Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 11, 2013, 03:13 PM   #1
Cave Man
macrumors 604
 
Cave Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Neander Valley, Germany; just outside of Duesseldorf
Red State Socialism

Has there been an update to the Red State Socialism study that was done in the mid-2000s? You know, where republican states get more federal money per capita than do blue states. I suspect it's even worse by now.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini; i5 Quad Core ITX Hackintosh with Blu-ray playback HTPC; 1 TB eSATA Apple TV; 3.8 gHz i7 Quad Core Hackintosh, 2GB HD5870; MacBook Pro i7; MacBook Air; iPhone 4s; 1st Mac=Centris 610
Cave Man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 03:18 PM   #2
skottichan
macrumors 6502a
 
skottichan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Send a message via AIM to skottichan Send a message via MSN to skottichan
This one (with helpful charts and pics) was posted in 2011.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ng-charts-maps
skottichan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 03:21 PM   #3
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Man View Post
Has there been an update to the Red State Socialism study that was done in the mid-2000s? You know, where republican states get more federal money per capita than do blue states. I suspect it's even worse by now.
I don't know of the study to which you refer. I'm not challenging your point, but I have a question...

Assuming Red States do get more Federal pork money...how does that constitute socialism? It does not mean Gov't ownership of those entities receiving Gov't. funds.

Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 03:28 PM   #4
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Man View Post
Has there been an update to the Red State Socialism study that was done in the mid-2000s? You know, where republican states get more federal money per capita than do blue states. I suspect it's even worse by now.

Since it seems you are only looking to tweak righties here, I think it would work better if you used the correct term here, redistribution of wealth.

I say give the tea party what they want. Let's pass a bill that no state can receive more in federal funds than their residents pay in.
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 03:46 PM   #5
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Since it seems you are only looking to tweak righties here, I think it would work better if you used the correct term here, redistribution of wealth.
Even "redistribution of wealth" seems like a loaded statement to me.

How about disproportionate distribution of government assets?
citizenzen is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 03:53 PM   #6
Cave Man
Thread Starter
macrumors 604
 
Cave Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Neander Valley, Germany; just outside of Duesseldorf
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post
This one (with helpful charts and pics) was posted in 2011.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ng-charts-maps
Excellent, that was very helpful.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini; i5 Quad Core ITX Hackintosh with Blu-ray playback HTPC; 1 TB eSATA Apple TV; 3.8 gHz i7 Quad Core Hackintosh, 2GB HD5870; MacBook Pro i7; MacBook Air; iPhone 4s; 1st Mac=Centris 610
Cave Man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 04:00 PM   #7
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Marxist slogans:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" [quoting Marx]
To each according to his contribution
To each according to his contribution is considered by socialists and Marxist socialists as a characteristic of society directly following the transition to socialism, but preceding the final step to communism. This essentially means that people are rewarded based on the amount they contribute to the social product.
This principle formed the basic definition of socialism by its pre-Marxist proponents, most notably Ricardian socialists, social anarchists and democratic socialists.
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 06:11 PM   #8
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
I don't know of the study to which you refer. I'm not challenging your point, but I have a question...

Assuming Red States do get more Federal pork money...how does that constitute socialism? It does not mean Gov't ownership of those entities receiving Gov't. funds.
Because Red State politicians assert that any transfer payments they don't like are "socialism", i.e., bad. It is just using their own (basically Marxist) terminology back at them.

However, there are two major uses of the word "socialism". This is the American/Marxist definition:

Quote:

Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
This is the definition of Socialism that both Marxists and the laissez-faire capitalists could agree on.

There is a European common usage, however, in which "Socialism" means "Welfare State". I have heard "Socialism" used this way frequently over the years. Neither the Marxists nor laissez-faire capitalists like this usage. Language is as language does...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Quote:
The German term Sozialstaat ("social state") has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs devised by German Sozialpolitiker ("social politicians") and implemented as part of Bismarck's conservative reforms. The literal English equivalent "social state" never caught on in Anglophone countries, until the Second World War, when Anglican Archbishop William Temple, author of the book Christianity and the Social Order (1942), popularized the concept using the phrase "welfare state", contrasting wartime Britain's welfare state with the "warfare state" of Nazi Germany. Bishop Temple's use of "welfare state" has been connected to Benjamin Disraeli's 1845 novel Sybil: or the Two Nations (i.e., the rich and the poor), which speaks of "the only duty of power, the social welfare of the PEOPLE.'" At the time he wrote Sybil, Disraeli, later Prime Minister, belonged to Young England, a conservative group of youthful Tories who were appalled by what they saw as the Whig indifference to the horrendous conditions of the industrial poor and attempted to kindle among the privileged classes a sense of responsibility toward the less fortunate and a recognition of the dignity of labor that they imagined had characterized England during the Feudal Middle Ages.

The Italian term stato sociale ("social state") reproduces the German term. The Swedish welfare state is called Folkhemmet literally, "folk home", and goes back to the 1936 compromise between Swedish trade unions and large corporations. Sweden's mixed economy is based on strong unions, a robustly funded system of social security, and universal health care.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 07:31 PM   #9
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Is agriculture subsidies counted in these figures? We all eat the food.
Zombie Acorn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 08:14 PM   #10
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
Is agriculture subsidies counted in these figures? We all eat the food.
In that case California deserves restitution.

We're feeding y'all and giving more than our fair share of federal dollars.

I'll accept Paypal.

Quote:
The state produces nearly half of US-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables. Across the nation, US consumers regularly purchase several crops produced solely in California.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
citizenzen is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 08:26 PM   #11
zin
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
In that case California deserves restitution.

We're feeding y'all and giving more than our fair share of federal dollars.

I'll accept Paypal.
That'll never happen. Don't you know that California is full of socialist-commie-liberal loonies?!

zin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 08:47 PM   #12
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by zin View Post
That'll never happen. Don't you know that California is full of socialist-commie-liberal loonies?!
It shows in our generosity and commitment to the whole of society.

If we were nothing but a bunch of libertarians, the rest of the U.S. would be eating oatmeal three times a day.

citizenzen is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 08:57 PM   #13
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
Is agriculture subsidies counted in these figures? We all eat the food.
The following list of the "top ten" states that receive more than they contribute, from the Slate article Blue State, Red Face: Guess Who Benefits More From Your Taxes?, includes farm subsidies.

Quote:
Top Ten (Source: Tax Foundation):

1. New Mexico Indian reservations, military bases, federal research labs, farm subsidies, retirement programs

2. Mississippi Farm subsidies, military spending, nutrition and anti-poverty aid, retirement programs.

3. Alaska Per capita No 1 recipient of federal benefits; infrastructure projects, DOT and pork projects.

4. Louisiana Disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, military spending.

5. W. Virginia Farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid.

6. N. Dakota Farm subsidies, energy subsidies, retirement and anti-poverty programs, Indian reservations.

7. Alabama Retirement programs, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, federal space/military spending, farm subsidies.

8. S. Dakota Retirement programs, nutrition aid, farm subsidies, military spending, Indian reservations.

9. Virginia Civil service pensions, military spending, veterans benefits, retirement, anti-poverty aid.

10. Kentucky Retirement programs, nutritional and anti-poverty aid, farm subsidies.


Now consider the bottom 10, i.e., the ones that give more to the federal government in taxes than they get in return. From 1 to 10, they are:

New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, Colorado.
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 09:31 PM   #14
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
In that case California deserves restitution.

We're feeding y'all and giving more than our fair share of federal dollars.

I'll accept Paypal.
Well when it comes to subsidies the main staple (for better or worse) is corn, so that is going to heavily skew any numbers we look at because some of the midwest and southern states are big producers.
__________________
--2.6 C2Q 4gb DDR3 GTX 260-Win 7--
--2.0 CE Macbook Alum-Leopard--
Zombie Acorn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 09:59 PM   #15
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
Well when it comes to subsidies the main staple (for better or worse) is corn, so that is going to heavily skew any numbers we look at because some of the midwest and southern states are big producers.
Feel free to cite actual data that supports your "heavily skew" theory.
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 10:04 PM   #16
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
Well when it comes to subsidies the main staple (for better or worse) is corn, so that is going to heavily skew any numbers we look at because some of the midwest and southern states are big producers.
Is there a point to this argument?
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 10:07 PM   #17
ThisIsNotMe
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
In that case California deserves restitution.

We're feeding y'all and giving more than our fair share of federal dollars.

I'll accept Paypal.
Yeah. Well progressives be progressives.
Elect the same ass clowns to the Senate/House year after year as the federal government pillages our state to the point we cant hire teachers and then elect the same ass clowns again.

Laughable.
ThisIsNotMe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 12:26 AM   #18
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
It shows in our generosity and commitment to the whole of society.

If we were nothing but a bunch of libertarians, the rest of the U.S. would be eating oatmeal three times a day.

Hey, not like you never gave that a valiant effort
Thumb resize.



__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 01:10 AM   #19
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
Feel free to cite actual data that supports your "heavily skew" theory.
Well since you are posting "government receipts" and including farm subsidies, I don't see any reason it can't skew these states to the red when compared to other states. The government is basically paying them to overgrow corn. Kansas somehow gets more federal dollars for farming than California.

Feel free to click around on states and let me know if you wish to contest the fact that corn received the highest amount of cash out of any other crop:

http://farm.ewg.org/

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Is there a point to this argument?
Yes, when the liberals are whining about conservative states being in the "red", they seem to forget that alot of that reason is due to government interventions. (ie. overpaying farmers so they grow corn instead of other crops).
__________________
--2.6 C2Q 4gb DDR3 GTX 260-Win 7--
--2.0 CE Macbook Alum-Leopard--
Zombie Acorn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 01:32 AM   #20
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
Well since you are posting "government receipts" and including farm subsidies, I don't see any reason it can't skew these states to the red when compared to other states. The government is basically paying them to overgrow corn. Kansas somehow gets more federal dollars for farming than California.

Feel free to click around on states and let me know if you wish to contest the fact that corn received the highest amount of cash out of any other crop:

http://farm.ewg.org/
hmm. this page from that site seems to put your argument on somewhat shaky ground. Three of the top five states, ten of the top 25 have been blue or blue-ish; California is tenth of fifty.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 02:31 AM   #21
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
... Yes, when the liberals are whining about conservative states being in the "red", they seem to forget that alot of that reason is due to government interventions. (ie. overpaying farmers so they grow corn instead of other crops).
Yes, it's all corn's fault.

Or, just maybe, there are other important aspects (other than corn) that you're chosen to ignore or haven't considered.

Take West Virginia for example. It holds the #5 position on the "top 10" list, receiving a few farm subsidies, but getting lots and lots of anti-poverty and nutrition aid.

The lack of " government interventions" is what has allowed W.Va. to turn into one of the most depressed areas in the nation.

W.Va. is a prime example what happens when free market capitalism is allowed to run amok. Since the time of its first settlements the state has been treated as a colony to be plundered for its natural resources.

Regulations? W.Va. don't need no stinkin' regulations on its extractive industries!

For over 100 years, it has been and still is a great place for coal companies to do business. The companies have never had to bear the true cost of mining coal. The state's politicians have rarely imposed any kind of reasonable restraints on the state's coal industry and other extractive industries.

Is there any wonder why W.Va. receives so much anti-poverty and nutrition aid from the Federal government?

Coal mining is a short-lived industry. Just a soon as a coal town is beginning to grow into a decent place to live, with schools, sewers, and such, the town starts to die out because the mine shuts down. Then, the coal company moves into another part of the state and starts again and the same boom followed by bust cycle starts again.

But hey... people love their cheap electricity. And W.Va. provides much of the cheap coal used at the coal power plants that supply a good many of the big cities and metro-regions in the Eastern U.S.

Unfortunately, the citizens of those areas end up playing the true cost of burning coal in the form of their tax dollars going to W.Va. that's used to help pick up the broken pieces of the communities the coal companies left behind.
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is online now   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 07:56 AM   #22
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
Yes, when the liberals are whining about conservative states being in the "red", they seem to forget that alot of that reason is due to government interventions. (ie. overpaying farmers so they grow corn instead of other crops).
How can you say that we've forgotten this is about government "intervention" when that's the subject of the discussion?

citizenzen is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 08:46 AM   #23
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Send a message via AIM to Ugg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
Well since you are posting "government receipts" and including farm subsidies, I don't see any reason it can't skew these states to the red when compared to other states. The government is basically paying them to overgrow corn. Kansas somehow gets more federal dollars for farming than California.

Feel free to click around on states and let me know if you wish to contest the fact that corn received the highest amount of cash out of any other crop:

http://farm.ewg.org/

----------



Yes, when the liberals are whining about conservative states being in the "red", they seem to forget that alot of that reason is due to government interventions. (ie. overpaying farmers so they grow corn instead of other crops).
Kansas mostly only grows cattle feed corn, not food. CA's two biggest subsidies are for cotton and rice. Real People Food receives hardly any federal dollars. Corn subsidies are at the root of the obesity problem in the USA whether from HFC or from fatty beef and pork. The sooner the corn growers are weaned from the federal teat, the better. I have a theory that states that get the m

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
Well since you are posting "government receipts" and including farm subsidies, I don't see any reason it can't skew these states to the red when compared to other states. The government is basically paying them to overgrow corn. Kansas somehow gets more federal dollars for farming than California.

Feel free to click around on states and let me know if you wish to contest the fact that corn received the highest amount of cash out of any other crop:

http://farm.ewg.org/

----------



Yes, when the liberals are whining about conservative states being in the "red", they seem to forget that alot of that reason is due to government interventions. (ie. overpaying farmers so they grow corn instead of other crops).
Kansas mostly only grows cattle feed corn, not food. CA's two biggest subsidies are for cotton and rice. Real People Food receives hardly any federal dollars. Corn subsidies are at the root of the obesity problem in the USA whether from HFC or from fatty beef and pork. The sooner the corn growers are weaned from the federal teat, the better. I have a theory that states that get the most federal dollars are most likely to be red. If they were forced to survive on free market policies, we'd find a lot more democrats in office.
Ugg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 08:56 AM   #24
splitpea
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Among the starlings
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
In that case California deserves restitution.

We're feeding y'all and giving more than our fair share of federal dollars.

I'll accept Paypal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
Kansas mostly only grows cattle feed corn, not food. CA's two biggest subsidies are for cotton and rice. Real People Food receives hardly any federal dollars. Corn subsidies are at the root of the obesity problem in the USA whether from HFC or from fatty beef and pork. The sooner the corn growers are weaned from the federal teat, the better. I have a theory that states that get the m

----------


Kansas mostly only grows cattle feed corn, not food. CA's two biggest subsidies are for cotton and rice. Real People Food receives hardly any federal dollars. Corn subsidies are at the root of the obesity problem in the USA whether from HFC or from fatty beef and pork. The sooner the corn growers are weaned from the federal teat, the better. I have a theory that states that get the most federal dollars are most likely to be red. If they were forced to survive on free market policies, we'd find a lot more democrats in office.
Yup. New York, a blue state that pays more in taxes than it receives in federal funding, is the #3 producer of sweet corn (what most of us eat when we eat corn), #2 for apples, #3 for dairy, and a top 5 producer of vegetables in general.

Our tax subsidies are going to cheap meat and corn syrup, the latter of which makes us fat and sick. Good going.

That said, even as a slightly resentful urbanite, I see the point of agricultural subsidies as keeping ourselves self-sufficient as food producers. If we didn't subsidize, prices of American-produced grain would rise, and we'd have more incentive to import it, putting our own farmers out of business and making us dependent on other countries that could use that fact for leverage (see also: middle eastern oil dependency -- this would be even worse) or make us extremely vulnerable in case of a major war.

At the very least, though, we could be spending our subsidies on healthier crops.
__________________
What's the point of a sig showing the system I owned in 2006?
splitpea is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 10:07 AM   #25
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
Assuming Red States do get more Federal pork money...how does that constitute socialism? It does not mean Gov't ownership of those entities receiving Gov't. funds.
In the conservative/GOP view Socialism: Any government program that takes tax dollars and directs them at needy individuals without a $ percentage return.

They tend to discount the social benefits, the overall effect it has on stabilizing society. Of course the same dollars to needy corporations are all well and good, because ultimately corporations are making money for someone, the someone conservatives tend to support.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   3 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jony Ive Designs One-of-a-Kind Red Mac Pro for Product (RED) Charity Auction MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 360 Oct 29, 2013 10:02 AM
Should I stay a state employee or should I leave and get non-state job? determined09 Community Discussion 21 Aug 20, 2013 09:17 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC