13 replies to this topic

[Socio]

http://news.investor...under-obama.htm

Quote

IBD compared average job growth, unemployment, changes in housing prices, per capita income and GDP growth, and gas prices for the 22 states that voted for John McCain in 2008 and the 28 states that voted for Obama .
On every indicator but one, blue states have done worse, on average, than red states.
In addition, IBD looked at the economic performance of 11 states that Real Clear Politics lists as tossups for the 2012 presidential election. Many of these purple battleground states have fared far worse than the country as a whole during the past three years.

I would like to see how much money is leaving the Blue States to the Red States with all the wealthy leaving due to higher taxes in the Blue States I imagine it would be a considerable sum.

[and then]

It will be very interesting to see if the blue States have enough pure ideologues to help Oby get reelected.

[Socio]

and then, on 10 May 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

It will be very interesting to see if the blue States have enough pure ideologues to help Oby get reelected.

I think it is a given most if not all the Blue will remain Blue, in fact;

Another stat I would also like to see is how much in Federal taxes collected from the Red States get redistributed to the Blue States to shore them up. I would guess it is also considerable sum and as long as some one is paying the tab for their ideology I see no reason for them to change.

Edited by Socio, 10 May 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[Clyde the Glyde]

I'm sure that the recent boom in Right-to-Work legislation for many southern / Red states  plays a big part of this.

Companies don't want to get taxed to death and workers don't mind working for a decent honest wage. And many workers realize that being apart of a Union is a big part of why they lost their old job.

[Startraveler]

Socio, on 10 May 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Another stat I would also like to see is how much in Federal taxes collected from the Red States get redistributed to the Blue States to shore them up. I would guess it is also considerable sum and as long as some one is paying the tab for their ideology I see no reason for them to change.

You've got that backwards. Historically, red states (i.e. those that tend to vote Republican in presidential elections) have been subsidized by blue states. That is, federal taxes and spending redistribute from blue to red.

See "Why do Red States Vote Republican While Blue States Pay the Bills? Federal Spending and Electoral Votes, 1984-2008":

Quote

Every year more states receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes to the federal government. Since the early 1980s, when data on tax burdens per state are first available, the states that receive more in federal spending than taxes paid have been increasingly Republican in presidential elections. This pattern persisted in the 2008 presidential election. The impact of federal spending on a state’s Electoral Vote is increasing over the period 1984 to 2008 and remains statistically significant as a predictor of the vote when controlling for differences in ideology and opinions on issues across state populations and when controlling for per capita or median state income.

Edited by Startraveler, 10 May 2012 - 11:46 PM.

[Rafterman]

Heard a piece on the radio yesterday discussing Obama's recent visit to Albany, NY.  It was all about how NY is bucking the Blue State trend and actually attracting new business and industry - cited Global Foundries as an example.

The humerous part of the whole thing was where Governor Cuomo sent his economic development team to study and learn best practices - TEXAS.

[Bama13]

Startraveler, on 10 May 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

You've got that backwards. Historically, red states (i.e. those that tend to vote Republican in presidential elections) have been subsidized by blue states. That is, federal taxes and spending redistribute from blue to red.

See "Why do Red States Vote Republican While Blue States Pay the Bills? Federal Spending and Electoral Votes, 1984-2008":

Perhaps the Red states receive more in federal funding because they have more military bases located there? These are expensive to man and maintain. Since the military serves all of the country I wouldn't use this as proof of your position. Perhaps we could look at the percentage of people in Red states that collect federal welfare compared to the percentage in Blue states. We would also need to see how much, per capita, each state paid in federal taxes. Then, perhaps, we could come to some logical conclusion as to which states pay the most and which receive the most.

[Gromdor]

One could look at ths another way.......   Under a Democratic President, Red States are just getting that much better!

[Michelle]

Bama13, on 11 May 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Perhaps the Red states receive more in federal funding because they have more military bases located there? These are expensive to man and maintain. Since the military serves all of the country I wouldn't use this as proof of your position. Perhaps we could look at the percentage of people in Red states that collect federal welfare compared to the percentage in Blue states. We would also need to see how much, per capita, each state paid in federal taxes. Then, perhaps, we could come to some logical conclusion as to which states pay the most and which receive the most.

Yeah, I tried to find a good source to sum up exactly why states get the federal funding that they do. It's way too complicated for one source to provide all of the information needed, much less that one simple little paragraph....unless people are willing to download the rest of the information.

Edited by Michelle, 11 May 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[DieChecker]

Startraveler, on 10 May 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

You've got that backwards. Historically, red states (i.e. those that tend to vote Republican in presidential elections) have been subsidized by blue states. That is, federal taxes and spending redistribute from blue to red.

See "Why do Red States Vote Republican While Blue States Pay the Bills? Federal Spending and Electoral Votes, 1984-2008":

While interesting that does not help the fact that the Blues are down since 2008, while the Reds are moving up. I thought the whole idea of Red/Blue patronage was that funds would be moved and decisions made to improve the Red under Republicans and inprove the Blue under Democrats.

Just goes to show that Obama has almost made of himself a moderate Republican.

Or, is it the decisions at the state and local levels where the Red states are doing better. Republicans make better governors and better mayors???

[Startraveler]

Bama13, on 11 May 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Perhaps the Red states receive more in federal funding because they have more military bases located there?

This possibility is considered by Lacy in the paper I linked to:

Quote

Lumping all federal spending together may paint a distorted picture of the relationship between spending and votes. It may be that Republican states receive most of their federal return on the dollar in the form of defense spending, especially given the relatively larger military presence in the South and Mountain West than in the Northeast or Great Lakes. To examine this possibility, I define two separate ratios of federal spending per tax dollar: One ratio for the amount spent by the Department of Defense per state, including military salaries and procurements, and another for the non-defense dollars spent per state. Putting both of these variables in the regression model, column 2 of Table 1, pushes the paradox of federal spending even further: There is no relationship between defense spending per state and the state’s Electoral College vote. However, the relationship between non-defense spending and the vote becomes even stronger: States that benefit the most from non-defense spending (from retirement and welfare payments to farm subsidies to highway construction) give even higher margins to Republicans. For each additional 10 cents per dollar that the federal government spends in a state, Bush’s 2000 margin increases by over 2.9 percentage points.

DieChecker, on 11 May 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

While interesting that does not help the fact that the Blues are down since 2008, while the Reds are moving up. I thought the whole idea of Red/Blue patronage was that funds would be moved and decisions made to improve the Red under Republicans and inprove the Blue under Democrats.

Just goes to show that Obama has almost made of himself a moderate Republican.

Or, is it the decisions at the state and local levels where the Red states are doing better. Republicans make better governors and better mayors???

It isn't a patronage issue, nor does the partisanship of the state's governor (or Congressional delegation, for that matter) seem to matter:

Quote

Another perspective on the relationship between a state’s representation in Congress, its prior presidential vote, and its level of federal spending comes from turning federal spending into the variable to be explained. With the ratio of federal spending to tax dollars as the dependent variable in Table 3, it is clear that the state’s proportion of Republicans in the House or Senate, and whether the state’s governor is Republican, has no explanatory value. Clinton’s vote share in 1996 does, however, explain the state’s ratio of spending to taxes, but the relationship is the opposite of what one would expect if Clinton were “paying off” states that supported him in 1996. Instead, higher Clinton vote shares in 1996 are associated with lower ratios of spending to tax dollars in a state in 2000. Similarly, in column 3, a higher Clinton vote in 1996 is associated with a higher per capita federal tax burden in 2000. For each additional percentage point in Clinton’s 1996 vote share, a state’s residents could expect an 83 dollar increase in their federal taxes. Party control of Congress and governorships does not explain why red states vote Republican while blue states pay the bills.

[DieChecker]

Startraveler, on 11 May 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

It isn't a patronage issue, nor does the partisanship of the state's governor (or Congressional delegation, for that matter) seem to matter:

As far as if the state is doing better or worse, does the leadership matter? You're only going on about Federal Funding, but that is only a part of if a state is doing better or worse. The Fed does not pass or fail a state by the funding it supplies.

I wonder it these trends actually go back decades and not just to the beginning of Obama's Presidency?

[Bama13]

I see he includes retirement into non-defense spending. Since many military personnel retire near bases the "red" states might be getting the bulk of the retirement spending. Where does funding for the VA come in? I believe that most of it would be in "red" states also. Since the US Interstate Highway System was built in order for the military to be able to move troops rapidly across the US it also follows that federal highway construction and maintainance would be higher in "red" states.

Does he provide a chart of federal spending by type? Military, highways, retirement, welfare, farm subsidies, etc? That might actually show us something meanful.

[DieChecker]

Bama13, on 16 May 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

I see he includes retirement into non-defense spending. Since many military personnel retire near bases the "red" states might be getting the bulk of the retirement spending. Where does funding for the VA come in? I believe that most of it would be in "red" states also. Since the US Interstate Highway System was built in order for the military to be able to move troops rapidly across the US it also follows that federal highway construction and maintainance would be higher in "red" states.

Does he provide a chart of federal spending by type? Military, highways, retirement, welfare, farm subsidies, etc? That might actually show us something meanful.

That sounds like a good point Bama. People make these claims, but then don't flesh out what is really underneath. It seems purposefully vague, while factual, in order to promote some specific political platform.