Which red states and local governments are currently running a deficit?
Regards,
Shodan
Well,Kansas.
The United States of America.
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/05/29/republicans-have-become-the-party-of-red-ink
Alaska
Oklahoma. Nebraska. Wyoming. Kentucky.
In other words, of the states with deficits, slightly more than half are Red.
Its not a stereotype if its true. And yes, it makes me more enlightened because I can recognize harsh truths than some less enlightened people cannot.
As far as poverty goes, according to Politico, 95 of the poorest 100 counties in the US are in red states. This corroborates the well-known factthat blue states pay more into federal taxes on average than red states.
On alcoholism, if we’re talking specifically about how people overindulge to the point of a problem, we may have competing facts but my inference is correct. Blue states do tend to drink more, those in the northern plains and northeast have a higher consumption of alcohol than the more southern states, but I’d argue that doesn’t define alcoholism. It seems, if we’re looking at the map, to correlate to temperature. Plus, you can drink a lot and not have it be a problem. Where it becomes a problem is when it starts harming people, and red states have 14 of the top 20 per capita deaths by alcohol compared with blue states while blue states have 17 of the 20 lowest deaths by alcohol rates, using the 2012 election map.
As for cousin marriages, I couldn’t find reliable stats for that. It seems state law has a lot of variations and there are some deep red and blue states that allow it, and some that don’t. I would bet though, if I could find stats on it, that more cousin marriages are registered in red states than blue, but I don’t have info on that so you get this one
That occurs at the federal level, but at the state level there are two factors that force Republicans to be more responsible:
-
They tend to govern states that have long been Republican, so are already inheriting a low tax/low services situation. Their goal isn’t cutting, so much as managing the status quo.
-
Balanced budget amendments mean they can’t run deficits in most states, so tax cuts HAVE to go with spending cuts. That’s what undid Brownback, was major cuts to education in a state that already wasn’t spending much on education.
That’s misleading though. Red states run deficits, but have plenty of options to fix them: raise taxes, cut spending. Most blue states have run out of options other than accounting tricks to mask their insolvency, although long economic recoveries(like this one) sometimes convince them that maybe they’ll be all right. But when the next recession comes, it won’t be Oklahoma and Nebraska fighting to avoid bankruptcy. it will be California, Illinois, and New Jersey. Although it’s hard to figure all this stuff these days what with Republicans controlling the bulk of the states, even the deep blue ones. California being an exception of course.
Just whatthe actual hellare you talking about?
You forgot “take about seven dollars of federal aid for every dollar of federal taxes they provide” which South Carolina has perfected, and is currently teaching the rest of the top ten federal moochers who (OMG YOU’LL NEVER GUESS) are all traditionally red.
Not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about state budgets and direct help for state budgets, not regular federal programs.
It wasn’t that long ago that we were debating whether to bail out California. They have not actually fixed their structural problems and the next recession will push them right back into near insolvency or actual insolvency.
That’s not “federal aid”. Social security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, highway funds, etc. are now “federal aid”?
You should really stop believing Fox. Here is an unemployment report. California is about 10% higher than the rest of the country, not 20%. And year to year it went down .5 percentage points, 5 times better than the rest of the country. Santa Clara county, btw, has an unemployment rate of 3.8%.
slash2k has already shown you that people aren’t leaving. So many people are leaving Silicon Valley that the price of my house, according to Zillow, has gone up 30% in the past 3 years, and has tripled in the 20 years since I bought it, moving from way too expensive to totally insanely expensive.
Expensive houses and too much traffic are real problems, but they don’t quite come from people running away from the state.
I just think you are jealous of us.
Yeah, that’s the point. When you contribute less than twenty cents of federal taxes for every dollar of benefit your state receives from federal taxes, you have lots of tools for addressing your budget. You can even have low (or even no!) state income tax, and pretend it’s because you’re so good at being responsible!
When you’re a grown-up adult state that actually pays for their government programs through state taxes, and isn’t begging from the federal government, and is actually contributing more to the federal budget than you receive, then you look more like California. For more than fifty years CA has put more money into the federal budget than it has received, while red states sucked at the teat of their more successful and progressive neighbors. But now, because some people suggested using federal money to help CA (but didn’t actually do it) during a serious crisis, we’re now talking about how it’s an example of failed liberal fiscal policy?
Horseshit, I say. Once the red states contribute more than they take, they can talk about responsible fiscal policy.
How simplistic. If you break the states down into who is “red” and who is “blue” which tribe is paying more taxes, total, and which tribe gets more handouts in total?
The states don’t get to take food stamp or Social Security money and use it to plug their budgets.
Yeah, the change is so slight that it couldn’t make any real difference. It’s like saving pennies; hardly worth keeping track of it. Heck, might as well put taxes back the way they were; the amounts are so trivial that the people who pay them won’t even notice it’s gone.
Blue states as a whole are by far paying more federal taxes, and it’s not even controversial. Blue states are also contributing more per capita, on average. You can see both numbers on this Wikipedialink.
Red states are receiving much more aid per dollar contributed. This is largely poverty driven, as red states tend to have more poverty. In fact, the blue areas of red states (like Houston, TX and Frankfort, KY) tend to have fewer people per capita in poverty than the rest of the state does. There’s a pretty neat interactive map that breaks down poverty rate by county here. Long story short - red states (on average) have lower state taxes, and more problems with poverty, than blue states do.
Do you suppose Californians are, on average, receiving less social security benefits than Mississipians are? Stop trying to make this about social security. The difference in federal dollars received isn’t due to social security, so stop trying to paint it like it is.
I just looked up Kansas City KS on Zillow.
The blue dots are “Pre-foreclosure auction”, whatever that is.
Between the blue and red (for sale, but not because of immanent foreclosure) dots, there were few yellow (sold) - and the yellow tracks history - the blue and red are current status only.
Let me know when you find a CA city of >50,000 pop. that is in that bad of shape.
I live in CA and thought my 'hood was troubled by the foreclosures (those junk mortgages hit this area hard). Compared to K.C., this place is in great shape.
Do we need to point out the price difference in house sales - say K.C. vs any CA city of similar size?
I live in Kansas and I know alot more people who have moved here FROM California than are moving there. And those who do move out there do so only because of unique job opportunities not available here in Kansas.
California is just too crazy expensive and crowded.
Is anyone else hearing a faint echo of the old communists arguing that “It can still work, real communism just hasn’t been tried yet. The Soviets and the eastern bloc don’t count!”
Adaher, I think you’re a bit off. Conservative fiscal policy used to be about ‘pay for what you get’ instead of ‘keep is small’. The simple fact is that, other than Brownback, very few high ranking executives have been willing to actually try to put it in place. That it’s clearly failing in Kansas is simply a downstream consequence of the fact that voters don’t want to pay for the services they demand. And that’s non-conservative in the extreme.
It’s all stuff that doesn’t go into a state budget. It’s farm subsidies, it’s roads, it’s public housing.
And most red states send people to Congress to reduce that spending.