights, logging, and other private uses.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I invite you to go state that to my back country folks

who rail against the BLM since well, BLM owns so much land.

Hell, I invite you to go correct CAL FIRE chiefs who have to be careful around that land every time we have a wild fire and twice on Sunday.

Oh and given I live in a military town with at least 4 major military facilities. (We used to have more before BRAC)

[former9thward]

12. I will be happy to.

Please give me contact info. You claim to be a reporter so you should have this info.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I do not claim I am

And California has a lot of federal land.

San Diego alone has the marine recruit depot, Balboa Naval Medical Center, 32nd street, Sub Base and Miramar Marine Air Base. Oh and Pendleton straddles orange and San Diego County

Once I get home I will post the state map with Federal Land for you to be corrected on your misrepresentation

In fact, here you are, that's is a good map

https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states/fed_lands_2003/california_2003.pdf

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. And here is an even better map

since it shows federal land across the WEST

?w=514&h=386

[former9thward]

18. Thanks.

I wonder if that includes Native American land because I see some white in AZ which is rez land.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. You do know that native american land

even if in a reservation, is technically under the Dept. Of the Interior and more specifically Indian Affairs, correct?

Or are you pretending NOT TO KNOW THIS?

Here you go, even MORE FUCKING DETAILED, and you can do this, it is called Google

http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/images/pdf/fedlands/fedlands3.pdf

(Yes reservations are independent nations, but as independent as they are, Dept of the interior still has a lot to do with this...)

[former9thward]

20. You really fly off the handle, don't you?

I merely mentioned I saw some white areas in AZ which I know to be Native and you freak out. Is your team behind or something?

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Yes, and they are still under FEDERAL CONTROL

under the Dept of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

You are wrong, and you have been shown plenty of FUCKING FEDERAL SOURCES on this.

So at this point I have to conclude it is willful.

So off to the soft ignore with you. Really. I am done wasting my time... some people will not learn.

I guess in your view Federal Reservations for the United States Department of Defense are not federal either.

The map in red is the aggregate of all lands under any and all forms of FEDERAL CONTROL. You just got a detailed map, once again

http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/images/pdf/fedlands/fedlands3.pdf

Willfully ignorant people are just quite irritating, whether they are on the "left" or "right."

[Katashi_itto]

34. As usual you know nothing about what you are talking about.

[former9thward]

35. Such a devastating reply...

[Katashi_itto]

39. Yes it's accurate. Hence, it's devastating.

[former9thward]

43. In your mind...

[Katashi_itto]

51. Lol...you choose to ignore all the cited evidence

Being presented to you. Pretty typical of you.

[former9thward]

55. As did you.

And also very typical of you.

[Katashi_itto]

56. Lol.. this is like your being a published author too..

Snicker

[Hortensis]

24. This has NOT been debunked. Conservative economic

policies have always tended to channel money upwards.

Conservative economic policies bear striking dysfunctional similarities to economies of impoverished, backwards nations.

Conservative states have always tended to have larger populations of poor people and smaller middle classes than blue states.

Conservative states have always tended to offer fewer good-paying jobs per capita and lower wages overall than blue states. (Georgia's minimum wage is $5.15.)

Conservatives states have always refused to invest tax dollars of their more well-to-do in infrastructure for their poorer and rural areas. Without federal programs that distribute money from blue states into those areas, many to this day would not be electrified and plumbed. Instead, their residents would long ago have abandoned their hardscrabble farms and urban houses on unpaved streets and refugeed to blue states in search of better lives.

And the ones who stayed would be in truly terrible shape. Some canned goods at Thanksgiving and Christmas are good for making their donors feel virtuous but that's hardly enough. Liberal programs help put food on red-states tables the other 363 days of the year through jobs development and food programs.

A blue-to-red state transplant.

[former9thward]

25. Your blue-red state compairson is nonsense.

Real life, as opposed to internet boards, is rarely black or white as you portray it. North Dakota and Wyoming have more poor people that Illinois or New York? I don't think so.

[yeoman6987]

52. I have said to conservatives that MS, AL and GA have the most welfare

Guess who they blame it on? It's gross!!!!!!!!

[ErikJ]

27. No its b/c the GOP states doesnt tax their rich so they

mooch off the fed govt to get by. Pretty simple.

[former9thward]

33. Not quite.

This is a map of state income tax rates. By my view red states and blue states are pretty much the same on average. I will bet you will be picking an choosing what is a "red state" and "blue state" if you respond.

[Orrex]

38. Those look like state rates, rather than federal. No?

If so, then how does that apply to the giver/taker analysis at the federal level?

[former9thward]

44. OMG

Federal rates are the same in all 50 states. The things people post on DU....

[Orrex]

45. No shit fed rates are the same in all 50 states.

Why did you post an irrelevant graphic?

OMG the bullshit you post in this thread!

[former9thward]

49. Did you even read any of the thread?

I was replying to a poster who said the "red states don't tax their rich". Since the fed tax rate is the same the poster must have been under the delusion the red states don't tax their rich through the state income tax. So that map was completely relevant to the discussion. Try reading next time.

[Orrex]

50. I've read the entire thread, and you look like a buffoon from start to finish

What's truly said is that you seem to think that you're posting a series of irrefutable zingers, and you're the only one who doesn't see it.

[former9thward]

54. I knew you would not address the issue.

And just do name calling.

[Orrex]

57. Sauce for the goose. You started with the insults

In the interest of honest disclosure you should probably steer your prospective clients to DU so that they can see the silliness of your arguments before they retain your services.

[LanternWaste]

40. It's fun watching you maintain the pretense you have relevant knowledge of what you're discussing.

It's fun watching you maintain the pretense you have relevant knowledge of what you're discussing.

Bless you little heart... try not to get so emotional and hysterical: it doesn't speak well of your mental discipline.

[Trajan]

53. So tired of you're right wingy defenses

It's been a long time coming ...

[ProfessorGAC]

61. What A Simplistic View

Your whole premise is a big "so what?"

Those state economies are directly linked and highly dependent on those same bases and government lands. It's the primary driver of the macroeconomic activity, and yet they send disproportionately less of that revenue on return value to the government.

Also, maintenance costs on a 100,000 acres of government held land with no other major economic activity is a tiny amount, because BLM and park service doesn't necessarily staff per acre, look to be paid that way. Federal desert land costs almost nothing to maintain, but according to your formula, they get paid because the government owns it. Well, if true, that's just welfare.

But, you're so knowledgeable, you already knew that. Just doesn't fit your narrative.

[kentauros]

15. What's more telling is the part of the article that you -did not- quote:

Alternatively, we could use the "state dependency" map as an opportunity to reflect on a different paradox—the longstanding role of the far-away federal government as an agent of community. Because of federal programs, people in places like South Carolina and Mississippi are getting a helping hand not from their neighbors a few blocks away or in the next county over, but from residents of Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, and Nebraska. Whether you like that idea depends, in part, on how you personally reconcile the tension between two long-cherished, core American values—our passion for individualism and our regard for community—and whether you see "community" as encompassing the whole country.

That's a far more interesting thing to think about (though perhaps less viscerally satisfying) than which states are moochers or freeloaders and which are getting fleeced.

In other words, we all belong to the [font color="blue"]United States of America[/font], and not the [font color="red"]Independent (Everyone For Themselves!) States of America[/font].

[OrwellwasRight]

31. But there's even another way to look at it.

And that is that the red state people are responding to the high levels of dependency they see (or hear about) in their states and reverting to the Republican meme that people are receiving help because they are lazy and if the government took away the help, all would be well.