What would Republicans be saying if blue states took far more in federal taxes than they paid?

What would Republicans say if blue states took far more in federal taxes than they paid, while red states paid far more than they took? (The opposite of the actual situation).

They'd yell loudly about the 'takers' in the blue states 'stealing' their money, and demand that it be ended.

Of course, since the situation is the opposite, you never hear them discuss the issue. Sweep it under the rug but fight to not change it.

I do have to give them credit on one thing - they showed themselves so committed to plutocracy, that when the court allowed only states to choose whether to accept funds for Medicaid expansion, the red state politicians were willing to kill their own citizens and voters denying them healthcare, while blue states received the healthcare for their citizens. And credit to those red state voters' consistency for supporting that killing of their own states' people for their ideology.

(I'd add the topic of which states pay and which get tax dollars to the 'things you never hear Republicans say' thread, but it's gone).

Craig234 said:

What would Republicans say if blue states took far more in federal taxes than they paid, while red states paid far more than they took? (The opposite of the actual situation).

They'd yell loudly about the 'takers' in the blue states 'stealing' their money, and demand that it be ended.

Of course, since the situation is the opposite, you never hear them discuss the issue. Sweep it under the rug but fight to not change it.

I do have to give them credit on one thing - they showed themselves so committed to plutocracy, that when the court allowed only states to choose whether to accept funds for Medicaid expansion, the red state politicians were willing to kill their own citizens and voters denying them healthcare, while blue states received the healthcare for their citizens. And credit to those red state voters' consistency for supporting that killing of their own states' people for their ideology.

(I'd add the topic of which states pay and which get tax dollars to the 'things you never hear Republicans say' thread, but it's gone).

Click to expand...

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, and I'd prefer both parties not give states...red or blue...money that they've taken from all US taxpayers. That means the federal government can spend less and reduce taxes and that means the states can decide for themselves how much they want to tax their own citizens and what kind of services they can afford to provide.

Craig234 said:

What would Republicans say if blue states took far more in federal taxes than they paid, while red states paid far more than they took? (The opposite of the actual situation).

They'd yell loudly about the 'takers' in the blue states 'stealing' their money, and demand that it be ended.

Of course, since the situation is the opposite, you never hear them discuss the issue. Sweep it under the rug but fight to not change it.

I do have to give them credit on one thing - they showed themselves so committed to plutocracy, that when the court allowed only states to choose whether to accept funds for Medicaid expansion, the red state politicians were willing to kill their own citizens and voters denying them healthcare, while blue states received the healthcare for their citizens. And credit to those red state voters' consistency for supporting that killing of their own states' people for their ideology.

(I'd add the topic of which states pay and which get tax dollars to the 'things you never hear Republicans say' thread, but it's gone).

Click to expand...

I'm also an Independent voter.

I've been seeing this meme "Red States take more than they pay in taxes than Blue States do" (or some variation of this) for a while, yet I haven't seen the source of this assertion.

Would someone mind citing the source, so I can examine the metrics/data/whatever which lead to this assertion?

Thanks.

Mycroft said:

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, and I'd prefer both parties not give states...red or blue...money that they've taken from all US taxpayers. That means the federal government can spend less and reduce taxes and that means the states can decide for themselves how much they want to tax their own citizens and what kind of services they can afford to provide.

Click to expand...

There are challenges for our species that are too broad to be dealt with by the state and, at those times, the federal government is not just necessary but vital to the defense of human life and rights. There are other problems too broad even to be dealt with on a national level. For those issues, international agreements are entered into. To be so fixated on the state, as the right seems to be, is to limit human potential to the lesser abilities of state governments. It's foolish.

If we're not willing to have a functional government at the highest levels, achieving states rights at the cost of established human rights protection is no bargain. The conservatives love to neuter the federal government, usually with little appreciation for and with apathy toward the consequences for ordinary people. They are reckless and blind ideologues.

D_NATURED said:

There are challenges for our species that are too broad to be dealt with by the state and, at those times, the federal government is not just necessary but vital to the defense of human life and rights. There are other problems too broad even to be dealt with on a national level. For those issues, international agreements are entered into. To be so fixated on the state, as the right seems to be, is to limit human potential to the lesser abilities of state governments. It's foolish.

If we're not willing to have a functional government at the highest levels, achieving states rights at the cost of established human rights protection is no bargain. The conservatives love to neuter the federal government, usually with little appreciation for and with apathy toward the consequences for ordinary people. They are reckless and blind ideologues.

Click to expand...

I think the flaws of the articles of confederation are proof enough that the United States needs a federal government

D_NATURED said:

There are challenges for our species that are too broad to be dealt with by the state and, at those times, the federal government is not just necessary but vital to the defense of human life and rights. There are other problems too broad even to be dealt with on a national level. For those issues, international agreements are entered into. To be so fixated on the state, as the right seems to be, is to limit human potential to the lesser abilities of state governments. It's foolish.

If we're not willing to have a functional government at the highest levels, achieving states rights at the cost of established human rights protection is no bargain. The conservatives love to neuter the federal government, usually with little appreciation for and with apathy toward the consequences for ordinary people. They are reckless and blind ideologues.

Click to expand...

My statement has nothing to do with establishing human rights. It's about the federal government taking upon itself...and paying for...things that would be better dealt with at the local level.

Craig234 said:

They'd yell loudly about the 'takers' in the blue states 'stealing' their money, and demand that it be ended.

Click to expand...

They've always been masters of projection. The blue bits are the ones pulling the wagon.

Mycroft said:

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat

Click to expand...

Greenbeard said:

They've always been masters of projection. The blue bits are the ones pulling the wagon.

Click to expand...

It’s just urban vs. rural economics. Giving a state a definitive “color” is extremely generalizing and imprecise.

What makes a place rural is the relative lack of economic activity going on there. The kinds of people who want to be far away from dense economic activity are going to prefer elected leaders who tout freedom, individualism and absence of regulation. So rural places overwhelmingly vote Republican.

Craig234 said:

What would Republicans say if blue states took far more in federal taxes than they paid, while red states paid far more than they took? (The opposite of the actual situation).

They'd yell loudly about the 'takers' in the blue states 'stealing' their money, and demand that it be ended.

Of course, since the situation is the opposite, you never hear them discuss the issue. Sweep it under the rug but fight to not change it.

I do have to give them credit on one thing - they showed themselves so committed to plutocracy, that when the court allowed only states to choose whether to accept funds for Medicaid expansion, the red state politicians were willing to kill their own citizens and voters denying them healthcare, while blue states received the healthcare for their citizens. And credit to those red state voters' consistency for supporting that killing of their own states' people for their ideology.

(I'd add the topic of which states pay and which get tax dollars to the 'things you never hear Republicans say' thread, but it's gone).

Click to expand...

What would Republicans say if blue states took far more in federal taxes than they paid, while red states paid far more than they took? (The opposite of the actual situation).

Click to expand...

Greenbeard said:

They've always been masters of projection. The blue bits are the ones pulling the wagon.

Click to expand...

Hmm... proof that the demorats are, in fact, the party of the rich?

Greenbeard said:

They've always been masters of projection. The blue bits are the ones pulling the wagon.

Click to expand...

The incredible irony is that that chart makes it look like the Democratic Party is the party of the rich and the Republican Party is the party of most Americans who have less, and the opposite is the case, suggesting that a third of Americans are very gullible and misinformed.

ttwtt78640 said:

Hmm... proof that the demorats are, in fact, the party of the rich?

Click to expand...

LOL, see my post just after yours, I made before seeing yours.

Mycroft said:

My statement has nothing to do with establishing human rights. It's about the federal government taking upon itself...and paying for...things that would be better dealt with at the local level.

Click to expand...

Poverty, ignorance and sickness, the issues that necessitate federal action, are not local problems, they're widespread. They are issues too big to be tackled effectively at the state or local level alone. Your statement may have been innocently naive but you can't argue that conservative politics doesn't recklessly advocate local control because they view the federal government as a threat to the influence of money and religion. Their hostility to the federal government, in essence, makes conservatives antibodies to democracy and equality. They actively destroy the protections that the rest of us rely upon to stay healthy, educated and productive in a world where the interests of money are that we remain sick, dumb and desperate.

D_NATURED said:

Poverty, ignorance and sickness, the issues that necessitate federal action, are not local problems, they're widespread. They are issues too big to be tackled effectively at the state or local level alone. Your statement may have been innocently naive but you can't argue that conservative politics doesn't recklessly advocate local control because they view the federal government as a threat to the influence of money and religion. Their hostility to the federal government, in essence, makes conservatives antibodies to democracy and equality. They actively destroy the protections that the rest of us rely upon to stay healthy, educated and productive in a world where the interests of money are that we remain sick, dumb and desperate.

Click to expand...

Yet here are plenty of successful countries with the size and population of many of our states. Which completely destroys this theory.

D_NATURED said:

Poverty, ignorance and sickness, the issues that necessitate federal action, are not local problems, they're widespread. They are issues too big to be tackled effectively at the state or local level alone. Your statement may have been innocently naive but you can't argue that conservative politics doesn't recklessly advocate local control because they view the federal government as a threat to the influence of money and religion. Their hostility to the federal government, in essence, makes conservatives antibodies to democracy and equality. They actively destroy the protections that the rest of us rely upon to stay healthy, educated and productive in a world where the interests of money are that we remain sick, dumb and desperate.

Click to expand...

What a steaming load if liberal nonsense. I think it's time to slap some of your talking points around a little bit.

1. "Poverty, ignorance and sickness, the issues that necessitate federal action, are not local problems, they're widespread."


2. "you can't argue that conservative politics doesn't recklessly advocate local control because they view the federal government as a threat to the influence of money and religion."


3. "Their hostility to the federal government, in essence, makes conservatives antibodies to democracy and equality."


4. "They actively destroy the protections that the rest of us rely upon to stay healthy, educated and productive in a world where the interests of money are that we remain sick, dumb and desperate."


Now...as a "progressive", I know you want an all powerful federal government to take everyone's money and then...in their liberal wisdom...decide who to give it to. Who's deserving of it. But there are a lot of people who wish you would take your desires and stick them where the sun don't shine...and leave them alone to take care of themselves.

Mycroft said:

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, and I'd prefer both parties not give states...red or blue...money that they've taken from all US taxpayers. That means the federal government can spend less and reduce taxes and that means the states can decide for themselves how much they want to tax their own citizens and what kind of services they can afford to provide.

Click to expand...

I have the same question.

As the saying goes: There are lies,damned lies ans then statistics.

Follow the money. Does it remain in the "Red" States very long? Obviously from the Chart posted on GDP by counties it, and more, end up from where it originated, leaving behind inflation to contend with.

IF, true that the Blue States are actually paying out more than they are seeing returned, why are they so adamant when Red States try to put an end to it?

This post was difficult for me to make as it requires me to swap the colours Red and Blue as they were learned at a young age relative to political parties. The left, has always, and always will bring the colour Red to mind, NOT Blue, as shown in my avatar.

Individual said:

This post was difficult for me to make as it requires me to swap the colours Red and Blue as they were learned at a young age relative to political parties. The left, has always, and always will bring the colour Red to mind, NOT Blue, as shown in my avatar.

Click to expand...

It might be because of the history of Republicans smearing Democrats as communist that it made sense not to pick 'red' for Democrats. But given trump's total subservience to Putin and Republicans backing him almost entirely, perhaps red is a lot more appropriate for Republicans.

Craig234 said:

It might be because of the history of Republicans smearing Democrats as communist that it made sense not to pick 'red' for Democrats. But given trump's total subservience to Putin and Republicans backing him almost entirely, perhaps red is a lot more appropriate for Republicans.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with applying Red to both major political parties, a many, if not most minor parties as well.
Left and Right leaning to me a basically how I apply Red and Blue.

Mycroft said:

What a steaming load if liberal nonsense. I think it's time to slap some of your talking points around a little bit.

1. "Poverty, ignorance and sickness, the issues that necessitate federal action, are not local problems, they're widespread."

One size fits all federal actions are never as effective as targeted local solutions to local problems. Making these issues federal issues only result in more power to federal bureaucrats and higher costs to taxpayers.

Click to expand...

That's really not true, and I say that from a purely economic and non-partisan point of view. There are many relatively poor rural places that do not possess the means to maintain their infrastructure or keep local and regional hospitals solvent. On the healthcare side, these places rely on Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement to survive (which they're barely accomplishing), because the people that live in these places are disproportionately old and poor, often times, so they don't have the money to afford the care they need and thus the federal program is the only lifeline these places have. With infrastructure, the same basic concept applies. There aren't enough people with enough money in these places to be able to spread the total cost to all of them. Maintaining the rural way of life requires continuous, disproportionate per capita federal investment.

4. "They actively destroy the protections that the rest of us rely upon to stay healthy, educated and productive in a world where the interests of money are that we remain sick, dumb and desperate."
You don't need the federal government to provide you those protections. Local governments can easily do that job.

Click to expand...

Local governments cannot at all easily do that job. Places with a very weak economic backbone and poor tax base cannot yank enough money from their residents to fund what those residents need. If you said "I don't care, let those that fail fail," then there would be countless failed rural municipalities all across the country. That would be a tough policy position to maintain.

Or, better yet, you shouldn't rely on any government to keep you healthy, educated and productive. If you don't have enough of a sense of responsibility to ensure those things for yourself, then you shouldn't even be an American. Our country was founded on the concept of personal responsibility.

Click to expand...

Anarchist policy positions are also very difficult to maintain. Realistically, it's very reckless.

Now...as a "progressive", I know you want an all powerful federal government to take everyone's money and then...in their liberal wisdom...decide who to give it to.

Click to expand...

The federal government basically creates the money in the first place. The money is fiat. The federal government essentially decides how money is spent into existence.

It doesn't require an "all-powerful" government to acknowledge that a lot of technically mostly conservative rural places rely very desperately on federal spending.

Simpletruther said:

Yet here are plenty of successful countries with the size and population of many of our states. Which completely destroys this theory.

Click to expand...

No, that's a ridiculous argument. It's not the size but the hierarchy of authority that matters. In the US, the state is not the highest authority. That's a good thing, or back people would still be slaves in the south.

Mycroft said:

What a steaming load if liberal nonsense. I think it's time to slap some of your talking points around a little bit.

1. "Poverty, ignorance and sickness, the issues that necessitate federal action, are not local problems, they're widespread."

One size fits all federal actions are never as effective as targeted local solutions to local problems. Making these issues federal issues only result in more power to federal bureaucrats and higher costs to taxpayers.​

2. "you can't argue that conservative politics doesn't recklessly advocate local control because they view the federal government as a threat to the influence of money and religion."

When you are talking about "conservative politics", you are talking about the federal government. That means that what you are saying doesn't make a lick of sense. You are saying that the federal government sees the federal government as a threat. Furthermore, those federal politicians...both liberal and conservative...gain their wealth and power from the influence of money. It is illogical to think that they would try to reduce the flow of money to them from their donors. Heck, all you have to do is look at the legislation they've enacted to see that the entire lot of them prefer more government control.​

3. "Their hostility to the federal government, in essence, makes conservatives antibodies to democracy and equality."

More nonsense. Democracy and equality are not dependent upon an over-powerful federal government. In fact, if we don't have democracy and equality at the local level, it doesn't matter what the federal level does.​

4. "They actively destroy the protections that the rest of us rely upon to stay healthy, educated and productive in a world where the interests of money are that we remain sick, dumb and desperate."

You don't need the federal government to provide you those protections. Local governments can easily do that job. Or, better yet, you shouldn't rely on any government to keep you healthy, educated and productive. If you don't have enough of a sense of responsibility to ensure those things for yourself, then you shouldn't even be an American. Our country was founded on the concept of personal responsibility.

btw, those "interests of money" you speak of? Who do you think they are working on? The local level? No. They are working on the federal level. It's cheaper.​

Now...as a "progressive", I know you want an all powerful federal government to take everyone's money and then...in their liberal wisdom...decide who to give it to. Who's deserving of it. But there are a lot of people who wish you would take your desires and stick them where the sun don't shine...and leave them alone to take care of themselves.

Click to expand...

Well, thanks for wasting everyone's time by writing so much drivel. Your points, if you can call them that, are empty rhetoric, angry as they are ignorant.

Where was the power of local control to resolve the human rights abomination of slavery, supported by southern conservatives? It didn't. It took federal authority and a war.

Who, if not the federal government, was the solution to the malaria outbreak in the southern US, back in the nineteen twenties? State authority was pitifully impotent, just like your arguments, to stop that MAJOR public health risk.

How well did local authority do to guarantee equality in education? It didn't and even after more than fifty years after Brown vs Board of education, it's still unequal thanks to a racist, conservatively stagnant education system.

In so many ways, you fail to grasp even the simplest of truths and prefer instead to live in conservative make-believe land. I hope the goal of your statement was to prove the insidious, conservative ignorance that pervades this discussion because that's all you've accomplished.

History books (you wouldn't recognize one) are full of instances of good people being helped by the actions of the federal government. They're also full of instances of conservatives neutering federal authority so they can exploit this nation for their personal benefit. So, when conservatives blather on about how useless the federal government is, they are really just demonstrating how little they understand of history and how apathetic they are to humanity.

Goalpost move alert. Your claim was that some problems are too big for states to handle. Well obviously not, in their own state, examples I have show this.

D_NATURED said:

No, that's a ridiculous argument. It's not the size but the hierarchy of authority that matters. In the US, the state is not the highest authority. That's a good thing, or back people would still be slaves in the south.

Click to expand...

Simpletruther said:

Goalpost move alert. Your claim was that some problems are too big for states to handle. Well obviously not, in their own state, examples I have show this.

Click to expand...

You didn't give any examples because there aren't any.