http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/2 ... money.html

"Only five blue states are net recipients of federal subsidies; only two red states are net payers of federal taxes."

This could explain a lot. If the problem of people living purely off government money is focused in red states, then those in blue states are less likely to see the problem and less likely to understand the problem.

I'm not sure where I stand on those complex financial issues, but this seems like a handy tidbit to remember.

Any opinions?

P.S. And yeah, I'm still alive and visiting the forum. I just have less time to argue about stuff these days. :)

It is important to remember that, in general, red states didn't ask for these subsidies - that is, red states are being given federal money because blue states wanted them to.

Are there any studies that examine this by county rather than by state? That would probably paint a more accurate picture.

Obviously this means that we should jetison the red states out of the Union to immediately improve our economic outlook, since all but two are a drain on the federal coffers.

Gee I hope thats sarcasm, because thats a pretty oversimplified view of things. Bongo Boll's right a county by county picture of things would be better. Just look at Wisconsin, it has blue counties and red counties that are fairly evenly distributed.

Oh gee, the subsidies are being forced on unwilling red states by overly generous blue states? Uhhh...

Cut out the bleedin' farm subsidies and that might be so. Farm subsidies, and forestry subsidies too, are pretty darn big. Find me a farmer who says that he doesn't want a subsidy, and I'm sure the government will be happy to oblige.

It's rather more than farm subsidies. Most red states can't afford their own infrastructure; they don't have the population density, the economic strength, or both. So they do everything they possibly can to extract every dollar they possibly can from Washington; in the form of pork barrel spending and uneven distribution of Federal funds. Since someone has to pay the bills (if only when the bonds come due, under the GOP), this tends to mean the Blue states pick up the tab.

Of course, a county by county look would indicate that it's really the blue counties that are picking up the tab; urban counties are generally the only ones that turn a profit to the Federal Government, and they usually lean Democratic. Since it happens that the blue states have most of the big cities, they tend to generate the most revenue.

interesting how "subsidies" is used here - by BBill, it appears to mean "welfare"; by others, like Were, it seems to mean "federal government payments that maintain everything from highways to businesses".

When it's directed towards a red state/county, I often refer to all of these transfer payments as welfare myself; especially if the recipient is busy pretending that they're subsidizing the blue regions, instead of the other way around. You know the drill; I'm firm, you're stubborn; I'm relaxed, you're lazy; I get subsidies, you're on welfare. It's all in how you conjugate it.

absolutely; I just wanted to point out (probably unnecessarily) that definitions are critical in these discussions. One of the two rules:
1. Define your terms
2. Examine your assumptions - the tightest logic chain flowing from flawed assumptions results in flawed conclusions; GIGO

Were, for the purposes of clarification, what besides roads do you also mean by "infrastructure"?

Postal services, railroads, telephones, electricity, airports, law enforcement, libraries, public health services, regional water systems, connections to the internet or telecommunications of any sort, canals; that kind of thing. If it weren't for direct subsidies from the cities (via the government), rural America (and for that matter, rural almost anywhere) would be living in the 19th century.

Now, I'll freely grant that a lot of this aid was strictly self-interested; but nonetheless it was and is a precondition for 20th century living in the sticks.