New Study Shows Red States Rely on Blue States For Federal Assistance.

[DocSavageFan]

Sure we can tell by those attempts and plans he has submitted....oh....wait....never mind he just "said" he wanted to invest.

I am sure we will get an actual Trump Infrastructure plan at the same time he gives us his Healthcare plan, Drug plan and Middle class tax cut plan.

unless you got some magical link to them? How about a link to his infrastructure plan/bill/draft/anything?

well to be fair he only had 2 years of full support in congress to make deals being the best deal maker ever.

He'll work with Democrats on this issue...but we both know that will never happen. Dems won't be caught dead working with Trump on anything. They're the 'Party of NO' on steroids.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure we can tell by those attempts and plans he has submitted....oh....wait....never mind he just "said" he wanted to invest.

I am sure we will get an actual Trump Infrastructure plan at the same time he gives us his Healthcare plan, Drug plan and Middle class tax cut plan.

unless you got some magical link to them? How about a link to his infrastructure plan/bill/draft/anything?

well to be fair he only had 2 years of full support in congress to make deals being the best deal maker ever.

Show me the House bill on infrastructure. You can't? Why is that? Because it doesn't fucking exist? Oh well...it's all Trump's fault. derp

[Edge-]

The last time I checked the legislative branch was tasked with legislating. Time to put up or shut up. Stop blaming Trump for your parties failures.

Oh, is this not also a failure for the Republican party, then?

And FYI, administrations will often work with their party in the legislature to help push legislation they want. It's something this administration may not be doing, but it's pretty commonplace.

[Sky High]

And Bernie Sanders never embraced Trump's infrastructure proposals. What’s really sad is how transparent Bernie's lies are and you still manage to believe him. <--using your horrible logic!

HE NEVER CAME UP WITH ONE. Not to mention the fact Sanders isn’t in a position to make that call either way! God you are just terrible at this. So bad I feel like I’m picking on a special ed kid.

[Zan15]

ACA also gave us the mandate which was a huge burden for the poor and the middle class. The poorest of the poor got a great deal though. But it was a big FU to the lower to middle class. Liberal compassion FTL.

.

Anyone who would be considered poor got subsidies on ACA plans to the point where in some states you could be above the poverty line and still pay next to nothing for ACA.


If you were really poor, poorest of the poor you already got insurance through MEDICAID (prior to ACA) and would not be subject to the Mandate at all. Nor would the ACA effect them.
In some states you can get Medicaid and still make over 40k. You can get Medicaid for your children and make over 60k.




As for the middle class, the vast majority of them receive insurance through employment or Medicare making them not subject to the mandate.

Though the ACA extended the income limits on Medicaid which helped some of the middle class qualify for Medicaid either for the family or at least their kids.

In CT you can be anywhere from 133% to 318% of the federal poverty level and still get Medicaid either for yourself or your kids.
Family of two starts at $26,211 and extends to $54,619.
Family of three starts at $33,062 - $68,895


Middle class subsidies go all the way up to 91,000 in some states. Once you start to get to that level you are moving to the upper parts of the middle class and are in less need of a subsidy


Though I agree there is that portion of the lower middle class that totally got boned, but its been 8 years and the republicans have blocked every effort to improve and fix the problem.




It was a Nice try though. Sounds like you don't understand how ACA, Subsidies, mandate and Medicaid work. You just want to spout off talking points.

- - - Updated - - -

He'll work with Democrats on this issue...but we both know that will never happen. Dems won't be caught dead working with Trump on anything. They're the 'Party of NO' on steroids.

- - - Updated - - -



Show me the House bill on infrastructure. You can't? Why is that? Because it doesn't fucking exist? Oh well...it's all Trump's fault. derp

LOL party of no? did we go back in time to 2009-2016? Man how quickly one forgets.
I mean republicans never said yes to ACA. Democrats actually said yes to 25 billion in wall funding. but hey.....



Well they do in fact exist on both sides, there is just no actual trump plan....(not endorsing or saying any of these are any good just that they exist :P )


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1428

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr658

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr180/text

[Breccia]

So, while we continue beating the dead horse of "Trump never had a plan", let's talk about that federal assistance.

It is hardly new or surprising that blue states get less money -- they don't need it, by virtue of being Democratic-led they host their own programs and fix their own roads...rather than, say, wait for Trump to campaign and run on the issue, then never do anything for two years except praise Nazis, then get bored and stop coming up with plans while his rabid fanbase blames Democrats. Study after study shows what, if the party policies are actually in place, is actually pretty obvious.

What is new, is Bel Biv DeVos trying to get billions of federal money into private schools, including religious schools of course, citing "choice".

I think most people would agree that, overall, private schools get better results and that their funding is a strong reason why: they can afford better teachers and materials with the extra money they charge. Again, duh, kind of obvious. And a parallel: Blue states are basically private schools.

Now, the DeVos issue here is based on taxes. The tax cut for the rich had an unexpected side effect (well, it had loads, but for now just one of interest): SALT taxes were capped. To get around that, some states set up charities you could donate to, that would fund the schools. The tax cut for the rich did not limit taxes on donations to, say, churches, which can donate to political parties, such as political parties that pretend to be Christian so they...okay, back on topic.

These donation-style taxes were actually doing fairly well in GOP strongholds like Alabama, Georgia and Arizona.

Until Trump's IRS stepped in and said "no, that's a loophole and we're blocking it."

So, schools got fucked from the lower tax income.

DeVos wants to funnel $10 billion of federal money to cover for those lost donation-style taxes...which, again, will flow to red states, loaded with religious private schools. And it will flow more to poor red states, since nobody in their right mind ever said "I'm so glad I live in Deep Red Louisiana so I can send my kids to the 45th best K-12 program in the states and 42nd best higher education! YEEEEEEEEEEE HAW!"

So not only is the "blue states help red states" still a thing, it's increasingly a thing.

"Also that sounds like socialism."

Funny thing, it only sounds like socialism until your state gets the money.

For more information about public money going to private schools, consider this WaPo article that lists the top 10 proportionally. Spoiler alert: eight of them are red states, and #1 is Florida (40th in K-12). #9 is aforementioned Louisiana.

[Blur4stuff]

I'm not against red states getting help. They seriously fucking need it. Problem is we still have corrupt morons running those states and money gets funneled to the wrong places. So those red evangelical states are gonna keep being terrible places to live and raise a family compared to other states.

[Polyxo]

We pretty much already knew this. It happens within states too, where pretty much all of the revenue for New York State comes from NYC, and a bit more from the 3 lakeside cities. The rest of rural upstate is pretty much perpetually dependent on this funding, and complains endlessly about the cities.

[PosPosPos]

They seriously fucking need it.

Oh they do, they just don't deserve it.

I guess when Republicans whine incessantly about welfare leeches who can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps they were actually referencing themselves, first and foremost.

[Orange Joe]

States with lower income also typically have a much lower cost of living. When viewed in terms of consumption, Red States have higher consumption standards than Blue States (see Forbes article).



Solved: Why Poor States Are Red and Rich States Are Blue
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#6bfef85b1d60

You do know that doesn't really counter the OP right? It just means they can get more while living on welfare. There are still more people in poverty needing assistance in those states EVEN WITH lower cost of living.

- - - Updated - - -

Surely you understand that we're at historically low unemployment rates and have much, much lower poverty rates in recent years?



Median income is going up as well.

Do I have to? If your struggling to make ends meet and feed your family flooding the work force with labor willing to do your job at a criminal low rate isn't going to be doing you favors.

Does not compute.....

How can we have immigrants stealing jobs AND lowest unemployment/poverty rates?

[Breccia]

Median income is going up as well.

Where have I seen that graph before...oh, here it is.

A cursory look at the charts would seem to indicate that median household income for all racial groups in 2017 was the highest on record. But the Census Bureau notes it changed how it calculated the data starting in 2013.

When those changes are taken into consideration, the income across all racial groups is not significantly higher than it was in 2007.

Still, income rates over the past few years have steadily increased for most American households as more people have gained full-time employment since the end of the Great Recession.

The exceptions to the trend are Asian and black households.

Median income for Asian households, which earn the most out of any demographic group, dropped to $81,331 last year, from $83,182 in 2016.

Median income for black households — the lowest earners of any racial group — fell slightly to $40,258 in 2017, down from $40,339 in 2016.

“That doesn’t bode well for our economy,” said Valerie Wilson, the director of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute’s Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy. “We are a multiracial, diverse society so when there are groups that are historically and persistently lagging behind others. That means that we have a weaker society.”

Shoulda picked a different graph, dude. You cited information contrary to your point.

[DocSavageFan]

Where have I seen that graph before...oh, here it is.



Shoulda picked a different graph, dude. You cited information contrary to your point.

The overall trend since 2014 has been very positive. My point stands.

[Felya]

The overall trend since 2014 has been very positive. My point stands.

Your point in a thread about red state depending on blue states, is that the current growth started under Obama?

[Deletedaccount1]

More open liberal contempt for their own countrymen using any flawed methodology imaginable.

[rda]

In the interests of truth: I repeated part of the computations in the article using raw numbers, and blue states do pay more federal taxes than red states, etc, a couple of other things stay as well. I am not fond of the article massaging numbers like they do, that just loses a lot of the signal, but in this process of massaging at least what they lost was not enough to invalidate the results qualitatively.

[Felya]

More open liberal contempt for their own countrymen using any flawed methodology imaginable.

Those coastal elites... what do you expect?

[Deletedaccount1]

Those coastal elites... what do you expect?

That sounds like something I would say

[DocSavageFan]

In the interests of truth: I repeated part of the computations in the article using raw numbers, and blue states do pay more federal taxes than red states, etc, a couple of other things stay as well. I am not fond of the article massaging numbers like they do, that just loses a lot of the signal, but in this process of massaging at least what they lost was not enough to invalidate the results qualitatively.

Of course higher GDP states pay more in federal taxes. Their complaint is that Red states are recipients of a much greater share of federal aid. They hate conservatives more than they like helping poor people it seems.

[Breccia]

Your point in a thread about red state depending on blue states, is that the current growth started under Obama?

AND the post he took the graphs from contained such information as "this is not good news" and "not significantly higher". One might say he's using "flawed methodology".

By the way, once again, not only do we have the aforementioned evidence that (generally speaking) blue states are donors and red states are welfare leeches, we also know Trump made it worse on purpose.

The term "welfare" is especially unpopular in red states that vote Republican and support Trump. But when you think broadly about all forms of government assistance, these same red states are often the biggest beneficiaries.

If you include price supports for agriculture, subsidies for land management and forestry, and federal money flowing to defense contractors, you'll find that the economies of red states depend heavily on federal dollars.

But that's not even the biggest irony. It turns out residents of blue states send more tax money to Washington than they get back in federal help, while residents of red states send less money to Washington than they get back in federal help.

In 2015, for example, New Jersey got back only 74 cents in federal spending for every tax dollar its inhabitants sent to Washington, according to the Rockefeller Institute of Government. New York got back 81 cents on the dollar, Connecticut 82 cents and Massachusetts 83 cents.

But when you turn to the red states, it's the opposite. Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar that its inhabitants sent to Washington. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky: $1.90 and South Carolina $1.71.

Taking the Trump administration's expansive view of the meaning of "welfare" to its logical conclusion to include all those benefiting from federal spending, this means blue states are sending welfare to red states -- the same red states that say they don't like welfare.

That's from late 2018. Now here's the update.

Under the new tax law enacted by Trump and the Republicans, blue states will be giving even more "welfare" to red states.

That's because the law sets new limits for the amount of state and local taxes that people can deduct from their federal taxable incomes. And since people in blue states pay much more in state and local taxes than people in red states, blue-staters will be paying that much more in federal taxes.

Which means an even bigger transfer going from blue-state residents to all those red-state Republican voters whose party despises handouts.

Now the author from there goes on to an opinion I happen to share: Democrats don't really have a problem with this. They already spend their own (state tax, in this case) money for social programs, infrastructure, health care, that sort of thing.

But when you look past the usual "I'm a Republican and I hate welfare now pay me money for my rotting crops!" hypocrisy, and look at what Trump has been saying to the UN and NATO -- pay your way -- we see the inherent hypocrisy is on full display here. Trump has two choices:
A) Throw money into a pit, or
B) Withhold aid from red states because they aren't paying for themselves.

If he picks B he loses votes. If he picks A, he's a hypocrite. Trump should have a problem with how Trump is handling this. And the rabid fanbase should, to.

Sorry. I don't make the rules. But I do point out when y'all not following them.

[Felya]

Of course higher GDP states pay more in federal taxes. Their complaint is that Red states are recipients of a much greater share of federal aid. They hate conservatives more than they like helping poor people it seems.

Wait until a democrat president chooses to punish them for it. Those coastal elites and welfare queens...

[-Nurot]

So it's actually Trump's fault that the House isn't proposing infrastructure legislation. Got it.

And Bernie Sanders never embraced Trump's infrastructure proposals. What’s really sad is how transparent Bernie's lies are and you still manage to believe him. <--using your horrible logic!

Um...... What?

There was no semblance of reality in any of that.

https://www.politico.com/interactive...ture-timeline/

Here's the timeline up until early 2018. Trump told congress it'd cost 1.2 trillion dollars, 200 billion of which would be over the next 10 years, but as for who he planned on paying for it... At one point he wanted to privatize, then he got told that was a bad idea so he changed his mind, but for the most part he always wanted the majority to be states using their own funds.

If the states had the money they would have just done it themselves to begin with. They don't, hence the infrastructure problems we are having.

You can also see over the course of 2017 and early 2018 horrible drafts of a plan being revealed and then scrapped and any sort of real proposal being pushed back further and further. In fact it's 2019 and we're still waiting on a serious proposal from Republicans or the White House.

His only serious proposal for infrastructure, to date, that had any sort of detail? Proposed budget cuts to infrastructure on May 23, 2017. Budget CUTS. That's not an infrastructure plan. In reality, saying, it's going to cost 1.2 trillion so we should slash federal funding, is actually the opposite of a plan.

Here's his pretty little speech where he promises a revitalized infrastructure and more jobs saying it will cost 1.2 trillion, but with no real plan. More showmanship from the con-mander-in-chief, to pretend he cares.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings...ress-congress/

You'll also notice that Democrats said they were excited to work with Trump on an infrastructure bill and they hoped he'd actually be willing to do what he said he wanted to, despite his Republican leash. Bernie and the rest came up with this plan on January 24th, 2017. They figured it would cost 1.6 trillion for an infrastructure project. That's before Trump's admin figured it'd take 1.2, before he proposed budget cuts to infrastructure and before he gave himself and his buddies 2.2 trillion worth of tax breaks over 10 years starting in 2018.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov//fi...ure1.24.17.pdf

Republicans were never very excited about a big infrastructure project. Trump even noted in late 2016 “we’re talking about a very large-scale infrastructure bill. And that’s not a very Republican thing.” Infrastructure, is a great talking point but, as proven, he rather cut taxes for the rich and cut infrastructure spending while pretending a proposal is coming. Hey, he can always use it as a great 2020 campaign issue, right?

As for the House, it did offer an infrastructure proposal at least once, on February 18, 2018. So much for that lie as well.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?440922...structure-plan

TL : DR

Democrats- Excited about infrastructure.

Dems in Senate - 2017 Proposal

Dems in House - 2018 Proposal

Trump - 2017 Hey infrastructure will cost 1.2 Trillion, we should privatize, unless you tell me not to, and make the states come up with their own funding. If you Repubs don't like it, oh well, at least I can tell people I tried. Don't worry though we've got 2.2 trillion in tax breaks coming so it doesn't actually matter.

Repubs in House and Senate- No thanks, hard pass on infrastructure, but we'll take the tax breaks.