Quote:
Originally Posted by EdgeXXX
You're thinking of it the wrong way. The comparison you're trying to make has nothing to do with Red or Blue, it has more to do with taxation amounts based on populace (with a COL adjustment) vs amounts needed for Federal spending (on things like roads, schools, etc). The Blue states on average spend quite a bit more on social "benefits" like welfare. Keeping with your 2005 example, here is the welfare spending by state for that same fiscal time frame:
http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/welfarespending.htm
Here is an historic Red/Blue breakdown for comparison:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rpleNation.PNG |
The states at the top of welfare spending are there because they can pay it. New York can afford more in social services because it's an extremely wealthy state. Alabama can't because it's an extremely poor state.
Sorry, but with a few exeptions, the more Democrats in a state means the richer it is. The more Republicans in a state means the poorer it is. That can't be a coincidence.
Nonetheless, it was arguing the point about personal responsibility. If it was about that, people in states like Alabama and Mississippi who elect Republican Senators would demand that they would not take more money than they pay in. But they don't, and thus are welfare states.