3 ms·

To be clear, rural areas receive more federal support, but it’s farm subsidies, not visible infrastructure.

ineedasername 6y ago
Yes, the role of government support in their lives does not take on as much of a visible role. However I'd also like to comment on a common argument that Blue States/Cities pay for Rural areas. Yes, red states receive a disproportionate amount of federal aid, but that is something everyone benefits from. For example, farm subsidies keep food costs low for everyone in the country. Low income states with a high proportion of people on SNAP & other means-tested government programs mean the social safety net is improving our society as a whole by ensuring fewer people are left behind, which would be an even larger drag on society & the economy. In short, I don't think you can separate funding by state in that way and come to any value judgments based on it because the interwoven nature of our society means we do not stand alone as individual states.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  I agree with your second paragraph, with the caveat that it would be nice for the direct beneficiaries of these funds to acknowledge the help they are receiving. That's my beef - not the subsidy, but the illusions held by the people receiving it.
nradov 6y ago
Farm subsidies aren't a major factor. The federal government spends about $20B per year on farm subsidies. https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/reforming-federal-farm-policies https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/reform... To put that in context, the GDP of the state of Iowa is $173B. And that's just one state with a large agriculture sector.
pasttense01 6y ago
Nonsense. Consider where government jobs are--and the massive economic effects of those jobs: there are substantially more federal government jobs (on a per capita basis) in the cities than the rural areas.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  I'm open to an argument, but citing jobs is unrelated to whether federal money flows into or out of a state relative to their income taxes.

Yes, the role of government support in their lives does not take on as much of a visible role. However I'd also like to comment on a common argument that Blue States/Cities pay for Rural areas. Yes, red states receive a disproportionate amount of federal aid, but that is something everyone benefits from. For example, farm subsidies keep food costs low for everyone in the country. Low income states with a high proportion of people on SNAP & other means-tested government programs mean the social safety net is improving our society as a whole by ensuring fewer people are left behind, which would be an even larger drag on society & the economy. In short, I don't think you can separate funding by state in that way and come to any value judgments based on it because the interwoven nature of our society means we do not stand alone as individual states.

edmundsauto 6y ago
I agree with your second paragraph, with the caveat that it would be nice for the direct beneficiaries of these funds to acknowledge the help they are receiving. That's my beef - not the subsidy, but the illusions held by the people receiving it.

nradov 6y ago

Farm subsidies aren't a major factor. The federal government spends about $20B per year on farm subsidies. https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/reforming-federal-farm-policies https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/reform... To put that in context, the GDP of the state of Iowa is $173B. And that's just one state with a large agriculture sector.

pasttense01 6y ago

Nonsense. Consider where government jobs are--and the massive economic effects of those jobs: there are substantially more federal government jobs (on a per capita basis) in the cities than the rural areas.

edmundsauto 6y ago
I'm open to an argument, but citing jobs is unrelated to whether federal money flows into or out of a state relative to their income taxes.