4 ms·
>Funny that it is the red states that tend to get more federal dollars returned/pumped into their states than they contribute. Perhaps we should look into what
by jdhn 8y ago
>Funny that it is the red states that tend to get more federal dollars returned/pumped into their states than they contribute.
Perhaps we should look into what type of federal dollars are flowing to the red states, and then shrink those programs.
- oh_sigh 8y agoOk, so no more medical aid, military bases, or food growing subsidies for red states. Thats surely going to work out well
- jdhn 8y agoI'm fine with shrinking all of those programs.
- ameister14 8y agoYou're fine with shrinking medical aid programs? And you're a Democrat?
- jdhn 8y agoNo, I consider myself an independent who leans conservative/libertarian.
- ameister14 8y agoAh, gotcha.
- AngryData 8y agoWhile shrinking agricultural subsidies from a glance looks like a great way to save a lot of money, the reality of it is not so simple. Those agricultural subsidies are THE reason we don't regularly experience large spikes in food prices and have regular and expected small famines, similar to other regular market fluctuations. And if we do experience a famine from say poor rainfall, or bad storms while nor producing any extra, then we will have almost nobody to turn to to import food from since almost all of our major trading partners are importing our food and have little to export. Not to mention the security risk it posses to be low on food, and further the civil uprisings that desperation would inevitably cause. The vast majority of uprisings and civil revolts throughout history have been triggered by food shortages and famine. The reason agricultural subsidies were initially implemented was to prevent civil strife and rebellion; farmers not losing their asses so bad from a badly timed market shift was just a side benefit.
- mixmastamyk 8y agoUS already imports a lot of food and could import more temporarily. Sounds like the case is overstated a bit.
- j-c-hewitt 8y agoMedicaid, Medicare, SSDI, regular SS, Department of Education, the VA... basically old people and children eat up the Federal Budget and the rest of the money is left over for discretionary sporting wars internationally and parades/exercises/weapons manufacturing domestically.
- deadmetheny 8y ago>Perhaps we should look into what type of federal dollars are flowing to the red states, and then shrink those programs. So we're cutting safety net programs for the poor and elderly and agricultural subsidies. Call me crazy here but I don't think "fuck the poor and the farmers" is a very solid plan.
- moate 8y agoCutting agg subsidies is an extremely complicated issue that has major economic impact here and around the globe. I'm in favor of killing many of them for the greater global good. Especially cotton.
- jandrewrogers 8y agoThis has been done but it spoils the narrative. It is money given to retirees (Social Security, Medicare, etc) and the location of Federal employees, notably military bases (intentionally located in cheap and rural places) and various agency offices involved in land management and natural resources (inherently distributed in rural, western areas). Since no one is going to shrink Social Security/Medicare, and military bases need to be put somewhere in flyover country, and no blue State wants to shrink/eliminate the National Parks, forest service, EPA, etc, it starts to become clear why the current flow of Federal spending in rural red States exists. A huge amount of Federal employment outside of Washington DC is intrinsically tied to extremely rural locales, which tend to be "red". Oftentimes, like with the Department of Interior agencies, the employees aren't even local -- it is an assignment from Washington DC.