A curious paradox of Red and Blue States

  1. This is very interesting. http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/facu...cy-OSUConf.PDF

    Abstract: Thirty of the U.S. states reap more in federal spending than their citizens
    contribute to the federal government in taxes. The other 20 states provide more in taxes than they receive in spending. In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. A state's ratio of federal spending to tax dollars, particularly non-defense spending, is a statistically and substantively significant predictor of Bush's margin of victory across the states. A state's per capita federal tax burden is also associated with the election result: states with higher tax burdens gave higher vote margins to Gore. Compared to Clinton's state-by-state vote shares in 1996, Gore did worse in states that gained in federal spending per tax dollar from 1998 to 2000.
    •  
  2. 6 Comments

  3. by   BeachNurse
    Since I don't have time to read the whole article, and I am assuming you have, I have a question. How does this factor of federal spending trickle down to the average joe's like me who simply voted for a candidate? Did they have some knowledge of these federal spending issues? No one bought my vote, so I am confused.
  4. by   mercyteapot
    beachnurse, the way every tax dollar is spent trickles down to each of us to the extent that a dollar spent on a program we don't agree with is a dollar not spent on one that we do. It is all a matter of seeing tax dollars directed to the priorities we've set. Voters should have some sense of the priorities of the candidates for whom they are casting their votes. Bush made no secret of being pro-defense and Kerry made no secret of being pro-social spending. If that doesn't answer your question, I'm not sure I get what you're asking me.
  5. by   BeachNurse
    So are you saying that EVERYONE who voted for Bush agreed with his spending and EVERYONE who DISagreed with his spending voted for Kerry ?
  6. by   SharonH, RN
    Quote from mercyteapot
    This is very interesting. http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/facu...cy-OSUConf.PDF

    Abstract: Thirty of the U.S. states reap more in federal spending than their citizens
    contribute to the federal government in taxes. The other 20 states provide more in taxes than they receive in spending. In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. A state's ratio of federal spending to tax dollars, particularly non-defense spending, is a statistically and substantively significant predictor of Bush's margin of victory across the states. A state's per capita federal tax burden is also associated with the election result: states with higher tax burdens gave higher vote margins to Gore. Compared to Clinton's state-by-state vote shares in 1996, Gore did worse in states that gained in federal spending per tax dollar from 1998 to 2000.

    It's is a curious paradox but not necessarily a surprising one since a lot of the people who tend to vote for Bush have the most to lose with his policies. It continually amazes me how so many of Bush supporters (NOT ALL) tended to vote against their own best interests.
  7. by   Roy Fokker
    I pray that stories like these will make people wake up and realise how wasteful Government taxation and spending are. I hope people will pressure their representatives to cut taxes and eliminate Govt. services.

    TRIM THE GOVERNMENT! Then we won't be discussing these topics at all. Everything from the "New Deal" to "Trickle down Raeganomics" has been either a myth, a hoax or a plain failure.

    The sooner people realise that, the better.
  8. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from BeachNurse
    So are you saying that EVERYONE who voted for Bush agreed with his spending and EVERYONE who DISagreed with his spending voted for Kerry ?
    Well, no, I'm not saying that. Just that it is up to the individual voter to identify what priorities they have and then choose the candidate that comes closest to sharing those values and will govern thusly. For some people, the spending of public dollars isn't their chief priority, and so they voted based on other criteria. I still find it very interesting that, in theory, you would expect that the blue states would have been the ones that benefit the most from social spending, given their candidates' support of those programs, and the red states would be contributing more than they were taking out, which, as this report documents, is not the case at all.

close