Unfair Taxation Without Adequate Representation: Red States rip-off Blue States

[editec]

Here's an example from todays headlines:

Apportionment of Stimulus Funding by State

See the chart next to the map.

Here's an example:

California has 36,756,666 people living in it, and received 25.66 Billion in funding.

That's $698.00 per person.

Montana has 967,440 people living in it, and received 1.15 Billion in funding.

That's $1189.00 per person.

As of 2007, the average Californian paid $8,590.18 in Federal Taxes.

The average person in Montana? $4,721.65

What's that all about?

The ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Seriously, that's why that happens.

 

[Vast LWC]

Most federal programs are progressive designed to help low income States the most.

That is an interesting point, but the inequalities seem to be at their highest when Republicans are in the majority.

Which seems to back up the theory that the inequality is caused by representation issues, not progressive politics.

 

[Vast LWC]

Using 'per capita' is a sham

Really?

Well then I guess we need to start taxing Red States at a higher rate then to make up the difference. After all, if we're throwing Per Capita out the window, why not, right?

And while we're at it, we may as well do away with this whole "census" thing. I'm sure our best guestimate will suffice.

 

[xsited1]

Most federal programs are progressive designed to help low income States the most.

That is an interesting point, but the inequalities seem to be at their highest when Republicans are in the majority.

Which seems to back up the theory that the inequality is caused by representation issues, not progressive politics.

That's an interesting theory. The economy certainly does better when the Republicans control Congress. The Federal programs which you were complaining about in the OP ARE progessive in nature, which answers your question. If you don't want the money to go to 'Red' States, remove progressives. It's really simple.

 

[bodecea]

Of course I highly doubt to get much of a reponse from right-wingers on a thread that's so "off-message", lol.

Funny thing is, if they went back to the original Constitutional apportionment and the House had thousands of members, the Red states wouldn't have a prayer.

 

[Navy1960]

Well let's see where to begin on this one, if the thread starter's intention is to advocate for more representation in congress for those states based on population data then he failed to mention a few other factors in his assesment. Let's talk about where 99.9% of the oil refineries are in this nation, so based on the thread starters theory , does this mean that the red states should then charge the blue states for using the fuel that it produces , as they have the largest segments of the population and therefor use the most fuel. Or perhaps we should discuss the defense industry here for a moment, as most of this nations defense hardware is produced in red states perhaps we should, based on the thread starters theory, charge for defense protection accorded them. Or just maybe the best thing to do is remind the thread starter that if he wished a nation where the majority ruled then perhaps he might want look for another nation as this is not this one. Of course if the thread starter is advocating that sort of thing, then let's look at it. Cali. has a massive budget shortfall and among all the states has taken the most money as has NY. Want to know what state is getting massive amonts of stimulus money for the auto bail-outs, that would be Michigan, even though SC unemployment is almost as high as MI, however you don't see the President going to SC every two weeks offering bailout money to SC on the scale that MI. gets. The bottom line here is this, you live in a Representative Republic and not a majority rules democracy, you didn't think you actually voted for president in this nation did you? Keep in mind when you look at the flag there is a reason they call it the United States and not "Majority States of America"

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention

 

[Vast LWC]

If you don't want the money to go to 'Red' States, remove progressives.

Since congress gives out federal funding, and often gives it out for pet projects and pork, perhaps giving equal representaion per capita would work better.

Alaska gets a whole lot of federal funding, relatively, but has a rather high average salary. Why? because Alaska is the highest recipient of pork, per capita, in the United States. (Source: USA TODAY)

 

[Vast LWC]

does this mean that the red states should then charge the blue states for using the fuel that it produces

They do. Fuel is SOLD, not apportioned.

Or perhaps we should discuss the defense industry here for a moment, as most of this nations defense hardware is produced in red states

Which produces money for the Red States. This is a plus for Red States financially, not a minus. And they only produce them because they got the contracts through Republican congressmen...

Or just maybe the best thing to do is remind the thread starter that if he wished a nation where the majority ruled then perhaps he might want look for another nation as this is not this one.

Or maybe you can leave, as you seem to have a problem with people wanting to change the Constitution. You see, the Constitution was meant to be changed. That's why they have amendments.

As long as I am not promoting violent revolution, like Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity, then I am in fact being a dutiful American, as I was when I served in the Army during Desert Storm. I did my time in the service, Squidy, which gives me plenty of right to say my piece about perceived inequalities without having anybody tell me to leave the country, k?

Cali. has a massive budget shortfall and among all the states has taken the most money as has NY.

Cali and New York have more population than the other states, thus they receive more funding.

But of course the entire point was that they don't receive as much funding, PER CAPITA, than red states, or did you miss that part?

Perhaps California's budget shortfall wouldn't exist if it had been getting it's fair share of the Federal pie for the last 50 years!

 

[Navy1960]

# 1 Alaska: 664,931
# 2 Texas: 392,867
# 3 California: 240,206
# 4 Louisiana: 83,411
# 5 New Mexico: 64,236
# 6 Oklahoma: 62,502
# 7 Wyoming: 51,619
# 8 Kansas: 33,858
# 9 North Dakota: 31,154
# 10 Montana: 24,724
# 11 Colorado: 22,097
# 12 Mississippi: 17,153
# 13 Utah: 14,629
# 14 Illinois: 10,984
# 15 Alabama: 7,443
# 16 Arkansas: 6,732
# 17 Michigan: 6,409
# 18 Ohio: 5,785
# 19 Florida: 2,875
# 20 Kentucky: 2,548
oil production by state,


1 California $313,998,874,000 36,553,215 $8,590.18
2 New York $244,672,914,000 19,297,729 $12,678.84
3 Texas $225,390,904,000 23,904,380 $9,428.85
4 Florida $136,476,423,000 18,251,243 $7,477.65
5 Illinois $135,458,089,000 12,852,548 $10,539.40
6 New Jersey $121,678,423,000 8,685,920 $14,008.70
7 Pennsylvania $112,368,286,000 12,432,792 $9,038.06
8 Ohio $105,772,774,000 11,466,917 $9,224.17
9 Minnesota $78,697,313,000 5,197,621 $15,141.03
10 North Carolina $75,903,684,000 9,061,032 $8,376.94
11 Georgia $75,217,980,000 9,544,750 $7,880.56
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guess what? the states with highest populations have the highest tax revenues isn't that amazing. Again you need to understand you don't live in a nation where the majority rules, you live in a republic. The only place where population represents the people is in the house, I suggest if the way our form of Govt. works doesn't work for you then get busy with your constitutional amendments.

 

[Vast LWC]

And as for this:

The bottom line here is this, you live in a Representative Republic and not a majority rules democracy

I do live in a representative Republic, and that certainly does not preclude EQUAL representation for ALL.

In fact Equal Representation was one of the fundamental principles our nation was supposedly founded on, is it not?

 

[Vast LWC]

Guess what? the states with highest populations have the highest tax revenues isn't that amazing.

And as I pointed out above, I was not talking about a per state basis, I was talking about a per capita basis, apparently you missed that.

Oh, and this is one country with a representative government, not 50 separate countries. Why should people in one state have more representation than people in another state?

 

[bodecea]

Guess what? the states with highest populations have the highest tax revenues isn't that amazing.

And as I pointed out above, I was not talking about a per state basis, I was talking about a per capita basis, apparently you missed that.

Oh, and this is one country with a representative government, not 50 separate countries. Why should people in one state have more representation than people in another state?

That's what the Senate is for.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's what the Senate is for.

Exactly, but the not only has the Senate increased in power since the Constitution was written, but the discrepancy between high and low population states has increased dramatically since then, primarily due to the industrial revolution.

For instance, California has 60 times as many people in it than Wyoming. None of the 13 original states had 60 times as many people as another.

In other words, 2 Senators per state is an out-moded concept. There is no real reason for it to be this way anymore, and lots of reasons for it NOT to be this way.

 

[Navy1960]

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Q. XIII, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors ME 2:163

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."-- Thomas Jefferson


I think it's pretty clear that the founders of this nation were careful to craft a Govt. of checks and balances where a majority could not rule over a minority. They were also mindful that the power to change ones Govt. was left in the hands of it's citizens and that the citizens were masters of their own destiny. So equal representation, no in my opinion I belive that this republic was formed on the principle that the people and states formed a compact with the Federal Govt. and that by doing so the Federal Govt. only had powers limited by those defined in the constitution. In fact Sentors were not even voted for when this nation was founded they are appointed by individual state legislatures. So even in that case you as an individual citizen did not directly vote for Federal representation other than a house member. The concept of equal representation as it applies to per capita is a new concept and I would submit to you would undermine the very principles that this nation was founded upon and form a nation where the small states are forever subjects to the larger ones. This nation as mentioned above as formed as compact between the states, not one where the states were ruled over by a Federal Govt. So the answer is no.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's what the Senate is for.

Exactly, but the not only has the Senate increased in power since the Constitution was written, but the discrepancy between high and low population states has increased dramatically since then, primarily due to the industrial revolution.

For instance, California has 60 times as many people in it than Wyoming. None of the 13 original states had 60 times as many people as another.

In other words, 2 Senators per state is an out-moded concept. There is no real reason for it to be this way anymore, and lots of reasons for it NOT to be this way.

Well the Senators weren't representatives of the people at the founding, they were representatives of their state until the adoption of the 17th Amendment. We don't need more Senators we just need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

 

[Vast LWC]

I think it's pretty clear that the founders of this nation were careful to craft a Govt. of checks and balances where a majority could not rule over a minority.

Which would mean that every minority would be given enforced representation? So you support some sort of quota system in congress to make sure minorities, like blacks and latinos, are equally represented? That's an interesting philosophy. But that's besides the point.

How exactly are small population states a separate "minority"?

that the people and states formed a compact with the Federal Govt.

At the time the constitution was written, a vast majority of the states I am referring to did not exist.
Also, population disparities like we have now did not exist.
The largest population disparity in the 13 orginal states was a 1 to 10 ratio (RI to VA).
Now we have 60 to 1 ratios.

this nation was founded upon and form a nation where the small states are forever subjects to the larger ones

Unless you either:

1. created representation by region, instead of state

or

2. broke up the larger states, as far as representation goes anyway, into smaller states. This option would certainly make a lot of republicans in NY and CA very happy.

 

[Vast LWC]

And besides, as it currently stands, people in large states are currently subject to the tyranny of the small states, which are stealing money, through legislation, from the large states.

 

[GHook93]

More money is sucked up by NY and California then all the other states combined.

I've provided links to charts above that show this to be a completely false statement.

Here I'll post the link again: US Census Funding data.

In addition, California and New York are among the top tax payers and near the bottom in federal funding, PER CAPITA.

But CA is nearly bankrupt!

 

[Vast LWC]

But CA is nearly bankrupt!

A fact which is directly affected by the afore-mentioned disparity in federal funding.

And, though CA has higher salaries, it also has a MUCH higher cost-of-living.

 

[Vast LWC]

And I have a question about this:

Anti-zionism = anti-semitism 95% of the time!

Zionism is a policy of expanding the borders of Isreal.

How does being against Zionism make one an Anti-Semite?

I, for instance, am an agnostic, who has dated Jewish women exclusively all his life, has mostly Jewish friends, and am currently married to a 1/2 Jewish woman.

But, I am against Zionism.

Does that mean I'm an anti-semite?