Red State Socialism

[Phred42]

Redistribution of wealth anyone?



http://democraticactionteam.org/redstatesocialism/index.html

[Dervish]

1. wow! very informative!

time to go show this to every blind mccain supporter i know.

[maxsolomon]

2. what's the story in New Mexico?

that's a really nice return rate!

[Betsy Ross]

5. New Mexico has a very large population of poor people.

Some counties rank at the lowest income level of the country. Low incomes in some areas are off-set by some very rich owners of large ranches.

[Tesha]

18. Los Alamos National Labs, Sandia, White Sands Missile Range, etc.

Defense spending. That's the key to a *LOT* of the Red State expenditures.

Tesha

[Selatius]

3. I figured my state of Mississippi was near the bottom. We can beat New Mexico next time.

Sometimes you got to laugh at your predicament.

[Blue_In_AK]

4. Oh, man, now I'm pissed off!

How did Mississippi and New Mexico beat us out??!! Boy, that's disturbing.

[fascisthunter]

6. Very Interesting

[rucky]

7. This is pure gold!

thanks

[hfojvt]

8. a very stupid and divisive table

For one thing, Iowa is not a red state. We voted for Gore in 2000. A number of other states are swing states too. Including Minnesota and Wisconsin. What about Kansas though? Why is it a red state when it has a Democratic governor? The blue state California has a Republican governor, and I guarantee that there are more Bush voters in California than there were in Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas combined. Is North Dakota a red state? Why? They have two Democratic Senators unlike the supposedly blue state of Minnesota which also has a Republican governor. And there are more examples too I bet. Like Montana.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. The red/blue appears to be determined by which presidential candidate

got their electoral votes in 2004.

[hfojvt]

14. that's why it's a stupid definition though

Red states like Kansas have gone Republican in every Presidential election of the last 90 years or so, except perhaps in 1962 and 1936. Same with most of the Republican west, and also with the Republican south post 1968 (except in 1976) but Iowa and Missouri do not belong in this group.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. It should be updated after this election.

[depakid]

13. Federal revenue sharing is also NOT socialism

which just goes to show how few people on either side of the aisle know word one what they're talking about when the issue comes up.

That said, valid arguments can be and are often made that states with the most people who are hostile toward the federal government are also the biggest recipients of its largess.

[hfojvt]

15. it is an example though of using their definition of socialism against them n/t

[depakid]

17. Unfortunately, all it does is further legitimize their ignorance

a better way to put it to them (and I've made heads spin and explode with this) is to cite the VA- which IS a socialist entity.

On the one hand, they don't oppose the VA (make's 'em look unsympathic to veterans- Hey, you don't support the troops).

And it gives one an in to explain what socialism actually is- and why things like progressive tax brackets and programs like medicare (or single payer systems like Canada's) have nothing to do with it.

[Romulox]

21. A flow of monies in one direction isn't "sharing". nt

[pokerfan]

9. “We’re set up, unlike other states in the union...."

“We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
(Palin before she was the GOP VP nominee)

[BrklynLiberal]

10. Ah yes. I remember that this information was also posted during

the 2004 election.
It sure proves the point about "socialism", and exactly who is giving more than they get and vice versa.
It sure is beyond ironic that the very people who benefit the most from American "socialism" are the very people
who are ranting the loudest against it.

[chollybocker]

12. Alaska at #3??

But that's unpossible!

[Romulox]

19. This is a direct result of the UNDEMOCRATIC nature of the US Congress. nt

[Dark]

20. So, red states have better lobbyists and congressmen?

nt/

[Romulox]

22. No, they have more Senators per person, since there is no proportional representation in the Senate.