3 ms·

Do you have any figures on this? I know during the Reagan administration the federal government heavily cut subsidization of rural areas, helping to accelerate

• TulliusCicero 5y ago
  It's hard to find data on this is general. I've seen a couple maps before of counties within states, and their state-level spending/revenue, but finding the same for counties when it comes to federal revenue...never seen anything like that. edit: I mean a map similar to this - https://streets.mn/2015/01/14/map-of-the-day-state-highway-taxes-vs-state-highway-spending/ https://streets.mn/2015/01/14/map-of-the-day-state-highway-t... Though it should really be a percentage-based map using population size, rather than using absolute amounts. edit2: ah, this is pretty decent, even though it's not a map - https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/dataresearch/fiscal/county_expenditures_revenues.pdf https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/dataresearch/f... As you can see here, King County (Seattle and nearby suburbs) sends way more to the state in revenue than it gets in spending. Most of the other counties -- which are obviously low population -- receive more in spending than revenue. In other words, they're subsidized. From what I understand, this is pretty common within states.
  • Clubber 5y ago
    Yes, it would be helpful to have a breakdown on what the spending was on. I would assume most of it is infrastructure like roads and whatnot, which people living in the expensive counties also benefit from (shipping goods, ease of travel, etc). It was funny, when Trump remarked about "shithole countries," he obviously hasn't seen rural America in a long time. As a country, we've allowed it to deteriorate quite a bit.