Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is it bunk? In general, more urban blue states are more productive for the economy and, yes, create more wealth. They also, in general, get less federal "pork" per capita than more rural red states.
I note how you very carefully claimed "pork per capita" not pork.. right.. got ya..
As I said before, charts, tables, etc. can be quite misleading depending on how they are presented. The same can be said about per-capita data on crime, sexual abuse, etc.
I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat but can clearly see that a lot of the poorest areas in the nation, and the ghettos of the inner cities, have a lot of inhabitants and are mostly governed not by conservatives. Don't believe me? Start with Washington, DC, Louisiana, the ghettos in NY, CA, and other major cities. These poor, which include illegal immigrants from around the world, receive all kinds of help from local and Federal governments.
No surprize the red states aren't carrying their weight.. MAybe we would be better off we let them go?
how would you protect the USA if they left? most of the military comes from those states, plus the fact that almost all of the ICBM's are in red states.
how would you protect the USA if they left? most of the military comes from those states, plus the fact that almost all of the ICBM's are in red states.
I looked briefly at the statistics (recruit-to-population ratio) on that and while I need to dig in to it deeper, you appear to be generally on target. I think Montana was #1 and interestingly next-door neighbor, North Dakota was #50. New Jersey was #46. Why do you think that is and what does it mean?
Considering that the Pentagon with its enormous expenditures is located in Washington D.C., that ratio should not be surprising. Washington D.C. actually has a relatively small population of 600,000. The only "state" with a smaller population is Wyoming.
Read my post a few pages back. The Pentagon is in NoVA, Arlington to be exact. It's not in DC. Accordingly, the money spent there is counted towards Virginia's total.
How is it bunk? In general, more urban blue states are more productive for the economy and, yes, create more wealth. They also, in general, get less federal "pork" per capita than more rural red states.
The incomes in these states are higher, yes, but that doesn't mean higher productivity. The price of goods are also higher. In California, for instance, you have incomes in the 60Ks while the average house for much of that time was ~500K. In LA more specifically, the average income was 50K for a household, while the cost of a home was ~500K. This is severe asset price inflation compared to incomes, which means there is a deadweight loss somewhere. Many of these states have higher incomes because of deadweight loss. Basically, you need more money to pay for certain regulations and taxes or else it becomes harder to live there. Thus incomes are propped up artificially to cover minimum expenses, which causes businesses to raise prices. That's why people who were making 70K in some of these housing bubbles were "poor" and thought they couldn't make it. That's why many of the people can't qualify for temporary government services when they are needed.
In short: when prices of assets exceed incomes by a high amount, you're usually not as productive as you should be because you're unable to provide an affordable equilibrium price for your citizens.
Considering that the Pentagon with its enormous expenditures is located in Washington D.C., that ratio should not be surprising. Washington D.C. actually has a relatively small population of 600,000. The only "state" with a smaller population is Wyoming.
No doubt but if liberals are going to play the game that we're going to ignore the context of the report, I'm just wondering why they can't asnwer for DC by the same standards.
It figures you would post out of date data to make your point.
They are the most recent available and three years is hardly ancient news, if you would have taken the time to check the site, you'd see that the past 25 years results remain fairly consistent. But YOU will believe whatever you want as that is your nature.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
