Anybody wonder, why the "blue" states

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I'm guessing it's because the red states don't have the huge financial obligations that go along with enormous government spending. They have fewer employees to pay, and their economies aren't as reliant on money from the state coffers (which has dried up).

 

Also they have fewer people who want to live there.... so less demand for services and government bureaucracies. They can politically afford to slack off on things like education etc.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

And wait until you find out that most of those farmers and business owners are conservatives and tell you city folk to go pound sand and find your own food.

The farmers may be running businesses, but they don't own the land. The city folks do and they rent it to the country conservatives. Heck they could just kick those folks off the land and find some illegal immigrants to do the work.... wait.... that is already happening.

[GG]

Also they have fewer people who want to live there.... so less demand for services and government bureaucracies. They can politically afford to slack off on things like education etc.

 

Is that why inner city schools have among the worst performance grades?

[Magox]

Is that why inner city schools have among the worst performance grades?

shhhh

 

you're obstructing his point that he is trying to make.

[John Adams]

I hope for both sides of the aisle actually get stuff done.

 

Hmm. I hope both sides of the aisle usually don't get stuff done because the vast majority of "getting stuff done" costs me money and/or freedom. Not surprised that your're OK with that, just noting the difference.

[stuckincincy]

Also they have fewer people who want to live there.... so less demand for services and government bureaucracies. They can politically afford to slack off on things like education etc.

 

Provide evidence about your accusation of "slacking off education", please.

[Adam]

Is that why inner city schools have among the worst performance grades?

Grades don't matter anyways......kids will pass just to protect their all-important self esteem. Anyways, all they have to do is get the answers for the all-powerful "No child left untested"

 

Education doesn't matter in this country....all that matters is getting the high score in Madden

[/dev/null]

Hmm. I hope both sides of the aisle usually don't get stuff done because the vast majority of "getting stuff done" costs me money and/or freedom. Not surprised that your're OK with that, just noting the difference.

 

game

set

match

 

John Adams FTW

[billsfan89]

Honestly its because Blue States have larger populations which require more spending in terms of education and social programs. Think about it how much money do the Dakotas have to spend on education and social welfare? Not much really which leads them to have surpluses having low and not dense populations leads to less need for government spending simply put running Idaho isn't as complicated as running New Jersey.

 

In Idaho you have a homogeneous population they all have similar professions and similar needs (Not all people in Idaho are the same but my point is they a lot of the population have similar needs and political outlook). While In a State like New Jersey you have all walks of life and a huge population to support. A state like NJ needs to fund an educational system that alone would bankrupt Idaho (And as a proud graduate of the NJ public school system I can say that while my high school was filled with cool teachers the facilities sucked I mean we were still getting rid of asbestos as recently as 2005 when my bro graduated).

 

Like I said it really has nothing to do with political out look but rather population. In fact Texas a red state with a big population has often struggled with deficits (Recently they operate without one but in 2002 they had a 10 Billion dollar debt).

 

In fact Georgia a "red state" has a 2.5 Billion dollar deficit while New York has a 1.7 Billion dollar deficit. The fact is if you look at percentage of the deficit in terms of percentage of budget New York and New Jersey rank at the bottom third of the pack with 3% and 3.7% differences in percentage of spending (Simply put those states are 3 percent and 3.7 percent over budget while a state like Arizona with a 1.2 billion dollar deficit is 11.9 percent over budget)

 

Like I said it has more to do with things like population and population density rather than those dirty liberals can't stop writing checks they can't cash. here is a link of state debt.

 

http://www.mybudget360.com/fiscal-situatio...-2010-and-2011/

[swede316]

Honestly its because Blue States have larger populations which require more spending in terms of education and social programs. Think about it how much money do the Dakotas have to spend on education and social welfare? Not much really which leads them to have surpluses having low and not dense populations leads to less need for government spending simply put running Idaho isn't as complicated as running New Jersey.

 

In Idaho you have a homogeneous population they all have similar professions and similar needs (Not all people in Idaho are the same but my point is they a lot of the population have similar needs and political outlook). While In a State like New Jersey you have all walks of life and a huge population to support. A state like NJ needs to fund an educational system that alone would bankrupt Idaho (And as a proud graduate of the NJ public school system I can say that while my high school was filled with cool teachers the facilities sucked I mean we were still getting rid of asbestos as recently as 2005 when my bro graduated).

 

Like I said it really has nothing to do with political out look but rather population. In fact Texas a red state with a big population has often struggled with deficits (Recently they operate without one but in 2002 they had a 10 Billion dollar debt).

 

In fact Georgia a "red state" has a 2.5 Billion dollar deficit while New York has a 1.7 Billion dollar deficit. The fact is if you look at percentage of the deficit in terms of percentage of budget New York and New Jersey rank at the bottom third of the pack with 3% and 3.7% differences in percentage of spending (Simply put those states are 3 percent and 3.7 percent over budget while a state like Arizona with a 1.2 billion dollar deficit is 11.9 percent over budget)

 

Like I said it has more to do with things like population and population density rather than those dirty liberals can't stop writing checks they can't cash. here is a link of state debt.

 

http://www.mybudget360.com/fiscal-situatio...-2010-and-2011/

I think if you look at it you'll see that the highest deficits are in states with the highest illegial immigrants. California, Texas, New York, Arizona. Quit providing services to illigals and you'll save quit a few dollars.

[GG]

In fact Georgia a "red state" has a 2.5 Billion dollar deficit while New York has a 1.7 Billion dollar deficit. The fact is if you look at percentage of the deficit in terms of percentage of budget New York and New Jersey rank at the bottom third of the pack with 3% and 3.7% differences in percentage of spending (Simply put those states are 3 percent and 3.7 percent over budget while a state like Arizona with a 1.2 billion dollar deficit is 11.9 percent over budget)

 

Like I said it has more to do with things like population and population density rather than those dirty liberals can't stop writing checks they can't cash. here is a link of state debt.

 

http://www.mybudget360.com/fiscal-situatio...-2010-and-2011/

 

Your argument could have validity if you linked to a verifiable site. Using NYS budget deficit at $1.6 billion, misses the trees & the forest, since the 2009 fiscal year just ended. In any event, that figure is wrong. How about looking at the current fiscal years and where the states are? Like here.

 

In any event, you still miss the main point that education spending when looked from a per capita standpoint is not that much different across states. But the big difference is that the blue states with highly progressive tax codes get hammered in the recessions because in addition to 50% or so people who never pay income tax, you don't receive tax payments from the ones who get fleeced during good times.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Is that why inner city schools have among the worst performance grades?

Doesn't mean they aren't spending a lot of money. P.S. Suburban public schools in the area have many that rank in the top 50 in the country. Though their spending levels are about the same level as inner city schools. Difference they hire more teachers per student and spend less money on things like metal detectors and bars on windows.... Plus the tradition if you have money or talented and live in the city and or can get a scholarship is to send him to a private school. Cherry picking the best and brightest. The lower level kids have no examples of what to do to move ahead and it becomes the proverbial crabs in a pot deal.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Provide evidence about your accusation of "slacking off education", please.

Alabama and Mississippi... nough said. P.S. an exception is Iowa where Senator Hark there is a federal dollar and so called "Conservative" hypocrite Senator Grass Head bring in more federal largess per population that any two congresscritters out there. Eliminating Iowa as a state would constitute a major budget cut and probably balance the budget. Throw in NYC and you could do it.

[TPS]

It's actually from two sides. Big government that can't downsize fast enough, yes. But also most of the blues have high income tax rates that soak the rich and get a disproportionate share of tax revenues from the top brackets. When the economy tumbles and the top earners' income drops, the states' revenues also drop at a faster rate.

 

Nice double whammy.

So you are saying high income tax rates generate higher revenues. So if you cut income tax rates that will generate lower revenues?

 

To add to the story, the (blue) states with higher income tax rates also tend to have higher income per capita, so ASSUMING states are hit equally by the downturn, blue states experience greater falls in revenues at all income levels (of course, those with higher incomes will pay more). I believe the wealthier states also tend to have higher sales taxes, which adds a triple whammy.

 

I don't think one can really assume that states were hit equally though. Not all states experienced the housing bubble. California's economy got hit much harder than (say) Alabama's.

[DC Tom]

Alabama and Mississippi... nough said. P.S. an exception is Iowa where Senator Hark there is a federal dollar and so called "Conservative" hypocrite Senator Grass Head bring in more federal largess per population that any two congresscritters out there. Eliminating Iowa as a state would constitute a major budget cut and probably balance the budget. Throw in NYC and you could do it.

 

Thus demonstrating that correlation does not equal causation. Alabama and Mississippi have poor education rates because a good chunk of their population is stuck in a cycle of poverty that goes all the way back to the Civil War. That they're "red" states is completely incidental to that - in fact, for most of post-reconstruction history, they would have been traditionally considered "blue" states, I believe.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Thus demonstrating that correlation does not equal causation. Alabama and Mississippi have poor education rates because a good chunk of their population is stuck in a cycle of poverty that goes all the way back to the Civil War. That they're "red" states is completely incidental to that - in fact, for most of post-reconstruction history, they would have been traditionally considered "blue" states, I believe.

 

Okay then you could throw in New Mexico too.. still the state governments don't support education and the poverty levels don't help I agree.

[DC Tom]

Okay then you could throw in New Mexico too.. still the state governments don't support education and the poverty levels don't help I agree.

 

New Mexico's in the same poverty cycle as the deep South. Same root cause - indigent, unskilled population unceremoniously left to their own meager devices by ill-advisedly precipitous social change for more than a century. Only difference is that it's Native Americans in the southwest, and blacks in the deep south.

[billsfan89]

Your argument could have validity if you linked to a verifiable site. Using NYS budget deficit at $1.6 billion, misses the trees & the forest, since the 2009 fiscal year just ended. In any event, that figure is wrong. How about looking at the current fiscal years and where the states are? Like here.

 

In any event, you still miss the main point that education spending when looked from a per capita standpoint is not that much different across states. But the big difference is that the blue states with highly progressive tax codes get hammered in the recessions because in addition to 50% or so people who never pay income tax, you don't receive tax payments from the ones who get fleeced during good times.

 

Well you also have to factor in like health programs to the equation states like NJ and NY spend huge amounts of money on health care for its residents. Your point about the tax codes furthers my original argument the simple fact that in a state like North Dakota you don't really need a progressive tax code because 80-90 percent of your residents fall into the same one or two tax brackets. In a state like NJ you have a middle class, a lower middle class, a lower class, a upper middle class that spread across 90% of the tax code.

 

Basically when you have a most homogeneous smaller population its easier to account for the needs and budget of your state which leads to much simpler politics and less deficit spending. While states like NJ and NY have to account for the needs of all of its residents which results in things like big gap progressive tax codes and high spending on social welfare and health programs yet not taxing enough to fund them or having the balls to cut them because they don't want to loose votes.

 

If my link was outdated or wrong I am sorry it looked good. But yeah my point about smaller less diverse populations is still pretty valid.

[billsfan89]

I think if you look at it you'll see that the highest deficits are in states with the highest illegial immigrants. California, Texas, New York, Arizona. Quit providing services to illigals and you'll save quit a few dollars.

 

Texas doesn't have a deficit. In fact if you look at what Texas has been able to do in the last 6 years you will see that they have been able to turn a 10 Billion dollar deficit in 2002 (Texas was a state that at times has had big deficits) and make the state run even or at a slight surplus. The governor of Texas has been very wise in spending money and making cuts where necessary another reason that Texas has good and in control spending is the fact that they publicly document where each and every tax dollar is spent.

 

As much I as I don't like Texas (!@#$ing Cowboys and overall dickish nature I went there once and I hope to never return) they are a good example to the rest of the nation. They have big cities (Houston and Dallas to name a few) and diverse populations and throw in an illegal immigration problem and hurricanes and you have a state that has every reason to fall into the trap of a deficit yet they don't spend in a deficit.

 

So as much as I hate Texas (Except for King of the Hill of course) they do have a very well run state government.

[Magox]

Texas doesn't have a deficit. In fact if you look at what Texas has been able to do in the last 6 years you will see that they have been able to turn a 10 Billion dollar deficit in 2002 (Texas was a state that at times has had big deficits) and make the state run even or at a slight surplus. The governor of Texas has been very wise in spending money and making cuts where necessary another reason that Texas has good and in control spending is the fact that they publicly document where each and every tax dollar is spent.

 

As much I as I don't like Texas (!@#$ing Cowboys and overall dickish nature I went there once and I hope to never return) they are a good example to the rest of the nation. They have big cities (Houston and Dallas to name a few) and diverse populations and throw in an illegal immigration problem and hurricanes and you have a state that has every reason to fall into the trap of a deficit yet they don't spend in a deficit.

 

So as much as I hate Texas (Except for King of the Hill of course) they do have a very well run state government.

I agree with what you say about Texas. Generally speaking, I don't care too much for Texans, but in regards to their recent fiscal policies, they have been doing a whole hell of a lot better than just about any other state. Btw, they also have an unemployment rate of a 7.5%, which is a lot better than most states