| ▲ | Forgeties79 3 hours ago |
| > Think of it as an investment. The rest of the EU also benefits from their hard work, and economic prosperity. Other countries in the EU have also enjoyed economic growth and support over the years. This is something I tell people I am generally politically/socially align with (liberals/progressives) when they start talking about “handouts for red states.” California and other areas were not developed on their own, they required years of sustained federal investment and interest in the area. It obviously goes without saying that conservatives in the US need to stop demonizing taxes so much for the same reason/they need to recognize that as the some of the largest beneficiaries of federal tax dollars they are cutting their nose to spite their face (I believe Kentucky is still the most subsidized state in the US). All of us should want our states cooperation with the federal government so we can all rise together, and we need to view investing in our neighbors as a collective good. |
|
| ▲ | jandrewrogers an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The argument that red states receive handouts is essentially a myth. Almost the entirety of the "handout" is social security/medicare based on where retirees live (notably the sunbelt), where military bases are located (rural areas of less populous states), and where most Federal land management offices and employees are located (the mountain west). Ironically, it counts Federal employment as "welfare" with more steps. Two of the three are intrinsically tied to the locale. You can't move the National Forests to Manhattan. They closed the military bases in the most expensive areas like California decades ago to save money so they are mostly located in flyover country now. Social Security actually is a welfare handout but retirees are choosing to move to red states. Unless one is arguing to forcibly prevent retirees from moving to the sunbelt, Social Security dollars will disproportionately flow into those states. There is no red state "handout". |
| |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A cursory search indicates an even split of red/states put in more than they get, but that 7 of the top 10 receivers of federal aid are red states. But ultimately my point doesn’t hinge on the ratio: everyone should support solid investments in all states. You can give all the caveats you want but my point is it doesn’t matter what the reason is, these states rail against taxes and the federal government despite leaning heavily on their investment and “donor states” need to see it as a positive for all of us. Why does it matter if it’s national parks or military bases or whatever? Do you think these states would gladly give it up so they can “liberate themselves from federal intervention” or whatever? Fat chance. |
|
|
| ▲ | bregma 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People need something to resent or hold in disregard. Government and taxes are a good target. The problem only really begin when someone actually tries to reduce or eliminate that target. It's the old "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it". |
|
| ▲ | PopAlongKid 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >This is something I tell people I am generally politically/socially align with (liberals/progressives) when they start talking about “handouts for red states.” California and other areas were not developed on their own, they required years of sustained federal investment and interest in the area. If they were to ask where you think this "federal investment" funding came from, what would you reply? |
| |
| ▲ | brookst 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s a fair point, but there is a significant difference between investment in infrastructure and education versus just supporting states that are intentionally degrading their infrastructure and education. Upwards spiral versus downwards. Money pours in for both cases, but only one is really an investment. | | | |
| ▲ | simonh 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Much of it would come from borrowing, which would be paid back using tax revenues in later years from the regions developed using that investment. Just like most investments. | |
| ▲ | tsunamifury 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Equating investments in California with the welfare state that is Louisiana is a take | | |
| ▲ | Danox 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The West Coast of the United States, California, Washington, and Oregon. will just move on like the rest of the world is moving on away from the United States. Turning your back on infrastructure useful infrastructure medicine education, science, schools is not a winning hand long-term. If you look at a map of the American South Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia will just move on. Actually it’s already happening and has been happening for the last 30 years. Other parts of the American South are however, stuck more firmly in the past and getting further behind and that also applies to some of the Midwestern states. Louisiana has another ongoing long-term problem the gulf of Mexico is eating away at the bottom half of the state lands end is moving further north that involves scientific observations oh boy thems fighting words. |
| |
| ▲ | spiderfarmer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Preferably your taxes in particular. | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | leereeves 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > California and other areas were not developed on their own, they required years of sustained federal investment and interest in the area. In a similar way, Western Europe benefited from a lot of investment after WW2, while Eastern Europe didn't receive the same investment then. So the recent investment OP mentioned is just balancing the scales. |
| |
| ▲ | Danox 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | World War II significantly contributed to the development of the West Coast of the United States mid century. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle harbors became crucial to the war effort in the pacific, leading to industrial expansion and the establishment of the UC system and the junior colleges in California, which eventually led to Silicon Valley, also the large water projects built 50-60 years earlier and the the transcontinental railroads built 50 years prior also didn’t hurt the expansion and growth of the West Coast of the United States either. Building useful infrastructure, in the can do America of the past worked, the parasitic AI data centers currently, however, appear to be a financial dead end. That era of America appears to be gone at the Federal level, infrastructure, schools, science, medicine, college, vaccines, voting etc. etc. don’t appear to be on the current menu. |
|
|
| ▲ | spiderfarmer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A rising tide lifts all boats |
|
| ▲ | totallykvothe 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
