Sell Puerto Rico to Denmark

[deadheadskier]

Ahh, so hatter and f.a.s.t get to decide what American "culture" should be and not Californians.

[deadheadskier]

While you're at it, why not sell off Mississippi, West Virginia and all the other red states with crap economies that the blue states subsidize?

Deal?

well puerto rico isn't a state and you might want to revisit your blue state subsidizes fantasy...

What do you notice? On a per-capita basis -- which is the right way to calculate this -- deep-blue New Jersey is the biggest donor state. But red-blooded Wyoming is the next biggest, and North Dakota makes the list too. There is certainly a preponderance of blue states at that end of the spectrum, but it’s not a clear “Donor states are blue” story. And if we match the 2013 data to the closest election (2012) we find that New Mexico, the biggest net recipient, went for Obama in 2012, as did Virginia, Maryland, Maine and Hawaii. What’s driving the net subsidies isn’t anything as simple as political identification.

What does explain it? In general, the net donor states tend to be populous and rich. But that’s a pretty broad generalization. North Dakota and Wyoming aren’t populous and aren’t particularly thought of as rich states -- but in 2013, they were in the middle of a fracking boom that threw off lots of tax revenue for the federal government. Maryland and Virginia, on the other hand, are both rich and populous -- but they’re also sitting next to the seat of the federal government, which means they have a lot of federal pensioners, a lot of government contractors, and a lot of federal office buildings pouring money into their economies.

So let’s break it into two questions: Why do states send a lot of money to the federal government? And why do they take a lot of money out?

The answer to the first question is pretty simple: The U.S. federal income tax is steeply progressive, meaning that it brings in most of its revenue from high earners. If your state has a lot of people with high incomes in it, you will send a lot of taxes to Washington.

Why money comes back to your state is a little more complicated. Pew has helpfully broken down federal transfers into five categories:

Retirement benefits
Non-retirement benefits
Grants (mostly transportation, education, housing and Medicaid)
Government contracts for goods and services
Salaries and wages
Most of the transfers do not come from “red state welfare” like agricultural subsidies. They derive from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, the maintenance of the national highway system, the purchase of goods and services for the federal government, and the operation of federal facilities and lands.

If blue state liberals consider this out of whack, what do they want to change?

Do they want to move toward a flatter, less progressive federal tax code?
Do they want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
Do they want to return unemployment insurance and similar entitlement programs entirely to the states?
Do they want to hand over the national parks to the states, or privatize them?
Would they like to downsize the federal workforce?
Should we redistribute military bases from red states to blue? (Those relocations might meaningfully alter the state electorate, making it easier for Republicans to get elected. They would also require the purchase, by eminent domain, of a lot of prime blue-state land that has things like beach houses on it.)

There are good arguments against all of these propositions. And arguably we don’t transfer enough in grants to poor states, which lack the fiscal capacity to provide basic services that come relatively easy in rich states.

But on the other hand, one can make an argument, from fairness and federalism, that these transfers are simply too large, too unbalanced; that it’s time to return social services to the states, and turn the federal government back into something like what it was before the New Deal: a referee between the states, a coordinator of inarguably national concerns like national defense, but not the guarantor of a vast and comprehensive social safety net.

Maybe the system is now so unfair to rich liberals that this is the way we should go. And given how impossible it is for them to get anything done in the federal government these days, blue-state liberals might want to offer Republicans a compromise: We’ll get rid of federal taxes and programs, and it’s every state for itself. If you genuinely think it’s an outrage that red states collect so much federal money, you should probably be eager for the trade.

But think carefully before you make that proposal. Because if liberals offer to dismantle the New Deal and return to genuine federalism, they might just find that Republicans are eager to take that deal.

something about knowing so much that isnt so....

Hatter wins again. Deadhead skier loses again.

Yeah, no.

His article only supports my statement that generally speaking blue states bring more to the table than red states and red states require more aid. Fact, not opinion.

I have no desire to sell off the red states like you do Puerto Rico. I think if anything Puerto Rico and other US territories should be given the option of becoming states.

[Bubba]

While you're at it, why not sell off Mississippi, West Virginia and all the other red states with crap economies that the blue states subsidize?

Deal?

well puerto rico isn't a state and you might want to revisit your blue state subsidizes fantasy...

What do you notice? On a per-capita basis -- which is the right way to calculate this -- deep-blue New Jersey is the biggest donor state. But red-blooded Wyoming is the next biggest, and North Dakota makes the list too. There is certainly a preponderance of blue states at that end of the spectrum, but it’s not a clear “Donor states are blue” story. And if we match the 2013 data to the closest election (2012) we find that New Mexico, the biggest net recipient, went for Obama in 2012, as did Virginia, Maryland, Maine and Hawaii. What’s driving the net subsidies isn’t anything as simple as political identification.

What does explain it? In general, the net donor states tend to be populous and rich. But that’s a pretty broad generalization. North Dakota and Wyoming aren’t populous and aren’t particularly thought of as rich states -- but in 2013, they were in the middle of a fracking boom that threw off lots of tax revenue for the federal government. Maryland and Virginia, on the other hand, are both rich and populous -- but they’re also sitting next to the seat of the federal government, which means they have a lot of federal pensioners, a lot of government contractors, and a lot of federal office buildings pouring money into their economies.

So let’s break it into two questions: Why do states send a lot of money to the federal government? And why do they take a lot of money out?

The answer to the first question is pretty simple: The U.S. federal income tax is steeply progressive, meaning that it brings in most of its revenue from high earners. If your state has a lot of people with high incomes in it, you will send a lot of taxes to Washington.

Why money comes back to your state is a little more complicated. Pew has helpfully broken down federal transfers into five categories:

Retirement benefits
Non-retirement benefits
Grants (mostly transportation, education, housing and Medicaid)
Government contracts for goods and services
Salaries and wages
Most of the transfers do not come from “red state welfare” like agricultural subsidies. They derive from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, the maintenance of the national highway system, the purchase of goods and services for the federal government, and the operation of federal facilities and lands.

If blue state liberals consider this out of whack, what do they want to change?

Do they want to move toward a flatter, less progressive federal tax code?
Do they want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
Do they want to return unemployment insurance and similar entitlement programs entirely to the states?
Do they want to hand over the national parks to the states, or privatize them?
Would they like to downsize the federal workforce?
Should we redistribute military bases from red states to blue? (Those relocations might meaningfully alter the state electorate, making it easier for Republicans to get elected. They would also require the purchase, by eminent domain, of a lot of prime blue-state land that has things like beach houses on it.)

There are good arguments against all of these propositions. And arguably we don’t transfer enough in grants to poor states, which lack the fiscal capacity to provide basic services that come relatively easy in rich states.

But on the other hand, one can make an argument, from fairness and federalism, that these transfers are simply too large, too unbalanced; that it’s time to return social services to the states, and turn the federal government back into something like what it was before the New Deal: a referee between the states, a coordinator of inarguably national concerns like national defense, but not the guarantor of a vast and comprehensive social safety net.

Maybe the system is now so unfair to rich liberals that this is the way we should go. And given how impossible it is for them to get anything done in the federal government these days, blue-state liberals might want to offer Republicans a compromise: We’ll get rid of federal taxes and programs, and it’s every state for itself. If you genuinely think it’s an outrage that red states collect so much federal money, you should probably be eager for the trade.

But think carefully before you make that proposal. Because if liberals offer to dismantle the New Deal and return to genuine federalism, they might just find that Republicans are eager to take that deal.

something about knowing so much that isnt so....

Hatter wins again. Deadhead skier loses again.

Yeah, no.

His article only supports my statement that generally speaking blue states bring more to the table than red states and red states require more aid. Fact, not opinion.

I have no desire to sell off the red states like you do Puerto Rico. I think if anything Puerto Rico and other US territories should be given the option of becoming states.

PR has voted down statehood on one or more occasions.

[madhatter]

While you're at it, why not sell off Mississippi, West Virginia and all the other red states with crap economies that the blue states subsidize?

Deal?

well puerto rico isn't a state and you might want to revisit your blue state subsidizes fantasy...

What do you notice? On a per-capita basis -- which is the right way to calculate this -- deep-blue New Jersey is the biggest donor state. But red-blooded Wyoming is the next biggest, and North Dakota makes the list too. There is certainly a preponderance of blue states at that end of the spectrum, but it’s not a clear “Donor states are blue” story. And if we match the 2013 data to the closest election (2012) we find that New Mexico, the biggest net recipient, went for Obama in 2012, as did Virginia, Maryland, Maine and Hawaii. What’s driving the net subsidies isn’t anything as simple as political identification.

What does explain it? In general, the net donor states tend to be populous and rich. But that’s a pretty broad generalization. North Dakota and Wyoming aren’t populous and aren’t particularly thought of as rich states -- but in 2013, they were in the middle of a fracking boom that threw off lots of tax revenue for the federal government. Maryland and Virginia, on the other hand, are both rich and populous -- but they’re also sitting next to the seat of the federal government, which means they have a lot of federal pensioners, a lot of government contractors, and a lot of federal office buildings pouring money into their economies.

So let’s break it into two questions: Why do states send a lot of money to the federal government? And why do they take a lot of money out?

The answer to the first question is pretty simple: The U.S. federal income tax is steeply progressive, meaning that it brings in most of its revenue from high earners. If your state has a lot of people with high incomes in it, you will send a lot of taxes to Washington.

Why money comes back to your state is a little more complicated. Pew has helpfully broken down federal transfers into five categories:

Retirement benefits
Non-retirement benefits
Grants (mostly transportation, education, housing and Medicaid)
Government contracts for goods and services
Salaries and wages
Most of the transfers do not come from “red state welfare” like agricultural subsidies. They derive from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, the maintenance of the national highway system, the purchase of goods and services for the federal government, and the operation of federal facilities and lands.

If blue state liberals consider this out of whack, what do they want to change?

Do they want to move toward a flatter, less progressive federal tax code?
Do they want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
Do they want to return unemployment insurance and similar entitlement programs entirely to the states?
Do they want to hand over the national parks to the states, or privatize them?
Would they like to downsize the federal workforce?
Should we redistribute military bases from red states to blue? (Those relocations might meaningfully alter the state electorate, making it easier for Republicans to get elected. They would also require the purchase, by eminent domain, of a lot of prime blue-state land that has things like beach houses on it.)

There are good arguments against all of these propositions. And arguably we don’t transfer enough in grants to poor states, which lack the fiscal capacity to provide basic services that come relatively easy in rich states.

But on the other hand, one can make an argument, from fairness and federalism, that these transfers are simply too large, too unbalanced; that it’s time to return social services to the states, and turn the federal government back into something like what it was before the New Deal: a referee between the states, a coordinator of inarguably national concerns like national defense, but not the guarantor of a vast and comprehensive social safety net.

Maybe the system is now so unfair to rich liberals that this is the way we should go. And given how impossible it is for them to get anything done in the federal government these days, blue-state liberals might want to offer Republicans a compromise: We’ll get rid of federal taxes and programs, and it’s every state for itself. If you genuinely think it’s an outrage that red states collect so much federal money, you should probably be eager for the trade.

But think carefully before you make that proposal. Because if liberals offer to dismantle the New Deal and return to genuine federalism, they might just find that Republicans are eager to take that deal.

something about knowing so much that isnt so....

Hatter wins again. Deadhead skier loses again.

Yeah, no.

His article only supports my statement that generally speaking blue states bring more to the table than red states and red states require more aid.Fact, not opinion.not, not exactly....much of the distribution is not "aid" at all....

I have no desire to sell off the red states like you do Puerto Rico. I think if anything Puerto Rico and other US territories should be given the option of becoming states.yes they should be given an either/or option of becoming a state or an independent nation...

maybe try reading....but you enjoy that fantasy....

[Highway Star]

We should give Puerto Rico to Haiti. They clearly deserve it after being repressed for so long. Win-win for everybody!!!

[madhatter]

Ahh, so hatter and f.a.s.t get to decide what American "culture" should be and not Californians.

no... our laws, Constitution and legal system decide what culture should not be...do you intentionally fail to comprehend or do you really just not get it?

[deadheadskier]

And Californians don't follow these laws?

Does VT? Rampant drug use in that state. Plenty of people who treat their yards as a junkyard. Lemme guess, you've probably never taken a piss in the woods while mountain biking.

Guess it's time for VT to be auctioned off too.

[madhatter]

And Californians don't follow these laws?

Does VT? Rampant drug use in that state. Plenty of people who treat their yards as a junkyard. Lemme guess, you've probably never taken a piss in the woods while mountain biking.

Guess it's time for VT to be auctioned off too.

come back when yer serious....

[DMC]

And Californians don't follow these laws?

Does VT? Rampant drug use in that state. Plenty of people who treat their yards as a junkyard. Lemme guess, you've probably never taken a piss in the woods while mountain biking.

Guess it's time for VT to be auctioned off too.

come when yer serious - I'll leave the lights on and you have the key. Kisses....

Figured...