Saturday, May 05, 2012

Energy-Related Prosperity in North Dakota

FARGO — "Thanks to strong growth in the agriculture and mining industries — particularly oil and gas production — North Dakota’s per-capita personal income has risen more than 78 percent since 2000, according to statistics released Friday by the federal government and the state Department of Commerce. That’s more than double the 37.4 percent increase in per-capita income seen nationally, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported.

Per-capita personal income in North Dakota in 2011 was $45,747, an increase of $20,155 since 2000, when per-capita personal income was $25,592, the BEA reported.  North Dakota’s average growth in per-capita personal income between 2001 and 2011 was 5.6 percent, while the national average was 2.9 percent."

MP: North Dakota's growth in personal income per capita of 78.75% between 2000 and 2011 was the highest for any U.S. state, but was just behind the 80.6% growth in per-capita income in Washington, D.C.   What's the lesson here?  Maybe that even an abundance of natural resources and oil prosperity in North Dakota can't generate increases in personal income like the federal government in D.C.? 

HT: Kevin Burhart

Update: Here's a post from Rob Port with further details on North Dakota's increase in personal income, including the state map below showing where the largest increases have been by county.



58 Comments:

At 5/05/2012 11:11 AM, Blogger Daniel said...

Having walked past some "transitional" neighborhoods in D.C. last night, I bet much of D.C.'s increase in per capita income is not due to the federal government, but the gentrification of the city. More young professional are moving into the cities and lower-income people moving out.

 
At 5/05/2012 11:11 AM, Blogger Daniel said...

Having walked past some "transitional" neighborhoods in D.C. last night, I bet much of D.C.'s increase in per capita income is not due to the federal government, but the gentrification of the city. More young professional are moving into the cities and lower-income people moving out.

 
At 5/05/2012 2:26 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

North dakota is a state that gets back $1.68 for every dollar sent to Washington, according to the Tax Foundation, a right-wing group.

Given current deficit levels, that means about $10k per capita in net federal spending in North Dakota. It was at $6k net federal subsidy per resident in 2005.

Small rural states, with two Senators, often end up a federal pink-o socialist havens. The Senators trade their two votes for federal largesse.

Regrettably, this tsunami of federal lard is a much larger contribution to North Dakota's boom times than the private-sector.

 
At 5/05/2012 2:48 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

Benjamin: Does a federal highway project cost any less in ND? Or an army camp for that matter, vis a vis, say, Washington DC?

 
At 5/05/2012 3:07 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Abir Mandal: "Benjamin: Does a federal highway project cost any less in ND? Or an army camp for that matter, vis a vis, say, Washington DC?"

Your attempt to employ logic will prove futile. :)

 
At 5/05/2012 3:19 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

Ron: Just practicing to be a professor-- have to try harder with the special kids :D

 
At 5/05/2012 3:47 PM, Blogger Henry H said...

There would be less spending for a highway project in small states. I bet that most of the spending isn't on highway projects. Even then, it makes more sense that highway project would cost more at larger states. In particular, the coastal states would have more wear and tear from trailers carrying goods for export/import.

 
At 5/05/2012 4:36 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf

Abir--

Check out the table above.

There are states, almost all rural, that receive back from the federal government far more than they pay to the federal government. They are net winners in the federal lard sweepstakes.

Rural states, of course, have two Senators, and small populations, So they trade their votes for lard.

As a result, rural America is the most pink-o subsidized, socialized population on Earth. The highways, the water systems, the power systems, the phone systems, the airports, railroad, stops, postal service--all subsidized. Then you have the apparatus of the USDA, and crop subsidies. Let's not even mention ethanol.

Without federal subsidy, rural America would blow away, and that would be a positive for our national economy. They are a huge, subsidized structural impediment today, one that costs probably $100 billion annually to maintain.

 
At 5/05/2012 4:36 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"North dakota is a state that gets back $1.68 for every dollar sent to Washington, according to the Tax Foundation, a right-wing group."

The Tax Foundation clearly states at their website they haven't updated their data in this area since 2005. Things have changed quite a bit in North Dakota since then.

"..this tsunami of federal lard is a much larger contribution to North Dakota's boom times than the private-sector."

And how would you know this given the very old data you cite? I don't remember North Dakota booming back in 2005, am I wrong?

 
At 5/05/2012 4:47 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"As a result, rural America is the most pink-o subsidized, socialized population on Earth."

Actually, the most pink-o subsidized are your boyfriend's constituents working for the government, and not working at all on federal assistance.

 
At 5/05/2012 5:49 PM, Blogger AIG said...

More young professional are moving into the cities
Where are those "young professionals" working in DC?

Benjamin: Does a federal highway project cost any less in ND?
There is 1 highway in the state of North Dakota. Benji is right here. Too much money goes to keep people living in places where human life should not exist.

To answer your question, though, of course a highway in ND costs a lot less than one in DC. I mean...if federal spending on construction functioned through any logic.

Without federal subsidy, rural America would blow away, and that would be a positive for our national economy. They are a huge, subsidized structural impediment today, one that costs probably $100 billion annually to maintain.

I absolutely agree with you. However, $100 billion is pocket change compared to the subsidies for all the rest of the population. We spend close to $900 billion for all the welfare programs...and those go mainly to city-dwellers. And yes, I'll even agree with you that VA costs us $250 billion a year, and that's basically welfare for the military.

So while I absolutely agree with this thus far, lets keep it in perspective that EVERYONE is subsidized massively by the federal government...although I'll give you that farmers perhaps are subsidized more so on a per capita basis.

Actually, the most pink-o subsidized are your boyfriend's constituents working for the government, and not working at all on federal assistance.

Now Paul, this doesn't actually address the issue that Benji, rightfully, brings up. There are entire states in this country that exist only as pork-spending magnets, North Dakota being a prime example (followed by the states surrounding it). Entire states that have the same amount of people as a congressional district in any other place.

At the very least, you can agree that the existence of 10 such states in the US, is creating a bias that is used to buy and sell senatorial votes.

 
At 5/05/2012 7:06 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

This federal funds include federal highways, military bases and all federal installations. They would cost exactly the same, controlling for terrain etc. However, tax revenues are based on population and not projects. A smaller state would obviously contribute less but would draw the same as another state with a similar basket of federal projects. But don't let logic get in your way of finding pork.

 
At 5/05/2012 7:27 PM, Blogger AIG said...

This federal funds include federal highways, military bases and all federal installations. They would cost exactly the same, controlling for terrain etc.

What is the most expensive part of a massive land-intensive project, if not "terrain"?

And again, North Dakota has 1 highway. I'm pretty sure it was build decades ago. So where's the money going?

However, tax revenues are based on population and not projects.
And why is a "state" of 500,000 people, a state?

A smaller state would obviously contribute less but would draw the same as another state with a similar basket of federal projects.

They don't have a similar basket of projects. That's the point. Not on a per-capita basis, or on an area basis. They get more money per "unit" to subsidize an unsustainable lifestyle (by unsustainable, I don't mean the environmental type, but the economic type)

 
At 5/05/2012 7:58 PM, Blogger Paul said...

AIG,


"Now Paul, this doesn't actually address the issue that Benji, rightfully, brings up."

Sure it does. Benji's exact statement was, " rural America is the most pink-o subsidized, socialized population on Earth."

I say that's not true. Obama voting Govt workers and Obama voting welfare bums are the most pink-o subsidized population on Earth.

"There are entire states in this country that exist only as pork-spending magnets..."

Yeah, maybe, but I'd need to drill down deeper to make any determinations. Example, I live in Arizona. Old people on SS and Medicare leave their cold as shit states and move here. Their federal entitlement $ follow them. Does that make us a pink-o state? We're also overflowing with illegal immigrants on federal assistance. We need border patrol, a function of the federal government, as Eric Holder has made very clear when he isn't busy running guns to the Mexican cartel.

And once again, Tax Foundation's data are several years old.

 
At 5/05/2012 8:09 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

AIG: Perhaps a complete study would include a description of said projects. At this moment, neither you nor I can argue against or for such spending without seeing said list of projects. All I know is building a highway in Wyoming was hard and cost way more money than on the plains of Illinois.

 
At 5/05/2012 8:40 PM, Blogger AIG said...

All I know is building a highway in Wyoming was hard and cost way more money than on the plains of Illinois

Of course it is possible. But why was there a need for such a highway in Wyoming?

Example, I live in Arizona

Arizona at least has the population of all these 10 states added together. I've only flown over Arizona, but I do remember seeing massive farms in the middle of the desert around Phoenix. I'm not sure, but I'd bet that the water for those farms is extremely highly subsidized.

 
At 5/05/2012 8:49 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

This is "Benjis" usual shtick. He babbles on about "pink-o socialism" and "lard" while never stopping to consider why it is that North Dakota receives more than it pays in.

The graduated income tax is probably the primary reason, and in that sense those people in the top income brackets are transferring just as much money, if not more, to parasites, like "Benji", who live only a few miles a way, than they are to the people living in red states, like North Dakota. "Benji", in his blind stupidity, believes that it is all about geography.

The fact of the matter is that the average person living in North Dakota is far less likely to wind up on welfare or public assistance of any kind than someone living in California, a state that has 30 percent of all of the nations welfare recipients and where 7 out of 10 new residents over the last decade qualifies for Medicaid.

North Dakota is a place where people work hard and play hard.

"Benji" would make some guy in North Dakota a good wife.

 
At 5/05/2012 9:16 PM, Blogger AIG said...

North Dakota is a place where people work hard and play hard.
Then I don't see why they need to be subsidized by the rest of us. Do you?

Your attempt to answer this issue through an unrelated issue (welfare in California), doesn't actually answer the issue.

And ND is red today, but it had a Dem congressmen till 2008, and has 1 Dem senator. You sure you want to go down the road of turning this into a political debate? What will you say when they vote in another Dem again next time, or the time after that?

Is it so hard that if you're going to say that we shouldn't be subsidizing people in California, that we also shouldn't be subsidizing people in North Dakota? Or you can't say it, because they are voting for you now?

And you pretend to be better then the Dems? How so?

 
At 5/05/2012 9:30 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Then I don't see why they need to be subsidized by the rest of us ... Is it so hard that if you're going to say that we shouldn't be subsidizing people in California, that we also shouldn't be subsidizing people in North Dakota? Or you can't say it, because they are voting for you now?" -- AIG

I'm not arguing that the government should be subsidizing anyone, simply that the "subsidy", as you call it, is not being applied on a preferential basis by state. The system is currently set up to transfer money collected from the wealthiest taxpayers to those earning less, regardless of where they live.

Now, go away you ignorant bigot.

 
At 5/05/2012 9:50 PM, Blogger AIG said...

I'm not arguing that the government should be subsidizing anyone, simply that the "subsidy", as you call it, is not being applied on a preferential basis by state
No one claimed so.

The system is currently set up to transfer money collected from the wealthiest taxpayers to those earning less, regardless of where they live.
Right...and proportionally, some places seem to be highly concentrated.

Now, go away you ignorant bigot
Bigoted towards what?

 
At 5/05/2012 10:16 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Bigoted towards what?" -- AIG

Read your own posts on previous comment threads.

 
At 5/05/2012 10:26 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

Do you realize that, say, Wyoming, has some of the richest natural resources in the nation? How will these be transported throughout the nation without a highway? This is just an example.

If your argument is the fed should not provide any goods or services, you may have a case. Most economists agree though that public goods are the domain of the government.

 
At 5/05/2012 10:52 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Do you realize that, say, Wyoming, has some of the richest natural resources in the nation? How will these be transported throughout the nation without a highway? This is just an example.

That's great. Why do I need to subsidize it then? It clearly can pay for itself, based on your description. Yet last time I was in Wyoming, there wasn't a toll to be found anywhere.

Most economists agree though that public goods are the domain of the government.
I agree with that too. However, investment in such "public goods" are still bound by economic rationale. And if there is, in fact, economic rationale for a project that needs to be funded from federal (or state) money, then there ought to be a way for the taxpayers to get their money back, and for the projects to become self-sufficient. Tolls, for example.

I don't disagree with you on anything you've said. BUT...places like North Dakota, or Wyoming don't even try to implement any form of financing for such projects, because they can use their political clout (which is far greater then their population should allow), to get federal money. Ultimately, there wouldn't be half the people in Wyoming, living there today, is federal money weren't directed their way.

Read your own posts on previous comment threads.
Yes I'm sure, but bigoted towards...what?

 
At 5/05/2012 11:02 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

North Dakota Farm Subsidies:

$12.9 billion in subsidies 1995-2010.
$6.09 billion in commodity subsidies.
$3.22 billion in crop insurance subsidies.
$1.90 billion in conservation subsidies.
$1.68 billion in disaster subsidies.
North Dakota ranking: 7 of 50 States
Top Commodity Recipients 1995-2010
Top Commodity Recipients in 2010
16 percent of farms in North Dakota did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA.

This also refutes She Is Dead's assertion that most farmers do not receive subsidies.

Farmers have been enfeebled and effeminated by Washington DC pink-o socialists.

 
At 5/06/2012 3:58 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

North Dakota adds value to the country through production and taxes:

States with Lowest Unemployment Rate - March 2012

1 NORTH DAKOTA 3.0
2 NEBRASKA 4.0
3 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.3
4 VERMONT 4.8
5 IOWA 5.2
5 NEW HAMPSHIRE 5.2
7 WYOMING 5.3
8 OKLAHOMA 5.4
9 VIRGINIA 5.6
10 MINNESOTA 5.8
10 UTAH 5.8
12 KANSAS 6.2
12 MONTANA 6.2

 
At 5/06/2012 5:41 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

There's a big difference between someone working producing $100,000 of value and someone not working producing zero value.

Also, the worker producing $100,000 of value may consume $50,000, while the non-worker producing zero may also consume $50,000.

 
At 5/06/2012 8:57 AM, Blogger Henry H said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5/06/2012 9:07 AM, Blogger Henry H said...

Abir Mindal said:
AIG:Perhaps a complete study would include a description of said projects. At this moment, neither you nor I can argue against or for such spending without seeing said list of projects. All I know is building a highway in Wyoming was hard and cost way more money than on the plains of Illinois.


Here is the Federal Highway Administrations expenditures for the 2005 Fiscal year. North Dakota is 45th out of 51(including DC) with $168 mil.

Source: EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 2005
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/xls/fa3.xls

The excessive subsidies aren't coming from highway spending or a low population. Vermont and Wyoming take in $1.08 and $1.11, respectively. Their populations were even smaller than North Dakota in 2005.

 
At 5/06/2012 10:58 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"This also refutes She Is Dead's assertion that most farmers do not receive subsidies." -- "Benji"

No, it does not. The fact remains that the vast majority of farmers receive little or nothing in the form of farm subsidies. Farm subsidies primarily go to large agricultural corporations that are mostly owned by stockholders living in urban areas and to wealthy individuals who own large tracts of land as investments. Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, Scottie Pippen, Quincy Jones and Ted Turner all receive farm subsidies, not to mention the tens of thousands of mostly anonymous investors like Maurice Wilder:

"Real estate developer Maurice F. Wilder sounded a little weary last week when the ABC Action News I-Team called him about his status as the Tampa Bay area's biggest recipient of federal farm subsidies ... Wilder, whose net worth is estimated to be several hundred million dollars, has become something of a national poster boy -- at the age of 68 -- for a government program that critics contend has gone awry. The Clearwater real estate tycoon and his companies received more than $8 million in crop price supports and other federal aid between 1995 and 2010 ... Wilder says he has about 70,000 acres under cultivation in several states. He grows mostly corn, along with soybeans and wheat." -- ABC News

"An estimated 90,000 people living in 350 cities and towns across the country got nearly $400 million in taxpayer-funded crop subsidies last year, says a top environmental watchdog group. The data was revealed by the Environmental Working Group in conjunction with a Senate Agricultural committee review of farm spending ... We are sending handouts to Wall Street investors and absentee landlords instead of working toward creating a safety net for working farm and ranch families, said EWG Senior Vice-President Craig Cox in a statement. It s simply unjustifiable. Cox manages EWG s agriculture programs from the organizations Ames, Iowa, office." -- FOX News

As usual, you are clueless.

 
At 5/06/2012 11:00 AM, Blogger Paul said...

AIG,

" I'm not sure, but I'd bet that the water for those farms is extremely highly subsidized."

Maybe, but you're just guessing. State or Federal? A large % of our water comes straight out of the Colorado river up north. We need more data to determine, exactly what I'm pointing out.

 
At 5/06/2012 11:04 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"This also refutes She Is Dead's assertion that most farmers do not receive subsidies."



No it doesn't, you moron.

http://farm.ewg.org/farms_by_state.php

 
At 5/06/2012 11:08 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Che,

Just to add to your point:

City Slickers Continue to Rake in Farm Payments.

 
At 5/06/2012 1:03 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

A few anecdotes about investors who realized how much fat there is in faming, does not mean most farmers are not also at the federal lard trough.

We see in North Dakota, 84 percent of farmers are pink-o, receiving socialist farm subsidies. No other industry in the USA is so feeble, so weakling, so dependent on taxpayer largesse.

I am sure some Hollywood celebrities are also at the lard bucket. They are learning how to do i from generations of farmers.

Do anyone here think farmers, in our lifetimes, will ever get off of the federal pink-o gravy train?

Hey it has only been 80 years since FDR hooked farmers on federal dope. But the USDA will never die.

 
At 5/06/2012 2:44 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

Don't think Californians have to learn from the heartland about government handouts.

 
At 5/06/2012 3:49 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"A few anecdotes about investors who realized how much fat there is in faming, does not mean most farmers are not also at the federal lard trough."

In Texas, 72% of farmers receive no subsidies. Overall, 62 percent of farms in United States did not collect subsidy payments - according to the USDA.

Sorry, nitwit, you're still wrong.

"Do anyone here think farmers, in our lifetimes, will ever get off of the federal pink-o gravy train?"

Probably right around the time your boyfriend's core constituencies stop being parasites.

 
At 5/06/2012 5:02 PM, Blogger AIG said...

North Dakota adds value to the country through production and taxes:
States with Lowest Unemployment Rate - March 2012


That has nothing to do with the argument. It is disturbing to me how people who talk all about small government and free markets, can then deliberately try and wiggle their way out of explaining a massive government hand-out program, that doesn't fit their narrative.

There's a big difference between someone working producing $100,000 of value and someone not working producing zero value.
Also, the worker producing $100,000 of value may consume $50,000, while the non-worker producing zero may also consume $50,000.


Yes but Nd is still a NET recipient of government handouts. Please explain.

Maybe, but you're just guessing. State or Federal? A large % of our water comes straight out of the Colorado river up north. We need more data to determine, exactly what I'm pointing out. Probably right around the time your boyfriend's core constituencies stop being parasites.
Are ND farmers, not parasites?

 
At 5/06/2012 5:02 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

See below. In billions, subsidies for last 10 years. BTW, these subsidies---pink-o cash handouts to business weaklings--dwarf anything Obama has done (I am a reluctant Romney supporter, for the record).

You gotta hand it to corn farmers---they get subsidized, and then also get a mandated market for their copy (ethanol). I am sure the GOP will clean up this situation as soon as they get back into power.


1 Corn Subsidies**
1,641,611** $77,123,770,222
2 Wheat Subsidies**
1,375,746** $32,373,080,169
3 Cotton Subsidies**
264,947** $31,009,614,843
4 Conservation Reserve Program
879,641 $27,885,392,216
5 Soybean Subsidies**
1,044,933** $24,285,436,252
6 Disaster Payments
1,362,757 $20,462,782,856
7 Rice Subsidies**
70,033** $12,920,657,299
8 Sorghum Subsidies**
615,807** $6,135,328,053
9 Dairy Program Subsidies
158,719** $4,886,592,587
10 Env. Quality Incentive Program
272,196 $4,051,373,024
11 Livestock Subsidies
802,657** $3,697,720,573
12 Peanut Subsidies
91,568** $3,483,315,596
13 Barley Subsidies**
353,027** $2,546,484,394
14 Tobacco Subsidies
396,354** $1,138,558,705
15 Sunflower Subsidies**
61,701** $880,477,844
16 Wetlands Reserve Program
6,571 $532,963,630
17 Canola Subsidies**
20,468** $385,910,542
18 Oat Subsidies**
640,182** $267,267,067
19 Apple Subsidies
8,586** $261,540,987
20 Sugar Beet Subsidies
9,071** $242,064,005

 
At 5/06/2012 6:11 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

AIG, it's not a "handout" to get part of your money back from the government.

 
At 5/06/2012 6:46 PM, Blogger Henry H said...

It's a handout, when you receive 1.68:1 for every dollar paid in taxes. North Dakota doesn't need Las Vegas, they get better payouts through subsidies.

 
At 5/06/2012 6:57 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Henry, we don't know the total federal taxes paid by North Dakota.

I doubt workers in aggregate receive more in government benefits than pay in taxes.

It all has to add up to 100%, for workers, non-workers, and the cost of government.

 
At 5/06/2012 7:00 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Of course, the federal government is running huge budget deficits, much of it from foreign workers, who've seen their U.S. investments erode from inflation, interest rates, and currency exchange rates.

 
At 5/06/2012 7:36 PM, Blogger AIG said...

It all has to add up to 100%, for workers, non-workers, and the cost of government

Peak, what in the heck are you talking about? ND is a net recipient of federal funds. Nothing you've said contradicts this, or explains this.

6k federal subsidy for every resident of ND, is not a joke.

Simple question, why cant you "republicans" stand up against this sort of welfare?

This is a serious issue, because it is one of those issues that keeps moderates and independents away from the GOP (along with the social conservatism). It's hypocritical: on one hand to complain about the welfare and pork spending for one group of people or one electoral segment, but on the other hand to have your own entire STATES which do the same thing.

Which one is bigger than the other is quite irrelevant (and Benji is wrong when he says this "dwarfs anything Obama has done". Of course this is nothing compared to what Obama has done, or what welfare does). It is still, in practice, the same thing.

And worst, you have a political system in place which exists only to continue this welfare. A state like ND or Wyoming or SD or Montana, with populations which are ridiculously small, get to control a disproportionate number of Senate seats...seats which the Republicans use as political leverage.

This is hypocrisy.

Don't think Californians have to learn from the heartland about government handouts.

No they don't Abir. Government subsidies are everywhere, and with everyone. But that doesn't answer the question as to why your state, or other states like ND etc, don't have a single TOLL on their highways, but instead are net recipients of federal subsidies? There is no economic justification for this.

 
At 5/06/2012 8:02 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

AIG, if the assumption is U.S. federal tax dollars paid equal U.S. federal tax dollars received, then why is the unequal distribution of tax dollars received between states a problem?

Would it be better if federal tax dollars paid by each state equal federal tax dollars received for each state?

Also, hasn't North Dakota done more than its fair share producing value and paying taxes through employment?

 
At 5/06/2012 8:49 PM, Blogger AIG said...

AIG, if the assumption is U.S. federal tax dollars paid equal U.S. federal tax dollars received, then why is the unequal distribution of tax dollars received between states a problem?
That's not what anyone is discussing. It is precisely the amount of Federal tax dollars paid =/ amount received. ND receives 67% more federal tax dollars than it pays in.

Would it be better if federal tax dollars paid by each state equal federal tax dollars received for each state?
Well, it would be better if they paid less to the federal government, so that they would be subsidized less by other states.

I fully agree that there may be cases when the federal government may need to "subsidize" one state more, for a particular reason. But this isn't the phenomenon we are seeing here. Here we are seeing a continuing trend of pork and welfare.

Also, hasn't North Dakota done more than its fair share producing value and paying taxes through employment?
Fair share is language better reserved for OWS. Fair share is irrelevant here. It doesn't justify 6k net subsidies per person...because if it were such a large a hub of economic activity, it certainly won't need so much federal subsidies. They are not "entitled" to get more money, to subsidize an economically unsustainable lifestyle.

-----------

But the real issue that Benji brings up (in his typically political manner)...is that you have states with populations of 400-600k people, with 2 senators each. These states happened to be the biggest recipients of farm subsidies. It is a political machine which exists only to secure farm welfare, and a disproportionate political power in the hands of so few, and such a tight interest group as farmers.

The GOP turns a blind eye to this, and even supports it passively, because it wants to keep it on the GOP side, because they can turn easily to the Dem side to get the same benefits. (and most independents and moderates view this, rightly, as hypocritical on the side of the GOP which condemns similar welfare schemes in other areas)

My suggestion would be that these places should not be "states". You can combine 6-7 of them together, to get a "state" with a population approaching the US average population per state. Then they would have 2 senators, instead of 12-14.

 
At 5/06/2012 10:32 PM, Blogger Paul said...

AIG,

"The GOP turns a blind eye to this, and even supports it passively, because it wants to keep it on the GOP side, because they can turn easily to the Dem side to get the same benefits. "

And they do. As I pointed out to Benji after one of his ignorant rants against "GOP lard", the N Dakota Congressional delegation was all Democrat for a period of time until 2010.

Also, as I repeatedly point out to the idiot known here as "Benji," the Tax Foundation says most of the federal distribution disparity is due to the progressive tax system we have.

Which political party supports progressive taxation to the last ditch? If they cut their own throats, well, I'll try not to cry a river.

 
At 5/06/2012 10:38 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"See below. In billions, subsidies for last 10 years. BTW, these subsidies---pink-o cash handouts to business weaklings--dwarf anything Obama has done"

Last 10 years? IDIOT, who has been President for 3 of the last 10 years? Before that, your boyfriend was an enormous whore for ethanol and other farm subsidies. Your boyfriend's genius was to combine a love for Big Ag $$ with an explosion of spending on his freeloader constituents and Big Green cronies.

I've pointed this out a thousand times, at which point you disappear but then reappear in new threads with the same retarded talking points.

 
At 5/06/2012 11:33 PM, Blogger AIG said...

the N Dakota Congressional delegation was all Democrat for a period of time until 2010

You know quite well it's a mix of both, and there's more than just ND on this list. But, are you telling me that since 2010, the farm subsidies to ND have decreased ? ;)

the Tax Foundation says most of the federal distribution disparity is due to the progressive tax system we have.
What does that mean? How does that explain federal money going into the state of ND?

Before that, your boyfriend was an enormous whore for ethanol and other farm subsidies
So were Republicans.

 
At 5/07/2012 9:18 AM, Blogger Paul said...

AIG,

"You know quite well it's a mix of both, and there's more than just ND on this list. But, are you telling me that since 2010, the farm subsidies to ND have decreased ? ;)"

Don't know, and never said farm subsidies weren't a bi-partisan shame. It's Benji who does that, lumping it all onto the GOP's side of the aisle. Meanwhile, the Tea Party Benji often disparages actually fought to end the ethanol credit..

"What does that mean? How does that explain federal money going into the state of ND?"

A) I don't know because we don't have the info beyond the numbers.
B)Obviously, some of it is ag subsidies. I would imagine other items are fixed costs the feds have as part of their bloated oversight and management of the 50 states.

"So were Republicans"

Yep. So the issue is essentially neutralized, you have to look at all the other issues, and also the individual politicians. Look at, for example, the CATO report card for America's Governors: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA668.pdf

Notice a trend? A)GOP Governors are highly likely to be at the top of the pile and Democrats at the bottom. B) Democrat Governors near the top are from conservative states.

You can also read the tea leaves by checking out grading of Congressmen and Senators at a number of sites like Citizens Against Govt Waste and the National Taxpayers Union. You can even go to liberal sites like Americans for Democratic Action and view their report cards.
The overall trend is unmistakeable.

 
At 5/07/2012 11:20 AM, Blogger AIG said...

It's Benji who does that, lumping it all onto the GOP's side of the aisle.
Well, can you blame him? GOP senators/congressmen have fought hard to keep them and grow them.

A) I don't know because we don't have the info beyond the numbers.
B)Obviously, some of it is ag subsidies. I would imagine other items are fixed costs the feds have as part of their bloated oversight and management of the 50 states.

Sure, but ND is happily taking them

Notice a trend? A)GOP Governors are highly likely to be at the top of the pile and Democrats at the bottom. B) Democrat Governors near the top are from conservative states.
But this has nothing to do with ethanol subsidies. In fact, the Senators which oppose an end to Ethanol subsidies are from ND, SD, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan.

Nebraska and Iowa are the biggest recipients.

You can also read the tea leaves by checking out grading of Congressmen and Senators at a number of sites like Citizens Against Govt Waste and the National Taxpayers Union. You can even go to liberal sites like Americans for Democratic Action and view their report cards.
The overall trend is unmistakeable.


I don't disagree that there is a difference, and there is a growing difference. I'm not VangeIV. And on an individual level, Republican representatives are far more likely to be on the positive side of my spectrum.

BUT, it cannot be denied that Republicans, like all politicians, try and to buy votes just as the Dems do. And one way that they have done so in the past, is through these sort of government handouts. They oppose them in principle, they oppose them when FORCED on it...but when left to their own accords, Republican politicians can be just as wasteful as Dems. The last Republican-controlled Congress proved this very well.

So there is no blind love for Republicans on my part. They need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

And this is something that GOP-ers need to recognize as a serious weakness when it comes to independents and moderates. They look at the GOP politicians talking about eliminating waste and welfare, and yet they see Iowa...and ND...and other exceptionally subsidies pinko-socialist states (and they are, Benji is right about this). These are the states that vote for Rick Santorum, and pretend like they are the TRUE pure-blood salt-of-the-earth "conservatives".

That's hypocrisy. I had this same conversation with a friend of mine a few weeks ago, and he's pretty Left, but can easily be convinced on fiscal issues. But people like him always being up one issue: hypocrisy on the part of the GOP.

I see this hypocrisy all the time on part of so-called "conservatives". I know this guy who is from Iowa, religious fanatic, family values etc etc. All the typical stuff. And yet he essentially has lived his entire life, thus far, on government subsidies, first as a Navy sailor, then as a VA loans recipient, then he lived off student loans for many years (not paid his way through college. No...LIVED on them, with a family of 4 for 6 years). That's an example of a "true conservative voter"?

In fact, I'd say there are indeed 2 branches in the GOP: the more "libertarian" fiscally conservative side...and the Rick Santorum side. Rick Santorum represents places like Iowa, ND etc. These people do not "walk the walk".

Call me a bigot if you want. I am bigoted towards big-spending social conservatives.

 
At 5/07/2012 11:58 AM, Blogger Paul said...

AIG,

"Well, can you blame him?"

Yes.

"GOP senators/congressmen have fought hard to keep them and grow them."

So have Democrats. Look at the Senate and Congressional maps of rural states and you see plenty of D's after their names. And I repeat: Benji's boyfriend was a big booster of Big Ag. He even flew around on ADM corporate jets during the 2008 campaign. Somehow that never permeates Benji's Etch-A-Sketch brain.

"Sure, but ND is happily taking them."

Yep, you'd take free money too. Needs to be cleaned up, I agree.

"Nebraska and Iowa are the biggest recipients."

Yep. Ever heard of Senator Tom Harkin? Big ethanol booster. Big, big Democrat. How about Tom Vilsack? Former Democrat Iowa governor, now Obama's Ag Secretary.


".but when left to their own accords, Republican politicians can be just as wasteful as Dems. The last Republican-controlled Congress proved this very well."

See, I dispute that. Go back to the Gingrich years of 1994 to around 2000, especially the early years. They held the line against Clinton's spending impulses, and even passed the "Freedom to Farm" bill that was supposed to phase out subsidies. They went to the mat against Clinton's spending in the government shutdown of 1995, but lost the battle of public opinion because they were effectively painted as "extemists." The GOP lost their way during the Bush years, but I'd go back to their overall record in a second over the Pelosi/Reid and then Obama team. I don't believe it's wise to throw the bums out if their replacements are far far "bummier."

"But people like him always being up one issue: hypocrisy on the part of the GOP."

Ok fine, but the real problem is the hypocrisy of the voters. They say they want spending cut and the budget balanced, just not their programs! Oh, and tax the rich guy too.

 
At 5/07/2012 2:12 PM, Blogger AIG said...

So have Democrats.
But so have Republians :) See, you can't deny complicity by deflecting.

Yep. Ever heard of Senator Tom Harkin? Big ethanol booster. Big, big Democrat. How about Tom Vilsack? Former Democrat Iowa governor, now Obama's Ag Secretary.
Have you ever heard of Chuck Grassley?

See, Dems aren't the ones calling for smaller government and less welfare. They're calling for more, and they're walking the walk.

It's the Republicans claiming otherwise, but sometimes doing the opposite. So bringing up examples of Dems doing it, doesn't do anything for the argument.

The GOP lost their way during the Bush years,
Right, so you didn't dispute it.

Ok fine, but the real problem is the hypocrisy of the voters. They say they want spending cut and the budget balanced, just not their programs!
Of course. And the Republican politicians give it to them just as easily as the Dem politicians.

Oh, and tax the rich guy too.
I've heard lots of "conservatives" say exactly the same thing too...to my utter disbelief. (which is why I think this country is already beyond salvation)

 
At 5/07/2012 3:06 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"See, you can't deny complicity by deflecting."

Who is deflecting? I never said otherwise. Benji is the one doing that when he lumps it all at the feet of the GOP.

"See, Dems aren't the ones calling for smaller government and less welfare. They're calling for more, and they're walking the walk."

"Have you ever heard of Chuck Grassley?"

Yep, we should primary his ass a la Orrin Hatch with somebody who can win the general election. It would be stupid to replace him with a Democrat who will also vote for farm subsidies + Obama's agenda.

And by any measuring stick the "pure" Democrats are still overall worse than the "hypocritical" GOP. That's what I"m looking at when all is said and done.

"And the Republican politicians give it to them just as easily as the Dem politicians."

No they don't, individual bad apples do. Again, look at the report cards. You wouldn't make that claim accurately, for example, about Rep Jeff Flake.

 
At 5/07/2012 3:22 PM, Blogger Paul said...

AIG,

Forgot to mention, Grassley's opponent in 2010 was a grubby trial lawyer who made millions robbing rich corporations like Microsoft. She supported all the "green jobs" rubbish, socialist health care, and the rest of Obama's agenda. Trust me when I say she represented the absolute worst of America. There's alot more I could say that I can't really get into here.

I'm sure you realize sometimes you have to choose the least bad option.

 
At 5/07/2012 4:12 PM, Blogger AIG said...

I'm sure you realize sometimes you have to choose the least bad option.

Sure, but one shouldn't try to justify or excuse the bad decisions of the less-bad options. One should criticize them, so that they become better options.

 
At 5/07/2012 4:32 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Aig: "A state like ND or Wyoming or SD or Montana, with populations which are ridiculously small, get to control a disproportionate number of Senate seats...seats which the Republicans use as political leverage."

There is nothing disproportionate about each state being represented by two Senators. Equal state representation is the whole idea behind having a bicameral legislature.

I understand that Senators are no longer responsible to the states they supposedly represent, but that is a different argument.

 
At 5/07/2012 4:55 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Peak: "Would it be better if federal tax dollars paid by each state equal federal tax dollars received for each state?"

It might be better if tax dollars paid by each state just stayed in that state. The whole idea of paying federal taxes is to redistribute it, otherwise, what's the point?

Well, besides having the ability to threaten states with withholding federal funding if states don't comply with federal mandates.

"Also, hasn't North Dakota done more than its fair share producing value and paying taxes through employment?"

ND has a "fair share"? Who knew?

Peak, no matter how hard the fine folks in ND work, how much in federal taxes they pay, and no matter how admirable they are in every way, if they receive more than $1 for every $1 in taxes paid, They are receiving a net benefit.

Besides, the state of ND hasn't provided that value, it seems some private businesses are doing that.

 
At 5/07/2012 7:07 PM, Blogger AIG said...

There is nothing disproportionate about each state being represented by two Senators. Equal state representation is the whole idea behind having a bicameral legislature.

No my argument is that a state of 400k people, shouldn't be a state. 400k people shouldn't get to have 2 senators, the same as a state with 25 million people.

I say combine 6-7 or 10 of these together, and make 1 state.

 
At 5/08/2012 2:22 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

AIG: "
No my argument is that a state of 400k people, shouldn't be a state. 400k people shouldn't get to have 2 senators, the same as a state with 25 million people.

I say combine 6-7 or 10 of these together, and make 1 state.
"

Even better, maybe the entire US should be re-apportioned to equalize state populations.

I understand your argument, but the whole purpose of the Senate is to represent each state equally, originally as 13, and now as 50, sovereign political bodies.

It's possible that second number is actually 57, but the point remains.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home