http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-st...
California is almost parity for dollars in versus received.
The bigger question is if that is even a valid comparison to make that 14 states get back less in federal dollars than input.
If it is then you'll have to concede that Wyoming, Kansas, and Utah, aka: decidedly not blue states, are in the same boat as "we blue states".
I grew up in one of those states that is in the top 5 of dollars received. Main reason is the entire state has next to no population. I'm not sure how you get it to parity without a population to do so. That and despite being quite liberal, I have to admit this argument that this is a blue versus red state thing based on dollars received is maddeningly annoying and disingenuous.
If America loses those red states, we lose a lot of our ability to feed ourselves on our own. The grain belt is a huge asset, even given its cost. Giant cities are not islands unto themselves.
/squirrel banter mode off.
Surely what matters is actual dollars. Delaware has less than a million people living in it. California has almost forty million. So long as CA is contributing a net positive percentage to the federal government, it's very likely that they are contributing more overall to the well being of the nation than Delaware is.
If i put in 1k in federal taxes and get 800 back, what matter is it what state i'm in? Or are we saying Delaware residents getting 70 cents on the dollar is not as bad as Californians getting 95 cents because there are more people, thus Californians are more important?
I'm honestly not trying to be a dick here but what exactly is the argument outside of if you aren't California or New York, you're not important to the conversation.
Give me numbers not supposition, how much has California invested in federal dollars versus the other 14 states getting less than their input. Without that this amounts to a pointless discussion.
> If i put in 1k in federal taxes and get 800 back, what matter is it what state i'm in? Or are we saying Delaware residents getting 70 cents on the dollar is not as bad as Californians getting 95 cents because there are more people, thus Californians are more important?
Californians aren't more important individually, but California is. Obviously a million people with $5 each is a larger sum than twenty people with $10 each.
Eliminate NYC from new york state and what happens? Same Chicago and LA in their respective states. Likewise, many western states have huge flows of government spending for reasons that don't make sense on the surface. Those states, tend to have military installations, and huge allocations of national parks and national forest land.
In other words, that type of government spending is not social policy handouts. But rather is the US paying to keep up assets that it owns already (basically security and maintenance).
Rural appalachia is an exception (eg, west va = highly democratic; TN home of senator gore, etc) as these states were the target of many early government projects (like TVA and Food Stamps).
Lastly, huge amounts of governmnet spending are on healthcare
(& social security, which again have nothing to do with modern red state/blue state issues).