Topic: Starve the poor and dilute our fuels. Why?

[70CB750]

Data bit old, isn't it?

[simon#42]

yes it is , but is still interesting . excuse my ignorance but why is the north having to subsidise the south so much ?

[TwoTired]

yes it is , but is still interesting . excuse my ignorance but why is the north having to subsidise the south so much ?

Because the North doesn't want the military "Riff Raff" in their states? 
"In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars. "
FYI: It's actually much cheaper to operate the Military in the warmer climes.
Anyway, you don't place a big Military complex in the heart of Densely populated areas (not that they don't grow up around such places after the fact).  War games, air bases, weapons test facilities, etc., are naturally located in sparsely populated locales.  Less people, less taxable income.  Not too hard to see why gross dollar presentations appear to be a "subsidy".

The posted data is only "interesting" if you don't find it useful where the money went and who ultimately benefited from it.

[calj737]

Those charts are interesting. I'd love to understand the actual data behind them. I don't dispute the validity of them; but I can certainly envision why certain states (mine, VA) have a large percentage of Fed $ spent here. Much of the Federal IT budget is spent with companies having business residence in VA. W have an extraordinary amount of Federal employees who live in the state, just look at our traffic to and from DC daily. Then, there is the Military bases as TT mentioned.

SRust, I don't dispute that this states economy benefits from a Federal dollars. But that's not the same thing as "subsidies", or Government creation of an economy. At least not in my perspective. And none of that has anything to do with my prior desire for "SR" being restored and honored.

But since you were so very kind to PM, I will proceed without any further elaboration on that point as I understand it has very different meanings to many people.

I still desire to find a solution to programs and requirements like this Ethanol issue for all Americans, and in large part, for other countries that either need the food or fuel. I don't like it one bit.

Cheers-

[ofreen]

yes it is , but is still interesting . excuse my ignorance but why is the north having to subsidise the south so much ?

Not too hard to see why gross dollar presentations appear to be a "subsidy".

The posted data is only "interesting" if you don't find it useful where the money went and who ultimately benefited from it.

Another factor in this is that nearly 90% of federal land is in the west. 63% of Idaho is federal land. To compare states by federal dollars in and out really is the proverbial apples and oranges comparison.

[simon#42]

yes it is , but is still interesting . excuse my ignorance but why is the north having to subsidise the south so much ?

Because the North doesn't want the military "Riff Raff" in their states? 
"In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars. "
FYI: It's actually much cheaper to operate the Military in the warmer climes.
Anyway, you don't place a big Military complex in the heart of Densely populated areas (not that they don't grow up around such places after the fact).  War games, air bases, weapons test facilities, etc., are naturally located in sparsely populated locales.  Less people, less taxable income.  Not too hard to see why gross dollar presentations appear to be a "subsidy".

The posted data is only "interesting" if you don't find it useful where the money went and who ultimately benefited from it.

thanks i understand a bit better now .

[JeffSTL]

yes it is , but is still interesting . excuse my ignorance but why is the north having to subsidise the south so much ?

Because the North doesn't want the military "Riff Raff" in their states? 
"In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars. "
FYI: It's actually much cheaper to operate the Military in the warmer climes.
Anyway, you don't place a big Military complex in the heart of Densely populated areas (not that they don't grow up around such places after the fact).  War games, air bases, weapons test facilities, etc., are naturally located in sparsely populated locales.  Less people, less taxable income.  Not too hard to see why gross dollar presentations appear to be a "subsidy".

The posted data is only "interesting" if you don't find it useful where the money went and who ultimately benefited from it.

thanks i understand a bit better now .

Two tired, while you make a good point, it hardly explains the situation. It's a complicated socioeconomic issue. Southern states have the highest rates of poverty. How much higher would the poverty rates be without all of those military base jobs? Without all of those military jobs how much more assistance would they need? The south has the highest percentage of people on wellfare. The south has the least educated workforce. While southern states had (and still have) weak labor laws, the north was heavily unionized, which, lead to a much broader and more stable tax base of a prospering middle class.

[calj737]

Jeff - you raise some interesting points. I'd be curious to see a graph from the Census Bureau and the IRS that charts the total corporate and personal income revenue collected by state, what percentage of the total national rate that is, and then a per capita analysis.

Overlay the median income range, Welfare and poverty statistics. That would be very interesting indeed. I don't think that heavily unionized states would show up with as strong a middle class as is suggested.

But again, I'd like to see real evidence to actually prove these points, as I certainly could be wrong.

[TwoTired]

Two tired, while you make a good point, it hardly explains the situation.

Er, what "situation" was I trying to explain?

It's a complicated socioeconomic issue.

It certainly can be.  Depending on how it is defined and how many facts are hidden or subverted.

Southern states have the highest rates of poverty. How much higher would the poverty rates be without all of those military base jobs?

This is like the "How long have you been beating your wife?", argument.  Where the assumption is buried within the question.  However, it is still only conjecture based on what ifs and supposition.    The bases HAVE been placed there, and the population, indigenous or imported, adapted to what they were subjected to endure.  One could also ask how much higher the poverty rates would have been if all the military base jobs were comprised of only southern locals.  Couldn't be that northern imports drove locals into poverty, could it?

The south's climate naturally has a much longer growing season for a wider variety of plant species, making it more suitable for raising crops on sparsely peopled large land areas.  The north has long periods where the only suitable production is inside factories and office buildings.  I don't think it is a coincidence that wall street investment, banking, and insurance companies are primarily located in the north where they pay minimum dollar for food products.

Further, it is easier to simply survive in warmer climates, without the risk of losing fingers and toes to frostbite. The south with it's warmer climate, allows those with less resources to survive through the seasons.
One might argue that the northerners have already killed off those locals that didn't pay the piper for their very survival during cold winters.  Its the adapt or die scenario.

Also, there are some cultures that don't measure their self worth or fulfilling life enrichment based on wall street standards of the almighty dollar or having the most possessions that a consumer exploiting society constantly preaches as the essence of life itself.

Without all of those military jobs how much more assistance would they need?

They can grow more food, and year round, than the northern states can.
What is it they need from the North?  An investment banker, perhaps?  Paving supplies?  Tourists?

We could also ask, without the military personnel garnered from those states, would there even be "wealthy" Northern states?

The south has the highest percentage of people on wellfare.

Can you quote a source for this claim?

The south has the least educated workforce.

  Can you cite your sources for this conclusion?

[JeffSTL]

Two tired, while you make a good point, it hardly explains the situation.

Er, what "situation" was I trying to explain?

Er, not sure what you are confused about. Simon asked why the north is subsidizing the south and you explained it away by saying it was because of military spending. I'm suggesting there is much more to it than that.

This isn't easy to do on my phone. I'll do my best in brief moments of down time in my 15hr work day.

[JeffSTL]

The south has the least educated workforce.

  Can you cite your sources for this conclusion?

Here's a handy little color coded map.
Again, at work and not at a computer.

[JeffSTL]

The south has the highest percentage of people on wellfare.

Can you quote a source for this claim?

Another quick map. Darker blue=higher percentage of welfare recipients.

[JeffSTL]

Further, it is easier to simply survive in warmer climates, without the risk of losing fingers and toes to frostbite. The south with it's warmer climate, allows those with less resources to survive through the seasons.
One might argue that the northerners have already killed off those locals that didn't pay the piper for their very survival during cold winters.  Its the adapt or die scenario.

Also, there are some cultures that don't measure their self worth or fulfilling life enrichment based on wall street standards of the almighty dollar or having the most possessions that a consumer exploiting society constantly preaches as the essence of life itself.

Easier to survive so long as you don't mind being hungry. Some cultures might measure their self worth based on how well they treat their fellow citizens.

Map info graphics are cool!

[JeffSTL]

Seems that, while already leading in education, the north is increasing spending on education as the south continues to cut.

Bonus info graphic

[calj737]

Jeff - I saw those graphs too this AM after googling. I certainly won't dispute your contribution based upon that data. I do, however, dispute that this data supports larger subsidies to these states.

For instance, these are percentages, not total numbers. Compare a population of 100,000 with a 15% poverty rate. 15,000 in poverty, right? Contrast that with a population of 500,000 with a poverty rate of 10%. 50,000 in poverty. Now, I'd certainly argue that the population in some of these other states is significantly higher and despite a lower poverty rate, has a much larger population in poverty. Wouldn't you agree?

You make the most salient point of all us when you say, it's complicated. It most certainly is. Without comparing population, income tax contribution as a total, Welfare, food stamps, long term unemployment, high school graduation rates, etc....all in the same chart, I think we'd have to agree that any conclusion can be mustered to support multiple arguments.

Climate has an enormous effect on cost of living, incomes, and sustainability. I'm not even sure how one could accurately dissect these factors and produce an incontrovertible argument to associate poverty within regions. All I know is that we have data on who/where/how many live in poverty, and we still can't seem to redress the problem effectively. That's what cranks me up!

Throwing more money at these problems hasn't yielded better results. Time for better ideas to do our collective best to put a true, final nail in the coffin of poverty. But my opinion, nobody in Washington has had a proper idea on how to remedy it for the past 50 years. Shameful, bloody shameful.

I'm unclear on your point of "How well we treat our fellow citizens". I would argue that someone being in poverty in the South, probably has a better chance of growing their own food, raising their own "private livestock" and NOT being hungry than someone in a less sub-tropical climate. Surely, you'd agree with that?

[calj737]

Seems that, while already leading in education, the north is increasing spending on education as the south continues to cut.

Bonus info graphic

The danger with relying solely on a graph showing percentages is, how much total dollars is being spent, or was being spent? One could easily infer the inverse of your argument by saying that these states (now showing growth) had been substantially UNDERSPENDING for far too long.

I'm reminded of some advice given to me by learned man, "Liars figure, and figures lie". That is NOT directed at you, Jeff, but I was offering it up as an explanation of why I'm dubious to grab headline numbers and believe in the conclusions.

You're right, map graphics are cool.

[TwoTired]

The south has the least educated workforce.

  Can you cite your sources for this conclusion?

Here's a handy little color coded map.
Again, at work and not at a computer.

Pretty maps and charts.  But still no source for data.  Such things are usually created to prove a point, and often exclude relevant data.

I can make pretty maps, too.  But, then it wouldn't be from your "trusted" source, whoever or whatever that is.

I'm not sure why you feel so superior to the people of the south.


I still think a key factor is the density of people to land area.  Maybe I'll post some maps and charts, too.

P.S.
Wait, maybe I missed something.  Are you saying your conclusions are based solely on the maps and charts you've posted here?

[JeffSTL]

The south has the least educated workforce.

  Can you cite your sources for this conclusion?

Here's a handy little color coded map.
Again, at work and not at a computer.

Pretty maps and charts.  But still no source for data.  Such things are usually created to prove a point, and often exclude relevant data.

I can make pretty maps, too.  But, then it wouldn't be from your "trusted" source, whoever or whatever that is.

I'm not sure why you feel so superior to the people of the south.


I still think a key factor is the density of people to land area.  Maybe I'll post some maps and charts, too.

Just offering some anecdotal evidence to try to answer the question Simon asked. Again, I'm working 15hrs a day and will not be at a computer, so, you'll have to excuse my lack of sources and citations. This is a forum, I'm not writing a dissertation for my PhD or a column for a newspaper. Just wasting some time while I'm not busy. You are connected to the internet...look it up.

I don't feel superior to people in the south at all. Again, just throwing some things out there to try to offer explanations of why things are the way they are. Hell, I'm from Missouri, not much different than the south. You never feel superior to anyone on this forum, do you?

You seem to have it figured out. Population density...no need to explain yourself to me. Conversation isn't really that interesting.

[TwoTired]

Based on 2008 Data.
This is just military contracts, and doesn't include expenditures by military base personnel dumping their pay dollars in the economy.

[Markcb750]

Percent of residents on ADHD medication by state.