[goMac]

IBM has put up a demo map of earmarks per capita using data from the Office of Management And Budget.

http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/m...ha6WQKfxjkvQ2~

Interesting how the conservative states lead the way in earmarks (with Alaska way, way, way out in front.)

[stumblinmike]

Take that back! We all know it's the dems that love their pork. Gov. Palin said "thanks, but no thanks" when she was offered goodies. That's common knowledge! Republicans are both thrifty AND polite.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/m...ha6WQKfxjkvQ2~
Interesting how the conservative states lead the way in earmarks (with Alaska way, way, way out in front.)

Originally Posted by stumblinmike

Take that back! We all know it's the dems that love their pork. Gov. Palin said "thanks, but no thanks" when she was offered goodies. That's common knowledge! Republicans are both thrifty AND polite.

Curious how concepts like 'per capita' and 'demographic' elude otherwise reasoned folks and the swiftness of the hand cymbal-clapping monkeys who encourage their campaign of misinformation.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Curious how concepts like 'per capita' and 'demographic' elude otherwise reasoned folks and the swiftness of hand cymbal-clapping monkeys who encourage their misinformation.

Did it really?

If Alaska has such a low economic output, why are their earmarks extremely unbalanced?

[BRussell]

Even if you don't look at it by population, but just by revenues into the treasury vs. spending out, Alaska, and the Republican states in general, are the ones whose welfare is subsidized by the Democratic states, which tend to be much wealthier and pay much more in taxes than they get in spending.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Did it really?

If Alaska has such a low economic output, why are their earmarks extremely unbalanced?

Yes. It is not "economic output" as much as "economic impact" and national interest in the Alaskan territory. The population of Alaska is just over 683,000 people. Their impact is exponentially higher than their population alone could suggest.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Even if you don't look at it by population, but just by revenues into the treasury vs. spending out, Alaska, and the Republican states in general, are the ones whose welfare is subsidized by the Democratic states, which tend to be much wealthier and pay much more in taxes than they get in spending.

Think about it BRussell, this is the exact same argument, based on the same flawed premise. If there are fewer people, there are fewer taxpayers. The increase in seniors, the obligation to natives, R&D, NASA, and military spending (to name a few) are all disproportionately high in Alaska. The Federal government will likely continue to encourage population growth in Alaska.

Furthermore, I'm sure you understand why Alaska is particularly noteworthy this election year and unfortunately your chart (dated 2004) has absolutely nothing to do with Palin. All you will find under Palin is a decrease in Federal dollars. In 2005, Alaska was the beneficiary of over $700 million in earmarks. For the 2007 FY, under former Gov. Frank Murkowski there were 63 earmarks for $350 million. In Palin's first year, it dropped to 52 earmarks for $256. This year it is 31 earmarks for $197 million. BTW, she claimed the desire to make her state more self-sufficient and that seems to be what she's trying to do. Reprehensible I know.

[RAILhead]

Please don't try and be logical -- all the circle jerking has made the Loons even more unbalanced than they were for Clinton.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Think about it BRussell, this is the exact same argument, based on the same flawed premise. If there are fewer people, there are fewer taxpayers. The increase in seniors, the obligation to natives, R&D, NASA, and military spending (to name a few) are all disproportionately high in Alaska. The Federal government will likely continue to encourage population growth in Alaska.

Living in one of these states, and knowing politicians and having served on boards of directors and committees that have put together earmark proposals, I'm well aware of the arguments as to why the wealthier (and mostly Democratic) states should continue to funnel money to us. But I don't think the original poster's point was primarily about Alaska, but rather about how certain states get lots of federal money vs. those that mainly give to the federal treasury. There's some irony in the fact that many of the people who complain loudest about people on welfare are themselves residing in states on welfare. And Alaska is the biggest welfare queen of them all.

Furthermore, I'm sure you understand why Alaska is particularly noteworthy this election year and unfortunately your chart (dated 2004) has absolutely nothing to do with Palin. All you will find under Palin is a decrease in Federal dollars. In 2005, Alaska was the beneficiary of over $700 million in earmarks. For the 2007 FY, under former Gov. Frank Murkowski there were 63 earmarks for $350 million. In Palin's first year, it dropped to 52 earmarks for $256. This year it is 31 earmarks for $197 million. BTW, she claimed the desire to make her state more self-sufficient and that seems to be what she's trying to do. Reprehensible I know.

I wasn't even thinking about Palin, but the fact is, Palin is a liar and hypocrite of the first order on earmarks. She claims to have said "thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere," when in fact she supported it long after McCain singled it out and even after Congress killed it. As mayor she was a pioneer in the use of a lobbyist for her city to obtain earmarks. Well, that's the system we have, and Alaska is probably the worst offender, but she shouldn't pretend to be different when she isn't.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Why shouldn't the rich states pay their "fair share"? Isn't that what you Dems are always trying to set up in every other walk of life?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Living in one of these states, and knowing politicians and having served on boards of directors and committees that have put together earmark proposals, I'm well aware of the arguments as to why the wealthier (and mostly Democratic) states should continue to funnel money to us. But I don't think the original poster's point was primarily about Alaska, but rather about how certain states get lots of federal money vs. those that mainly give to the federal treasury. There's some irony in the fact that many of the people who complain loudest about people on welfare are themselves residing in states on welfare. And Alaska is the biggest welfare queen of them all.

In all these interactions with politicians (governors among them I presume) you're well aware of the fact that one of their primary functions is to procure federal money for their State. This is unique to no States including those on the East and West Coast as you'll also see from your charts. The fact of the matter is that the lions share of Federal money is in fact being funneled into those "fiscally responsible" States and while the irony of railing against welfare doesn't exist in those States, it is no less reprehensible an abuse of our system. How about we judge these people on equal footing?

I wasn't even thinking about Palin, but the fact is, Palin is a liar and hypocrite of the first order on earmarks.

I love it. I give you figures on how her State is running on essentially an 8th of the Federal money they were in prior administrations and you reply with; "Palin is a liar and hypocrite." That's one thing I love about numbers. They're dry, emotionless, and apparently irrefutable.

Speaking of hypocrites and per capita figures; I wonder when Chicago will be able to celebrate a lower murder rate than Iraq. Maybe we should pull the police out of that quagmire.

She claims to have said "thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere," when in fact she supported it long after McCain singled it out and even after Congress killed it.

She opposed it primarily because she didn't want her State to have to match the funds. Again, you seem to ignore a primary function of governors. It's a broken system alright and while her State is still receiving a disproportionately high amount of Federal dollars, they're most definitely moving in the proper direction. She at least seems to be trying. How about her opponents, how are they doing on decreasing their take? I want to make sure we've tempered our definitions of hypocrisy and lying with some degree of fairness.

As mayor she was a pioneer in the use of a lobbyist for her city to obtain earmarks. Well, that's the system we have, and Alaska is probably the worst offender, but she shouldn't pretend to be different when she isn't.

I'd say taking a pay cut is different. I'd say an 80+% approval rating is unique. As far as liars and hypocrites, this in regards to politicians is as old as the day is long. I'm to assume of course that the opposing ticket represents integrity, clean money, and transparency. Egadz.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Curious how concepts like 'per capita' and 'demographic' elude otherwise reasoned folks and the swiftness of the hand cymbal-clapping monkeys who encourage their campaign of misinformation.

Is there any other appropriate way to look at it than "per capita"?

[OreoCookie]

There will always be a transfer of wealth from richer states to poorer states. States with more people living in urban areas will tend to be richer and more liberal. Rural areas tend to be poorer and more conservative. (Same story all over the world.)

Alaska is rather special: because of the harsh climate, it's not very enticing to live there when you can stay in the Bay Area or in Florida. On the other hand, Alaska has natural resources which need to be mined.

What is interesting, however, is the fact that on a national level, Republicans like to have a reputation that they are stricter against earmarks, although red states profit much more than blue states.

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Is there any other appropriate way to look at it than "per capita"?

You could compare dollars received for each dollar given as done above. Not that this changes the picture, though. Poorer states remain poorer, no matter how you look at it.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In all these interactions with politicians (governors among them I presume) you're well aware of the fact that one of their primary functions is to procure federal money for their State. This is unique to no States including those on the East and West Coast as you'll also see from your charts. The fact of the matter is that the lions share of Federal money is in fact being funneled into those "fiscally responsible" States and while the irony of railing against welfare doesn't exist in those States, it is no less reprehensible an abuse of our system. How about we judge these people on equal footing?

Some states get much more than they put in, some states put in much more than they get back. I don't see how there's any fairer way of judging it.

I love it. I give you figures on how her State is running on essentially an 8th of the Federal money they were in prior administrations and you reply with; "Palin is a liar and hypocrite." That's one thing I love about numbers. They're dry, emotionless, and apparently irrefutable.

Interesting how you figure that 197 is 1/8 of 350. I didn't think this was about Palin, but you see this through ultra-partisan eyes and feel the need to defend this ridiculous figure. Every objective source, including conservatives, have recognized that she has lied repeatedly about the "bridge to nowhere." As far as I know, even she doesn't use that line anymore. She was caught blatantly lying about it. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, and it's all about whether you can spin something back towards Obama or Biden or Democrats.

Speaking of hypocrites and per capita figures; I wonder when Chicago will be able to celebrate a lower murder rate than Iraq. Maybe we should pull the police out of that quagmire.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything (except your intent to inject partisan presidential politics into everything), but would you really rather live in Iraq than Chicago?

She opposed it primarily because she didn't want her State to have to match the funds. Again, you seem to ignore a primary function of governors. It's a broken system alright and while her State is still receiving a disproportionately high amount of Federal dollars, they're most definitely moving in the proper direction. She at least seems to be trying. How about her opponents, how are they doing on decreasing their take? I want to make sure we've tempered our definitions of hypocrisy and lying with some degree of fairness.

She didn't oppose it. She campaigned for governor supporting it. She never opposed it. Congress killed the earmark while she was supporting it. They gave her the money that was previously earmarked for the bridge anyway, and she spent it on something else. That's not opposing it.

I'd say taking a pay cut is different. I'd say an 80+% approval rating is unique. As far as liars and hypocrites, this in regards to politicians is as old as the day is long. I'm to assume of course that the opposing ticket represents integrity, clean money, and transparency. Egadz.

You're seeing this through an ultra-partisan lens of presidential politics. I don't think that was the intent of the thread. The intent was to show how conservative states (which tend to be a lot poorer than liberal states) depend on transfers from liberal states (which tend to be wealthier).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The intent was to show how conservative states (which tend to be a lot poorer than liberal states) depend on transfers from liberal states (which tend to be wealthier).

That's a really silly way of looking at it, this whole idea of "conservative states" and "liberal states".

Republicans tend to earn more and pay more in taxes than Democrats, in whatever states they live in.

In 2004, the year of your chart, Kerry got a majority of votes from those earning 50k and under. Bush got a majority of votes from those earning 50k and above- the majority of taxpayers. Most states are really purple, not blue or red, and certainly not 'liberal' vs. 'conservative'.

But if it makes liberals feel good to take credit for something that someone else really pays more for, go ahead.

Besides, I'm enjoying the spectacle of you of all people trying to explain why it's a bad thing that we have a system where the poor are floated by the rich.

[Gee-Man]

My take on all this is that earmarks are wildly overrated as a factor in federal spending. John McCain makes it seem like this is the root of all federal spending evil, so we debate who gets earmarks and how much in proportion to what they add to the federal budget, but the bottom line is this - earmarks consist of 0.6% of the federal budget. Or, if you prefer your data in chart form:



It's just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Some states get much more than they put in, some states put in much more than they get back. I don't see how there's any fairer way of judging it.

It has already been explained to you. Populations alone do not adequately express the particular needs of a State or that State's impact on the US as a whole.

Interesting how you figure that 197 is 1/8 of 350.

Actually, I was using the 'over $700 million' figure, but it was exaggerated either way. Apologies.

I didn't think this was about Palin, but you see this through ultra-partisan eyes and feel the need to defend this ridiculous figure. Every objective source, including conservatives, have recognized that she has lied repeatedly about the "bridge to nowhere." As far as I know, even she doesn't use that line anymore. She was caught blatantly lying about it. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, and it's all about whether you can spin something back towards Obama or Biden or Democrats.

Regardless of what you think of Palin, "earmarks" and "Alaska" are both of particular interest this election year. This was not a partisan extrapolation BRussell. It received the exact reaction it was intended to receive. This isn't some interesting aside about how "red" states (interestingly, several of them with (D) governors" in 2004) received more funds than they paid out. That's kind of a sleeper and you know it. The focus was apparent.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything (except your intent to inject partisan presidential politics into everything), but would you really rather live in Iraq than Chicago?

Can I think about that? Their economy is booming and their murder rate is lower.

She didn't oppose it. She campaigned for governor supporting it. She never opposed it. Congress killed the earmark while she was supporting it. They gave her the money that was previously earmarked for the bridge anyway, and she spent it on something else. That's not opposing it.

What would make you think I believe McCain and Palin aren't completely full of shxx? I don't think any of 'em have integrity. This is not the first time you've projected on me. I don't see things as all left or all right BRussell. If I vote, I'll be voting for whomever is less full of shxx and whomever comes closest to what I believe is the better vision for our country.

You're seeing this through an ultra-partisan lens of presidential politics. I don't think that was the intent of the thread. The intent was to show how conservative states (which tend to be a lot poorer than liberal states) depend on transfers from liberal states (which tend to be wealthier).

ultra-partisan lens? Really?

What if gomac were to return to claim that this in fact does relate to this election by design? He just happened to be thinking about earmarks? Would you admit that you've projected in error? Again. I'll readily apologize if gomac pops back in to clarify that it was merely to show that conservative states depend on transfers from liberal states and that it had nothing to do with the election.