When worlds collide: Freeper truth hits reality.

[denverbill]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012300/posts?page=7#7

This is a research request based on a thought inspired by another thread today.

When we look at a map of conservatism vs liberalism in America today (typified by the 2000 election), we see the bulk of the nation represented as conservative with a minority area mainly congregated in urban areas. We also know that these urban areas are well known for their social progressiveness.

It would be fascinating to see a comparison of the producers vs the consumers. Would the map match exactly? This comparison could be made using tax inflow to the Treasury vs pork outflow.

In order to give, someone must have and in order to have, someone must produce. So, in net flow terms, who in America is producing and who is taking?

This could also be interesting at the state level...


1 posted on 10/31/2003 10:52 AM PST by pgyanke






It's exactly the opposite. The south and the midwest suck up the money, largely from the north east.


8 posted on 10/31/2003 11:16 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)

From looking at the chart, it looks like it works backwards from what you'd think it would. The urban states are getting screwed.

Why is that?

My guess is that there is a great deal of fedgov spending on large projects like dams, military bases, etc.

And do those charts take into account money going to Social Security and military retirements? Those folks don't live in urban areas (too expensive).

It'd be more interesting if you could build a chart of income taxes (only a small part of fedgov income) vs. social welfare programs.


10 posted on 10/31/2003 11:20 AM PST by narby

Problem we have here in the northeast is that the female majority vote OVERWHELMINGLY Democratic, while men split their votes. The South and West usually have substantial numbers of female Republican voters. The gender gap KILLS us up here.


12 posted on 10/31/2003 11:55 AM PST by Clemenza

This is best illustrated at the individual level, not the state or region. The people who earn and produce the most pay a disproportionately larger amount of taxes than the people who earn the least. The people who earn and produce the most recieve the least from the government, while the people who earn the least recieve the most. Location has very little to do with what individual earns what and what individual recieves what. The entrepreneurial folks who make this country work go where there is a niche to fill, so they are all spread out. The abundant parasites who produce nothing are already scattered about the country and they suck from the nipple of whomever they happen to be existing amongst.


17 posted on 10/31/2003 1:09 PM PST by Voice in your head

------------------------------------------------------

You know, maybe we've been wrong all along. Let's cut federal spending and really fuck over the red states.

I just love watching them justify how this could possibly happen. Face facts freepers. Red states are the biggest fed govt teatsuckers of all.

[Padraig18]

1. As one of those tax-sucking Midwesterners..

I point out that OH, IN, IL, MI, WI and MN *all* get screwed, and with the exception of MO, they're the most populous states IN the freakin' Midwest!

I am so tired of that "The NE subsidises everybody" meme I could :puke:!

[DS1]

2. yeah, as a MA resident, I'll go on record in partial agreement

The NE doesn't subsidize the rest of the country, but the SE sure does drain the coffers.

Anyway, why don't we demand a recall for every single Governor whose state is above the 1.00 mark? :evilgrin:

[DS1]

3. also, if you factor in the Big Dig, hell, we're CHEAP!

B-)

[Padraig18]

5. THAT idea I could support!

:P

[denverbill]

4. Well, like it or not, you are northeast.

As a former Iowan, I know calling IL, OH, IN, etc 'northeastern' states sounds stupid to you, since you don't consider yourself in the same part of the country.

But if you divide the US map into 4 quadrants, you are northeast. You are part of the group that is supporting the rest of the country, in other words.

That isn't the point anyway. The point is that with a few exceptions, Bush states were net receivers of govt money, and, with few exceptions, Gore states were net payors of money.

[DS1]

6. does anyone have an election map handy?

I'd love to see the red vs blue averaged out..