Babbling

[westpark]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/14/how_blue_america_s
ubsidizes_red_america.html

[fugglesss]

u know the cost of living in south carolina is really low

a big house on the lake is at MOST $50,000

*bats eyelashes*

[westpark]

lol

I'll pass.

[Astromang]

---

westpark wrote:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/14/how_blue_america_s
ubsidizes_red_america.html

---

You made this thread already here. I then predicted it would be due to the fact that red states got more money from defense spending which was validated with this posted by another forum member.

[ShowUsYourTaint]

Military spending is basically federal aid for localities as well in the form of jobs; it's wholly reliant on federal government spending, obviously.  And the money to pay for that is still primarily generated in liberal areas.  So I'm not sure how you think that argument defeats the point, if anything it strengthens it.:  Lesser developed areas need redistribution of resources and the federal government far more than developed areas do.  Ironically.

[Astromang]

---

ShowUsYourTaint wrote:

Military spending is basically federal aid for localities as well in the form of jobs; it's wholly reliant on federal government spending, obviously.  And the money to pay for that is still primarily generated in liberal areas.  So I'm not sure how you think that argument defeats the point, if anything it strengthens it.:  Lesser developed areas need redistribution of resources and the federal government far more than developed areas do.  Ironically.

---

No, no it doesn't. You're pretending like that money goes directly into the hands of the people of that state, which it doesn't. It doesn't matter, because you're not going to listen to any type of reason or facts. Basically this was blown out of the water last time it was posted just like it is now.

[ShowUsYourTaint]

It basically works by filtering the money through a middle man corporation in the form of a government contract, a corporation which then uses that contract to pay for employees to work on that project, whose employees are then getting wages directly originating from federal government spending.  So obviously filtering the money through an employer doesn't defeat the point either, that money is not really generated in the private sector, but rather from top-down spending.   How was it blown out of the water exactly?  Because the argument you're making seems rooted in some pretty poor logic.

[Astromang]

---

ShowUsYourTaint wrote:

It basically works by filtering the money through a middle man corporation in the form of a government contract, a corporation which then uses that contract to pay for employees to work on that project, whose employees are then getting wages directly originating from federal government spending.  So obviously filtering the money through an employer doesn't defeat the point either, that money is not really generated in the private sector, but rather from top-down spending.   How was it blown out of water exactly?  Because the argument you're making seems rooted in some pretty poor logic.

---

Because the state doesn't have the option to just turn down the money. You're making it seem like the very existence of a military base in a state is proof that them dirty red states are #### up all the money, or that red states are taking in a disproportionate amount of tax dollars. Like I said though, I don't expect you to use logic or reason with any of this because "dem dirty rethuglikkkans bad hur hur."

[Icarus27k]

---

westpark wrote:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/14/how_blue_america_s
ubsidizes_red_america.html

---

Which is a little sad because being a poor person in a red state is rough.

[ShowUsYourTaint]

Yeah those states really hate that money.  Obviously that's why their representatives in Congress secured all those military pork projects which employed people in their state and continue to oppose military spending cuts.  You do know how close the Republican party is with the defense industry right?  That's largely because the South depends on military spending and they want to keep it going.  One of their primary constituencies are defense contractors and their employees and these interests are represented in federal decisionmaking so they are not being coerced by the big bad federal government, in fact they are interests which are represented probably well beyond how much they should be if we're viewing this from a 1 person 1 vote perspective.

My point is not that they're "svcking up all the money" (though through spending money on military programs we don't need, they are in a way), I'm in favor of redistributive policies to address comparative disadvantage which is basically what we're doing here by locating our military production in comparatively lesser developed areas.  The gripe is that they are extremely hypocritical in both needing the federal government for their economic survival and trying to dismantle it at the same time.  It's self destructive. 

[Astromang]

---

ShowUsYourTaint wrote:

Yeah those states really hate that money.  Obviously that's why their representatives in Congress secured all those military pork projects and continue to oppose military spending cuts.  You do know how close the Republican party is with the defense industry right?  That's largely because the South depends on military spending and they want to keep it going.  One of their primary constituencies are defense contractors and their employees and these interests are represented in federal decisionmaking, probably well beyond how much they should be.

My point is not that they're "svcking up all the money" (though through spending money on military programs we don't need, they are in a way), I'm in favor of redistributive policies to address comparative disadvantage which is basically what we're doing here by locating our miltiary production in comparatively lesser developed areas.  It's that they are extremely hypocritical in both needing the federal government for their economic survival and trying to dismantle it at the same time.  It's self destructive. 

---

Oh, that's right, you're one of those people who think the Republicans don't like the federal government... lol.

When we look at welfare spending per capita by state, you see a very different story. In the top half of the states that spend the most federal dollars per capita are mostly blue states with very few red states in the mix. If you prefer a map look here.

[ShowUsYourTaint]

Not all Republicans hate it, just the conservative libertarian/big business factions (for slightly different reasons) and there is considerable spillover of ideology from the libertarian faction throughout the rest of the party to varying degrees so there are varying degrees of stupidity going on.  But the libertarians are the main people I take issue with because they are not thinking this through from what I've been able to gather and call me silly but I think they're the people most likely to be convinced of their error; because they've adopted the proper emphasis on individual rights, they're just applying it in a kinda dumb way that serves to support inequality and actually serves to destroy those rights through that inequality in a roundabout way.  I think the main problem is that they can't see how the "welfare state" is actually a result of and necessary to preserve individual rights.

Anyways, first of all, outside of D.C., New York and California (probably mostly from L.A./So Cal Metro areas) I don't think the trend you're trying to claim exists actually holds up to the evidence you've just provided.  You'd probably see a more clear trend if you differentiated by population density rather than state lines.  Considering New York city, D.C., Los Angeles et al are in these states and these places have the highest population density and the highest levels of wealth generation in the country that's not really surprising that they would be at the top because they have more need for welfare as a consequence of the wealth they generate.   That might not make sense to you at first, but think of it this way:  Generating wealth tends to create both a large, dense population with lots of people migrating to those areas for the increased opportunities. This can result in a lot of inequality if no redistribution is done, coupled with sometimes discriminatory zoning practices and amid rising costs of living.  This is primarily what welfare programs are designed to address, because rather extreme levels of poverty can emerge alongside capital generation as some people are exploited for the gain of others, and this poverty/inequality can contribute heavily to problems like crime.  Also factor in the loss of manufacturing jobs in industrial areas and you're left with a whole lot of fairly low skilled workers who are more likely to be on welfare in a condensed area.  But that said, New Mexico, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska are all in the top 10 and are all red states.  Outside of the top ten, Mississippi, Georgia and others are not far behind. 

Second, I don't know what that has to do with this argument anyways because I don't think these payouts have been cost of living adjusted and if they were, goodbye top 3.  I bet they'd be pretty equal after cost of living adjustment for all states, actually, or at least moreso.  But regardless I'm still not making the claim that federal spending is necessarily a bad  thing on either welfare or the military as long as both are done as responsibly as possible.  Nor am I claiming conservatives are just a bunch of freeloaders because they are propped up by the capital generated in modernized liberal areas.  But they sure like to pretend liberals are tax and spend machines bent on redistribution while most of that redistribution is actually coming from those comparatively liberal modernized areas of the country/within their own state to the comparatively worse off areas of the country/their state that tend to be more conservative rather than the other way around.  Relatively conservative areas contribute more than their fair share to spending in their own way and they benefit from redistributive policies disproportionately through this spending.  So they have no good cause to b*tch or build an entire political movement around these issues unless they just don't understand what's going on or have been purposefully misled, is part of the point.

Third, even if relatively liberal states are consuming more in welfare spending, this doesn't defeat the point that they contribute way more money to the federal government to pay for that spending than conservative areas do.

Fourth, you are completely missing the point which is that the values of modern conservatism do not match up to the reality of what they do or how the world works and this is just another example of it.  Don't get me wrong, I think we need differing viewpoints to survive as a country, but we need informed viewpoints in order for people to have differing opinions on the world that matter and in todays conservatism informed viewpoints are few and far between.  Not that the democrats are perfect but there is actually a solid and coherent logic behind liberalism that I'm just not seeing in the oppositiion today.  Mostly I see a patchwork of different traditionalist groups the liberals neglected (when they shouldn't have) held together by delicate strings of hatred and it's forcing the Republican party to do crazy things to our government to appease them all.

[the_shotgun_rhetoric]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

 If you prefer a map look here.

---

lol NY is the darkest state ($218.25 per capita). That's f--king depressing.

[TheGreatUrameshi13]

Paul Krugman wouldn't know real-world economics if it bit him in his mousy arse.

[ShowUsYourTaint]

What do you think he's incorrect about?

[Cepheus84]

---

ShowUsYourTaint wrote:

Military spending is basically federal aid for localities as well in the form of jobs; it's wholly reliant on federal government spending, obviously.  And the money to pay for that is still primarily generated in liberal areas.  So I'm not sure how you think that argument defeats the point, if anything it strengthens it.:  Lesser developed areas need redistribution of resources and the federal government far more than developed areas do.  Ironically.

---

Most of the actual recruits from the military are drawn from red states, though.  The blue states may foot most of the bill but the actual responsibility for serving mostly falls on the red states.

[Cepheus84]

---

the_shotgun_rhetoric wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

 If you prefer a map look here.

---

lol NY is the darkest state ($218.25 per capita). That's f--king depressing.

---

I was kind of surprised NY was number one.  I was expecting either California or one of those Deep South states where minorities account for a very large proportion of the population.

[the_shotgun_rhetoric]

It comes from having the biggest income disparities (with the possible exception of California). You have Wall Street on one hand, and the gutted Rust Belt manufacturing-based region and dirt-poor Appalachians region on the other. Combine that with high levels of property taxes and urban poverty as well and it doesn't really surprise me.

[Cepheus84]

Yeah, it makes sense when you look at it that way.

Depressing sense.

[ShowUsYourTaint]

---

Cepheus84 wrote:

---

ShowUsYourTaint wrote:

Military spending is basically federal aid for localities as well in the form of jobs; it's wholly reliant on federal government spending, obviously.  And the money to pay for that is still primarily generated in liberal areas.  So I'm not sure how you think that argument defeats the point, if anything it strengthens it.:  Lesser developed areas need redistribution of resources and the federal government far more than developed areas do.  Ironically.

---

Most of the actual recruits from the military are drawn from red states, though.  The blue states may foot most of the bill but the actual responsibility for serving mostly falls on the red states.

---

I think it's more like people who lack opportunities are more likely to join the military, which could mean that "red states" are more likely to serve sure if they are less economically developed.  But disadvantaged people from the cities are probably pretty likely to serve too if they live in an area with high unemployment.  Breaking this down by states doesn't work very well, it's more like differing ideologies emerge related directly to the differing economic and social conditions they emerge from and the state by state breakdown gives you only a rather crude idea of the regional difference in development and how it relates to the culture conflict between liberals and conservatives.  Those generalizations would likely be much more clear if based on a local measure of level of economic development.

I'm not making a value comparison between people who live in developed areas and people who don't, just saying that people who don't live in those areas benefit from the wealth created in the developed areas and don't really have good reason to complain about the federal government if they really knew how much their livelihoods depend on it.

[MackenCheez]

---

fugglesss wrote:

u know the cost of living in south carolina is really low

a big house on the lake is at MOST $50,000

*bats eyelashes*

---

That's because there isn't a single good reason to live in South Carolina. It's like Missouri except with hurricanes.

[Cepheus84]

I'm not really buying the argument people in red states only join the military out of economic necessity. Most of the red states of the Sun Belt have been growing faster than the Rust Belt blue states of the north for decades now.

It's a cultural thing. People in red states, and the South in particular, tend to value military service more deeply than people from blue states. You see whole families where most people are in the military here, from generation to generation. And often people are better disposed towards military service due to the greater familiarity many in the red states already have with guns and hunting and being out in the wilderness. This was as much true in the 19th century as it is today.

[Cepheus84]

---

MackenCheez wrote:

---

fugglesss wrote:

u know the cost of living in south carolina is really low

a big house on the lake is at MOST $50,000

*bats eyelashes*

---

That's because there isn't a single good reason to live in South Carolina. It's like Missouri except with hurricanes.

---

There isn't really a lot of lakes in South Carolina.  Waterfront property tends to be beachfront property, and it's as expensive in SC as it is in most other places.

[TheGreatUrameshi13]

He falls into the same trap that most academics and, ironically enough, religious leaders fall into.  He doesn't spend that much time in the private sector/real world and as such, his theories are far more normative than positive.

[ShowUsYourTaint]

---

Cepheus84 wrote:
I'm not really buying the argument people in red states only join the military out of economic necessity. Most of the red states of the Sun Belt have been growing faster than the Rust Belt blue states of the north for decades now.

---

They've been growing faster because they've had more room for growth.  By that I mean that comparatively lesser developed areas can grow much faster than the highest developed areas because they are "catching up" by adopting the same economic strategies that made the highly developed area successful.  They have a blueprint for success laid out for them that the highest developed areas don't get from being at the tippy top of the development scale and having nobody higher to copy.  For this reason post-industrial areas tend to see their growth slow down, a trend that has been observed all over Europe and in the Northeast U.S. and in Japan somewhat.  So when you compare a postindustrial area to a place at an earlier stage, they'll have lower growth.  For instance when you look at China today they've had ridiculous economic growth from embracing more liberal economic policies than they previously allowed when they had a Maoist state that made their economy less efficient.  They are considerably more capitalist today than they once were and that has fueled their economic explosion.  Their growth rates have been much higher than the U.S. growth rate, but that's because China's growth has been "catch up" growth as they've fully industrialized, it's easier to grow faster when you're farther behind.  Same principle applies to the faster growth in the southern states of late.  And a lot of that growth had to do with military manufacturing bringing jobs and money to the region to fuel the creation of other industries. 

That said cultural values also play a role, absolutely I don't disagree, but the important thing to realize is the culture itself is largely shaped by the economic realities and it changes as the economic realities change.