Welfare by State

[Ddrak]

Yeah, I am easy for Embar to troll. Mainly because the idiocy he says when trolling is pretty indistinguishable from the idiocy he says when he's not. Or was that Eid?

Dd

[Croinc]

I would just like to remind Ddrak that the USa is a capitalist country. It is so hard now a days to get caught up in the socialist bullshit when you are not actually here.

Or, so I 've heard.

--Cro

[SicTimMitchell]

It's disengenuous to count highway, education and law enforcement funding as "welfare."

[Riggen]

Ddrak's linked site said:

What Affects Rankings?
Federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful Members of Congress, and state governments can grab more federal grant money by skillfully manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.
However, demography may be more influential than politics. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other large federal entitlements are bound to rank fairly high. Similarly, the high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.

Neat link with lots of interesting data.

I guess you could be funny and say that all federal employees are on welfare, but it's clearly not accurate to imply that red states are just freeloaders. I didn't see it mentioned, but farm subsidies which keep supermarket prices from spiraling out of control for everyone would be another important expenditure to keep in mind when looking at this chart. And what Bangzoom said.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ddrak pwned by Tim!

Ddrak pwned by Riggen!

[Rsak]

Now you are just being silly Embar.

Ddrak didn't do or release the study and neither has he formed any conclusions based on the data that Tim or Riggen disputed.

As Tim pointed out there is roads being accounted in that money and there is without a doubt more land space in the red states rather then blue states.

While i do not agree with the notion that a progressive tax would change this relationship due to the land space difference in red vs. blue states this is an issue that was not in contention.

[Riggen]

Oh I'm not disputing the data itself, just the interpretation that a state receiving more federal dollars than it is taxed is on "welfare."

[Ddrak]

Nah Tim, I would have to disagree there. What the data is saying is that some states can't support themselves without other states footing the bill. If it means that other states are paying for their highyways, police and education then you could definitely call it welfare.

Riggen, Farm subsidies are definitely welfare. Without them you wouldn't see supermarket prices spiralling up (that's a convenient lie) - you'd see US farms go out of business as supermarkets imported cheaper food from overseas farmers. Paying people for not being competitive is most definitely a form of welfare in my book.

When one state is footing the bill for another state's needs - isn't the recipient really taking a form of welfare from the donor?

And did Valoria steal Embar's account when we weren't looking?

Dd

[Riggen]

Gotta call bullshit here. If importing food in the kind of quantities we're talking about was so cheap, it would be happening NOW as the rule rather than the exception. Prices would definitely go up were we forced to import our staples.

When one state is footing the bill for another state's needs - isn't the recipient really taking a form of welfare from the donor?

Not if they themselves are benefitting in the process. Defense spending, federal employee compensation, etc all come readily to mind. You have yet to justify calling that welfare.

[SicTimMitchell]

Ddrak,

Then since the federal government spends more than it takes in (quite a wide margin, too), by that definition you might as well call all federal programs "welfare" and be done with it.

[Ddrak]

Tim,

Didn't I do exactly that in my initial post? Said government programs were a form of welfare?


Riggen,

If the subsidies stopped and tariffs were lifted, US farmers would go out of business because foreign farmers are far, far more cost effective. It's hard to compete with someone who can live off a couple of dollars a month and their only real cost in farming is labor. The only logical reason for the high degree of protectionism in the US farming industry is that the US farmers are being protected from *lower* overseas pricing.

Alternately, you can just look at the cost of living for any third world country and compare it to the US and it becomes pretty obvious that their food is cheaper.

If one state is paying for defense spending in another state then the donor state is providing a form of welfare to the recipient. If one state is employing federal employees in another state (instead of their own) then it is also a form of welfare. If a state puts more money into Federal Program XX and another state gets more out if it, then the recipient is taking a form of welfare from the donor.

Dd

[SicTimMitchell]

Then you're completely screwed by describing the states that pay out more than they take in as receiving "welfare.

[rajavengerGIA]

one question well say i paid 100,000 in taxes in say 1920 and i lived in a blue state would that mean i would get 90,000 in cash or would i get the amount of money 90,000 dollars back then would be now

[Ddrak]

Not really, Tim. I'm defining welfare (of a sort) as receiving in goods, services and raw dollars more from taxes than you pay into taxes.

Dd

[Rsak]

f the subsidies stopped and tariffs were lifted, US farmers would go out of business because foreign farmers are far, far more cost effective.

Does the possibility exist that these foreign farmers are also receiving subsidies from the United States in the form of Foreign Aid or does that Foreign Aid earmarked for other matters received in that country enable the country to provide its own subsideis?

If these exist and they were removed in the same manner would the conclusion that our farmers would go out of business be valid?

[Ddrak]

Some might be, Rsak, but it's certain that they aren't all receiving US Aid and definitely not in the amounts that would be required to change the equation.

The US is definitely one of the largest, if not the largest producers in the world in most primary production industries (http://www.fas.usda.gov/currwmt.html) and looking at the data properly, I'd really not like to guess the long term effect of removing the subsidies that US farmers are getting - not to mention those that are being paid to not make anything: Most major US competitors are countries with plenty of arable land but lower populations and lower costs of living, but are all industrialized nations.

Initial effects of the removal of US trade barriers would be a flood of cheaper imports into the US, lowering the prices across the board. Many US farmers would be driven to bankruptcy due to the significan cut in income. The question then would become whether it would be practical for large companies to buy up the farms and produce food at a more competitive rate and so maintain the US production levels. If so then food would definitely be cheaper all around without the massive government support of the farming sector. If not then prices would rise from their low levels and find equilibrium as the production in the US rose again with the increased selling prices. Would it go above current levels? Who knows.

Dd

[Aabe]

Not really, Tim. I'm defining welfare (of a sort) as receiving in goods, services and raw dollars more from taxes than you pay into taxes.

Dd

What about cases where the Fed declares areas of wilderness and then actually ponies up the money to cover the expense.

Any federally mandated program (home defense dept. has sprouted a few), then funded by the feds. In more populated states that could be less per capita, than in a rural State. Thus not quite really being the blatant welfare you are describing.

I don't think it's quite fair to include anything the federal mandates a state do or support.

I would only count those expenses the States volunteer themselves to start as and beg the fed for money to support as in your description of welfare.

[Ddrak]

Then you're using a different definition Aabe, and you're welcome to do that.

Dd

[Riggen]

If the subsidies stopped and tariffs were lifted, US farmers would go out of business because foreign farmers are far, far more cost effective. It's hard to compete with someone who can live off a couple of dollars a month and their only real cost in farming is labor. The only logical reason for the high degree of protectionism in the US farming industry is that the US farmers are being protected from *lower* overseas pricing.

I'm not disputing that they'd go out of business. That's a given.

The US is a pretty hungry nation. I wonder what effect the sudden elevation in demand would do to overseas pricing and availability. I also wonder about reliability of food supply levels, security, quality, and freshness. Maybe I just perceive value in retaining the capacity to produce our own food where you do not.

If one state is paying for defense spending in another state then the donor state is providing a form of welfare to the recipient. If one state is employing federal employees in another state (instead of their own) then it is also a form of welfare.

Ddrak, I see you making the assertion but I don't see the justification. I'm not entirely sure what you mean anyway since defense funds aren't given away--they're payment for goods and services rendered.

There's not a perfectly uniform distribution of federal employees across the country, which naturally means that dollars flowing to pay them for doing their jobs are going to add up more in some areas than others. I don't see how that could be considered welfare, either.

[Ddrak]

I'm not sure they'd go out of business entirely, but there'd be a huge shake-up and consolidation of agriculture. Libertarians would probably argue that this is a good thing - commercial pressures naturally resulting in a more efficient system. Probably a sharpening of the wealth distribution gap too. Reliability would most likely go down. Quality/security/freshness - depends on the food item. Most can be supplied without too many problems from nearer neighbors (again, South America). Essentially, you could make the argument that you're paying for reliability of supply though.

People are basically pointing out that my definition of "welfare" isn't really truly "welfare" in the negative sense of the word. That's correct and I continue to agree with them. Like I said way back when I clarified myself to Rsak - I'm talking simply about which states pay more and which states receive more from the taxation system. What it does mean is that the economies of some states are more dependant on the federal redistribution of wealth than others. It just seems that when I agree that it's not welfare, people completely fail to listen and think of new ways it's not true welfare.

Dd