Can you pay down the debt WITHOUT growing the "economy"?

[expat_panama]

...Takers - Blue 11 Red 18 Givers - Blue 9 Red 3 Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance...

...federal aid does not necessarily prove there is economic hardship; a better indicator of economic pain is the unemployment rate. Compare the above blue/red state map to this one that shows unemployment rates:

Here are the average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Combining our two maps shows three things:

1. Federal money does not help the poor.
2. People don't want federal money coming to their states and they vote to stop it.
3. Small gov't policies let people get jobs and big gov't policies make people poor.

... on what information do we conclude; "Apparently not only is the aid going to those who are not in need, it's going to areas where the populations do not want the aid."? If it is means tested and applied for then it is both needed and desired. So who doesn't want it based on what info?

Here is a list of data that will be needed to nail down the idea...

Huh.

The Mother Jones map & the giver/taker thing was fine w/o those data. Now that we've found the 'economic concepts' hypothesis lacking, the situation's evolved to where there's a data list could be useful now even though it wasn't needed then.

My take is we're grasping at straws to shore up a failing belief.

 

[itfitzme]

This gets updated regularly

Monday Map: Federal Aid to State Budgets | Tax Foundation

 

[itfitzme]

...Takers - Blue 11 Red 18 Givers - Blue 9 Red 3 Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance...

...federal aid does not necessarily prove there is economic hardship; a better indicator of economic pain is the unemployment rate. Compare the above blue/red state map to this one that shows unemployment rates:

Here are the average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Combining our two maps shows three things:

1. Federal money does not help the poor.
2. People don't want federal money coming to their states and they vote to stop it.
3. Small gov't policies let people get jobs and big gov't policies make people poor.

... on what information do we conclude; "Apparently not only is the aid going to those who are not in need, it's going to areas where the populations do not want the aid."? If it is means tested and applied for then it is both needed and desired. So who doesn't want it based on what info?

Here is a list of data that will be needed to nail down the idea...

Huh.

The Mother Jones map & the giver/taker thing was fine w/o those data. Now that we've found the 'economic concepts' hypothesis lacking, the situation's evolved to where there's a data list could be useful now even though it wasn't needed then.

My take is we're grasping at straws to shore up a failing belief.

My take is that you are jumping to a conclusion on belief, including having one, based on insufficient information.

 

[itfitzme]

...those maps present nothing about how the monies are distributed, for what, or to whom. Your conclusion depends on assumptions of things that those maps do not indicate.

According to the US Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
SIPP Table Packages...

Let's not change the story here. Back in your post #218 you provided these links as the basis of Mother Jones' red-state-federal-aid flimflam:

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

Federal Aid to States, 2010
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

--so the percapita aid were talking about came from his map--

--so the study was based on aid to state and local governments. Apparently not only is the aid going to those who are not in need, it's going to areas where the populations do not want the aid.

Our tax dollars at work.

I didn't change any story. You jumped to a conclusion based on the data that I posted, stripped my comments that didn't support your conclusion, then argued against the strawman you created.

The difficulty you are having is that you accept or reject info based on your a priori disposition and assume everyone else does. That isn't how science and deductive reasoning works. Deductive reasoning gathers a complete set of data first. Abductive reasoning draws a conclusion from an incomplete set, taking the anecdotal data that insufficiently proves the a priori conclusion.

 

[itfitzme]

Pulling the tax foundation and the MJ map together,

The tax foundation is a 2007 study;

"Produced in 2007, this highly-cited study tabulates the state-by-state burden of all categories of federal taxes, comparing it to the flow of federal spending back to each state, bringing the two sides of federal fiscal operations together. Thanks to a steeply progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes, payments that are unlikely ever to be matched by federal spending directed to those states. Ironically, most of these high-paying states are the so-called blue states. Other factors include whether states have powerful Members of Congress, the number of federal employees present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements."

"The 2005 data are the most recent we have available on this topic. (We are currently seeking funding to update this study.) "

Seems to be a formal study.

Federal Taxes Paid vs. Spending Received by State | Tax Foundation

The question is if the two give about the same results across the years.

-----------------------------------------------

The urban/metropolitan correlation is very significant. It screams environmental cause for socio-economic effects. This is an environmental driver of socio-economic indicators like, GSP, UE, Emp Ratio, Federal Tax Revenue, Wage Index, voting patterns, and on and on. It means that a correlation will be found between GSP, UE, Emp Ratio, Federal Tax Revenue, Wage Index, voting patterns, job density, resource density, money supply density, and on and on. Causality will be incorrectly assigned between the the host of driven factors where, in fact, it is simply an environmental factor that accounts for all of them. And, there is likely feedback and interconnection between processes.

My sense of it is that the best possible data set would be on a county by county basis.

Here is a study of county by county election data.
County Voting Patterns

The goal of this project was to examine presidential elections at a county level over the last 40 years in the contiguous 48 states. Because of problems with data consistency the analysis was limited to the 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000 general elections.

They have a nifty animation here: Election Map

--------------------------------------------------

More significant, is this

This shows conclusively that the single greatest and most significant driver is population density.

How significant is it? You think your voting choices is because of your intelligent considerations?

You would be wrong. Your voting can be predicted on the basis of the density of the population around you.

It is your environment that CAUSES you to vote the way you do.

Free-will, free-dom, my ass.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, from the tax foundation, the 2005 rankings of federal spending per tax dollar received for each state is



Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005 | Tax Foundation

Show me a chart that shows taxes paid by republicans vs. democrats. Then show me a chart that shows welfare dollars spent on republicans vs. democrats. This fantasy of yours that there are no republicans in New York earning money or democrats in Texas collecting welfare is just whacko.

 

[itfitzme]

Ethnicity further refines the prediction.

"The real drivers seem to be density and diversity. Density (such as found in cities) corresponds with diversity. Diversity leads to progressive voting behavior."

http://davetroy.com/posts/category/trends

 

[itfitzme]

Here we go, the consolidated federal funds reports.

Consolidated Federal Funds Report

Note:

"Due to the termination of the Federal Financial Statistics program, the Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR) website, including the On-Line Query System, is no longer available."

Now, why would anyone want to terminate this program?

These are the Census Bureau Reports.

Federal, State, & Local Governments ? Census Bureau Reports about Governments

 

[itfitzme]

This is the IRS Excel File of Federal Revenues By State For 2007

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07db05co.xls*

 

[itfitzme]

And the full FTP data site for the IRS by state, federal tax revenues

which yields

Table 5. Gross Collections, by Type of Tax and State, Fiscal Year 2010

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10db05co.xls

which combined with

Federal Government Grants and Other Payments to State and Local Governments, by Agency
and for Selected Programs, by State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2010 page 16, and others.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

 

[itfitzme]

So this is the comparison of Fed$Granted/Fed$Collected Vs Population Density



The variance actually gets larger, more than anything else. As the population density increases, the variation decreases and the State moves towards providing much more than it receives.

These are based on total Federal Tax Receipts and all Federal Grant Monies.

Table 5. Gross Collections, by Type of Tax and State, Fiscal Year 2010

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10db05co.xls

Table 1. Federal Government Grants and Other Payments to State and Local Governments, by Agency and for Selected Programs, by State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2010
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

 

[itfitzme]

Here is the calculated data

State Grants Collected Pop Ratio Granted To Collected Pop Density RatioR-RD RatioR-D
New Jersey $16,309,163 $118,942,547 8,791,894 0.14 1,195.50 0.38 0.61 D
Minnesota $10,871,859 $68,010,129 5,303,925 0.16 66.6 0.39 0.65 D
Connecticut $7,673,349 $43,997,544 3,574,097 0.17 738.1 0.35 0.54 D
Nebraska $3,121,977 $17,641,943 1,826,341 0.18 23.8 0.59 1.41 R
Virginia $10,647,181 $57,954,746 8,001,024 0.18 202.6 0.52 1.08 R
Colorado $7,650,615 $39,288,418 5,029,196 0.19 48.5 0.51 1.06 R
Illinois $23,193,956 $111,038,760 12,830,632 0.21 231.1 0.40 0.67 D
Massachusetts $15,120,981 $71,418,253 6,547,629 0.21 839.4 0.23 0.30 D
Ohio $23,072,473 $106,483,026 11,536,504 0.22 282.3 0.51 1.03 R
Delaware $3,325,253 $15,327,877 897,934 0.22 460.8 0.38 0.62 D
Arkansas $6,417,566 $28,249,718 2,915,918 0.23 56 0.43 0.76 D
Maryland $10,832,455 $47,672,215 5,773,552 0.23 594.8 0.33 0.48 D
Texas $43,732,317 $189,142,112 25,145,561 0.23 96.3 0.68 2.14 R
Indiana $10,400,147 $43,319,888 6,483,802 0.24 181 0.59 1.44 R
California $66,565,008 $273,353,106 37,253,956 0.24 239.1 0.41 0.70 D
Washington $11,944,680 $48,437,113 6,724,540 0.25 101.2 0.43 0.74 D
Florida $27,731,390 $111,364,742 18,801,310 0.25 350.6 0.47 0.88 D
Pennsylvania $26,290,942 $101,858,754 12,702,379 0.26 283.9 0.42 0.73 D
Georgia $15,879,057 $60,505,759 9,687,653 0.26 168.4 0.58 1.38 R
Kansas $4,979,729 $18,820,984 2,853,118 0.26 34.9 0.62 1.63 R
North Carolina $15,521,727 $57,548,933 9,535,483 0.27 196.1 0.42 0.71 D
Missouri $12,716,668 $46,099,972 5,988,927 0.28 87.1 0.51 1.05 R
Rhode Island $2,943,662 $10,510,440 1,052,567 0.28 1,018.10 0.22 0.29 D
Nevada $3,610,308 $12,881,374 2,700,551 0.28 24.6 0.47 0.88 D
Wisconsin $10,710,023 $38,212,743 5,686,986 0.28 105 0.47 0.89 D
Tennessee $12,513,949 $44,557,310 6,346,105 0.28 153.9 0.53 1.12 R
New Hampshire $2,355,468 $8,377,325 1,316,470 0.28 147 0.50 1.00 D
New York $61,341,252 $200,209,720 19,378,102 0.31 411.2 0.34 0.51 D
Utah $4,211,998 $13,528,119 2,763,885 0.31 33.6 0.74 2.80 R
Iowa $5,871,249 $17,576,087 3,046,355 0.33 54.5 0.51 1.03 R
Oklahoma $8,022,194 $23,398,453 3,751,351 0.34 54.7 0.45 0.82 D
Michigan $19,646,277 $53,797,386 9,883,640 0.37 174.8 0.45 0.83 D
Oregon $7,849,235 $21,138,851 3,831,074 0.37 39.9 0.43 0.76 D
Louisiana $13,436,716 $34,562,547 4,533,372 0.39 104.9 0.34 0.51 D
Hawaii $2,519,624 $6,280,828 1,360,301 0.40 211.8 0.37 0.58 D
Kentucky $9,756,383 $23,383,446 4,339,367 0.42 109.9 0.41 0.69 D
Arizona $13,369,959 $31,678,131 6,392,017 0.42 56.3 0.53 1.13 R
Alabama $8,608,682 $19,895,499 4,779,736 0.43 94.4 0.59 1.41 R
South Carolina $8,295,544 $17,360,842 4,625,364 0.48 153.9 0.57 1.33 R
Idaho $3,057,136 $6,216,877 1,567,582 0.49 19 0.69 2.27 R
South Dakota $2,145,070 $4,304,997 814,180 0.50 10.7 0.55 1.21 R
North Dakota $2,169,429 $4,283,479 672,591 0.51 9.7 0.57 1.31 R
Maine $3,580,856 $5,895,843 1,328,361 0.61 43.1 0.46 0.85 D
Wyoming $2,356,009 $3,830,149 563,626 0.62 5.8 0.72 2.63 R
Vermont $2,044,160 $3,208,532 625,741 0.64 67.9 0.48 0.93 D
Montana $2,809,550 $4,000,333 989,415 0.70 6.8 0.55 1.22 R
Alaska $3,325,600 $4,685,206 710,231 0.71 1.2 0.63 1.73 R
West Virginia $4,830,214 $6,000,615 1,852,994 0.80 77.1 0.35 0.54 D
New Mexico $6,810,761 $7,613,384 2,059,179 0.89 17 0.40 0.67 D
Mississippi $8,610,832 $9,093,125 2,967,297 0.95 63.2 0.55 1.24 R

 

[expat_panama]

...Show me a chart that shows taxes paid by republicans vs. democrats. Then show me a chart that shows welfare dollars spent on republicans vs. democrats...

No problem, here you go:

--It's from the prize winning economic study done by the world famous Social Harmony Institute for Truth.

 

[itfitzme]

There is a slight tendency for Republican leaning states to have lower population density and receive more federal grant monies compared to what they provide in taxes.

Top Ten Contributing States in 2010 (6 of ten Democrat)
State
New Jersey
Minnesota
Connecticut
Nebraska
Virginia
Colorado
Illinois
Massachusetts
Ohio
Delaware

Top Ten Receiving States in 2010 (6 of ten Republican)
South Dakota
North Dakota
Maine
Wyoming
Vermont
Montana
Alaska
West Virginia
New Mexico
Mississippi

The Republican Vs Democrat is determined based on the ratio of registered voters.
Receiving is total grants.

 

[itfitzme]

...Show me a chart that shows taxes paid by republicans vs. democrats. Then show me a chart that shows welfare dollars spent on republicans vs. democrats...

No problem, here you go:

--It's from the prize winning economic study done by the world famous Social Harmony Institute for Truth.

I'm just finding, grabbing, sorting, collating, and calculating the data.

It is moving in the direction of your visual aid. It is highly unlikely that, as I refine things, that it is suddenly going to switch directions.

Right now, the regression is [grant to tax ratio] = -0.0003[pop density] + 0.4253
at R² = 0.1717 (17%)

It will take a while to get it into something that is as nice as your visual aid.

I still want to do means tested programs, see how that works out.

 

[itfitzme]

I read a comment, somewhere along the way, that points out that the cost of living varies from region to region.

I can tell you have it works out. The low population density areas, mostly Republican, have a lower cost of living. So, on the balance, the monies received by those areas is worth more than the average. So, without having accounted for local CPI, the data undervalues the real worth of the aid to Republican States.

 

[itfitzme]

The Top Ten Contributing States in terms of tax dollars to Feds vs Food Program $ received (8 of ten Dems)

Maryland
Colorado
Virginia
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Minnesota
Massachusetts
Delaware
New Jersey
Connecticut

Top Ten Receiving States in terms of Food Program $ Received to Tax Dollars to Sent To Feds (6 of 10 Repubs)

Mississippi
New Mexico
West Virginia
South Carolina
Alabama
Vermont
Montana
South Dakota
Idaho
Kentucky

It all just leans in one direction.

 

[itfitzme]

The reason that was stated for part of the fact that the lean is in the direction of Dem States giving and Repub States receiving is simply cost of living. High pop density states are Dem. They have more money flowing through, so they have higher earnings. Higher earnings equals higher taxes.

That explains the tax part.

It doesn't explain the federal funding part.

Why would low population density, Republican leaning states tend towards higher Grants and Food Program funds?

Can it be that the lower CPI with lower cost of living and lower wage index means that more people meet the means testing standard?

What?

 

[RKMBrown]

The reason that was stated for part of the fact that the lean is in the direction of Dem States giving and Repub States receiving is simply cost of living. High pop density states are Dem. They have more money flowing through, so they have higher earnings. Higher earnings equals higher taxes.

That explains the tax part.

It doesn't explain the federal funding part.

Why would low population density, Republican leaning states tend towards higher Grants and Food Program funds?

Can it be that the lower CPI with lower cost of living and lower wage index means that more people meet the means testing standard?

What?

You are making the very common mistake of tying together disparate statistics as if one must cause the other simply because they occur within the same time span and can be measured.

Very very common mistake.

It's no different than looking at a cloud and seeing a face or an animal. Our minds have a tendency to try to make mountains out of mole hills.

If you were poor where would you want to live, in an expensive state or a less costly state? If you were poor and wanted more for your family would you move to a dead city or a booming city? Would you rather move to detroit or vegas/austin?

Many of the southern states have the number of poor in them that you see based in large part on immigration. Many of the mid to southern states traditionally used migrant farm workers, etc.

You can't blame republican states for being victim to America's inability to defend it's borders, any more than you can give democrats credit for building our largest cities.

There are a ton of republicans making a ton of money in democrat states. There are a ton of democrats getting welfare in republican states. Your assumptions of causality are without merit.

>>> Can it be that the lower CPI with lower cost of living and lower wage index means that more people meet the means testing standard?

No. The lower cost of living is factored in / adjusted by state. However, there is a migratory tendency for people to earn in higher cost of living areas and retire in lower cost of living areas... Thus the annual migration of New Yorkers to Florida.

 

[TooTall]

It's always strange to me when USMB Republicans talk economics. They don't see the two unfunded wars or the Bush tax cuts or the drugs for votes bill as "deficit creators". They feel the auto industry should have gone bankrupt. They see no problem with medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy. They want to lower the minimum wage and they feel "supply and demand" are wild liberal theories. It's like they have the opposite opinion of every legitimate economist.

GM and Chrysler DID go bankrupt. Didn't you get the memo?