Red State Socialism

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cave Man, Aug 11, 2013.

  1. macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #1
    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.
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    skottichan

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #2
  3. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #3
    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
     
  4. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4

    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. :D
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    Even "redistribution of wealth" seems like a loaded statement to me.

    How about disproportionate distribution of government assets?
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #6
  7. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #7
    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.​
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #8
    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:

    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

     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    Is agriculture subsidies counted in these figures? We all eat the food.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    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.

     
  11. zin
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #11
    That'll never happen. Don't you know that California is full of socialist-commie-liberal loonies?! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    :p:D
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    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.

    ;)
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #13
    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.

     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #15
    Feel free to cite actual data that supports your "heavily skew" theory.
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    Is there a point to this argument?
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #18
    Hey, not like you never gave that a valiant effort …
    [​IMG]



    :rolleyes:
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    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).
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    How can you say that we've forgotten this is about government "intervention" when that's the subject of the discussion?

    :confused:
     
  23. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page