From UtahUte72:

[Utah]

And I’m sorry to name you, but you said it, and this seems to be a common thought among Republicans. You said:

Just another case of effete liberal snobs wanting the general public to foot the bill for their recreation.

Which I always find interesting, because the states that rely on federal dollars per capita the most are:

Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama, Lousiana, Tennessee, Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi.

All red states, except for New Mexico and New Mexico is as purple as they come. They’ve voted democrat 15 times and Republican 12 times.

States that use the FEWEST federal dollars per capita?

Delaware, Conneticut, New Jersey, Kansas, California, Illinois, Nevada, Minnesota, New Hampshire and New York. The only red state? Kansas.

Interesting.

[ironman1315]

Is there a breakdown as to why these states do or do not get the most federal dollars? For example, could Montana be because of all the federal land in that state?

[Minnesota Ute]

For sure there is tons of BLM land in Montana, but also a lot in Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, & Colorado that don’t appear on the list.  Nevada is actually on the fewest list. So I’m thinking it must be something different.  Regardless, there is no such thing as federal money, there is only money that is taxed from the people that live in states, then parceled back to the states with strings attached.  It is something that wouldn’t be necessary if the Feds would stick to their limited enumerated power and leave other powers to the states or the people.

[Utah]

Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the “most dependent” category is historical. During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic, its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority, came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states in the form of contracts, projects, installations.

Another part of the explanation is easier to discern. The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain a “safety net” intended to help the neediest among us. Consider, for example, the percentage of each state’s residents who get “food stamps” through the federal government’s SNAP program. This chart tells the story.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/And, an ironic take from that article:
Alternatively, we could use the “state dependency” map as an opportunity to reflect on a different paradox—the longstanding role of the far-away federal government as an agent of community. Because of federal programs, people in places like South Carolina and Mississippi are getting a helping hand not from their neighbors a few blocks away or in the next county over, but from residents of Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, and Nebraska. Whether you like that idea depends, in part, on how you personally reconcile the tension between two long-cherished, core American values—our passion for individualism and our regard for community—and whether you see “community” as encompassing the whole country.

[Utah]

Man, Tony, this post is super jacked up. I wonder if it is because I didn’t close my block quote at the end. 

[Utah]

Wallethub

[Utah]

This is all federal spending, so these totals are a combination of military spending, social welfare programs such as Medicare, and ordinary civilian federal spending, including civilian research facilities and other programs funded by federal grants.

 

https://mises.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-spending

[Utah]

Such aid takes many forms. It includes federal Medicaid payments, education funding assistance, support for infrastructure projects, housing grants, and more. Federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments have reached $600 billion per year, with Medicaid by far the largest (and most rapidly growing) component. How much states receive in federal aid, and how reliant they are on such assistance, can vary widely.

Mississippi, for instance, relied on federal assistance for 42.9 percent of its revenue in FY 2013, the largest share in the country. Also on the high end are Louisiana (41.9 percent), Tennessee (39.5 percent), South Dakota (39.0 percent), and Missouri (38.2 percent). States with heavy reliance on federal grants-in-aid tend to have a combination of modest tax collections (reducing the denominator) and sizable low income populations (correlating with greater per capita reliance on Medicaid, housing assistance, and other low income and poverty relief programming, and with a greater share of federal education support).

On the other end of the spectrum are states like North Dakota (19.0 percent), Hawaii (21.5 percent), Alaska (22.4 percent), Virginia (22.9 percent), and Connecticut (23.4 percent). These states tend to have higher per capita tax collections (growing the denominator) and populations with lesser reliance on federal assistance (shrinking the numerator). Notably, although North Dakota and Alaska impose relatively modest taxes on residents, they are resource-rich states which export much of their tax burdens through severance taxes and thus experience some of the highest tax collections per capita in the nation.

https://taxfoundation.org/which-states-rely-most-federal-aid-0

[Tony (admin)]

Wow not sure what you did, but don’t do it again! I couldn’t even edit it on the board as an admin. Had to go into the back end to fix it.

[Minnesota Ute]

Look, I really like your reply because it is thoughtful, interesting, and informed.  However, I do want to have a closer look at what you call “community”.   Do you think that the folks on the Federal dole find a warm glow of charity when they cash those checks?  Do you think any of those folks in Delaware or Minnesota feel a rush of endorphins when they pay their federal taxes?  The answer to all of that is an unequivacol NO.  (sorry my spell check in chrome doesn’t work on Utehub and p**ses me off because I suck as spelling).

My point is this, we need to stop looking at what the federal government is doing as charity.  Charity is given freely by people, and is ideally dispensed to those in need in some arrangement that meets the wishes of the person giving to help those that person is trying to help.  The government takes money from people and gives to whoever they think is deserving.  There is no accountability, there is no control, there is no greatfulness.

There is a reason why people like Bernie that are so anxious to take your money and spend it for you only have a very small fraction of his income to charity.  Something  like 7% and of the 7% something like 6% went to an election campain fund of some sort, so 1% of his income which is well into the top 5% went to a charity serving people in need.  I bet he takes every f**king deduction he can too.

The other thing I would say is that these states that take so much federal money because they have so much poverty… how’s that working out for reducing poverty?  Kinda feels like cycle of dependance to me.  My point is that guys like bernie and the like want to use your heart strings to get to your purse strings, but don’t you buy it, they aren’t interested in your community.  Individualism is not the opposite of community, it is the heart of community.  Individualism doesn’t erode charity, it encourages it because only individuals can act and can take responsibility.  Your proof is in the fact that the US is the most charitable country on the planet, why?  Rugged individualism says IF you can help, then you SHOULD.  That’s why republicans are more generous than democrats as well because democrats want to defer to the collective and say its all of our problem together so let government do it not me.  Republicans are more likely to say that i have a duty to help others if I have more than I need.

[Utah]

My retort is this: Aren’t the red states the states that claim to be the most Christian? Due to their Christian nature, shouldn’t those states be receiving LESS money?

Yet, they don’t. It is because in capitalism, charity is what dumb people do. What?!? Give away money? That’s crazy talk.

So, if we, as individual people, are unwilling to help our neighbors, then what do we do? Let them die? Or turn to government and force charity on people?

We tried the “letting individuals take care of the people” and we failed at it. Look how much better life has been since FDR, Eccles, and other amazing people gave America the middle class.

Facts people. Facts, not rhetoric.

[Utah]

As an answer to your question, it seems that the states that recieve the most money from the fed per capita are states with poorer economies. Those that have to give out more money in aid, ie, food stamps, healthcare, etc and aren’t able to get that money through a robust economy and businesses, like California, New York, etc can. 

Which is completely ironic, becuase the big narrative is that red states are best for businesses and blue states are worst, when in reality, blue states are healthier because of their businesses and education and red states are suffering because of their lack of businesses and education. 

Also, southern states seem to have more military bases, which is more federal dollars headed their way. 

[Minnesota Ute]

Not sure that connection sticks all that well, what about Texas and Utah, seem like their economies are pretty good.  There is certainly a weird deal in the southeast which I don’t think has anything to do with red state or blue state, and has more to do with weather.  And I’m sure there are some blue states with s**tty economies.  The other thing you have to look at is not red/blue in terms of Federal voting.  Minnesota has a republican legislature, and had a republican governor before our present dbag.  So point is, it’s complicated.

[Utah]

Very true.

This has always been my stance: There are problems with left and right philosophies. True capitalism and True socialism are the same thing.

We work best when we work together.

[PlainsUte]

I know that Alabama and West Virginia have had powerful Senators that steer certain federal projects and dollars to their states.