Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The point is that it is a small part of the GDP of these states.
|
That may be your point, but mine was that a great deal of federal spending -- like agriculture subsidies -- is on things that do not promote the free-market competition that you keep waxing about.
Quote:
|
Yes it is true (although I have not seen the numbers I am just trusting you guys on this) just because they recieve slighlty more in federal revenue does not mean they are more dependant on government. You are saying it does.
|
We've posted the numbers here in the past. And I didn't say that those states are more dependant on the federal government -- I said that they hypocritically preach about the notion of small government while expanding the size of the federal government and using it as a instrument to divert money from blue states to red states.
I don't have a cite, but I am fairly confident that you'll find more economic productivity in urban and coastal areas than in rural and land-locked areas. There are surely exceptions -- e.g., I suspect Phoenix is more productive than Buffalo. [/QUOTE]
Quote:
|
Do you understand what the word proportional means? They spend a higher percentage of their GDP not just more money. And our governments don't do more things they just spend more money. We spend more money on education yet have larger class sizes. Go figure.
|
Do you understand that what you say here is not inconsistent with what I say? And read this again: I'm not saying anything about dependancy. I'm not sure where you got that notion.
Quote:
|
The fact remains that these small states have smaller state governments. They have all this century.
|
Somalia has a smaller government, too, and its markets are freer of intrusive regulation. Perhaps you should consider moving to Mogadishu -- it's more American than America!
Quote:
|
No they don't. They might like getting Federal dollars, who wouldn't, they spend less per person on government in South Dakota because they have a much small (proportionally smaller) state government than the big states.
|
See, actually Senator Thune is a Senator, which means that he is a federal legislator who goes to Washington D.C. where he makes the decisions about what money the federal government spends. He is not a state legislator, and I was not talking about state government.
Quote:
|
Yes - it completely refutes your position that the Red States are being hypocritical when they talk about small government. Small states spend a smaller proportion of their GDP on government because their state governments are proportionally smaller. The extra federal revenue does significantly changes this proportion. They pay less money in taxes and less money is spent on government proportionally (even with the extra federal money) than the large states.
|
Horsepucky it does. They are happy to spend your dollars and mine, but are cheap with their money, which they don't have as much of because their economy is significantly less robust than ours, which is why lots of people move to Silicon Valley for jobs but no one moves to Rapid City unless they're crack-addled.
Quote:
|
The small red states believe in smaller government and they practice what they preach. The tax themselves less and the proportional revenue from all government programs they receive is less than people in big states. That is the reality despite all the hot air you guys have been spewing.
|
Your little theories work wonderfully if you ignore the federal government, which is only what we are talking about.
