That is surprising, yes! I stand corrected.Surprisingly not true. Looking at the wiki, it's hard to find any relationship between state budgets and politically persuasion.
That is surprising, yes! I stand corrected.Surprisingly not true. Looking at the wiki, it's hard to find any relationship between state budgets and politically persuasion.
Then again…Upon further reflection, that list in the Wiki seems to be misleading, since it doesn't include local spending. Different states divide up the money between the state and local level in different ways. This link probably has a better overview.
![]()
State and Local Expenditures
www.urban.org
Alaska does win, but Wyoming is 2. ND is still above average. Showing your point still holds, R states aren't automatically lower.Upon further reflection, that list in the Wiki seems to be misleading, since it doesn't include local spending. Different states divide up the money between the state and local level in different ways. This link probably has a better overview.
![]()
State and Local Expenditures
www.urban.org
No, but there’s clearly a correlation there. And, given their population densities and landmasses, it makes sense that AK and WY are 1 and 2 on a per capita basis.Alaska does win, but Wyoming is 2. ND is still above average. Showing your point still holds, R states aren't automatically lower.
True, but also a lot of cost would be lower. I doubt your average license branch employee makes nearly as much in Wyoming as CA. I doubt rent on government offices are as high. So there are some trade-offsNo, but there’s clearly a correlation there. And, given their population densities and landmasses, it makes sense that AK and WY are 1 and 2 on a per capita basis.
Blue states aren’t operating in a vacuum. It’s not that surprising the states are close. They have to compete against red states and if they get carried away their tax base will leave. Once again, you’re welcome liberals😉No, but there’s clearly a correlation there. And, given their population densities and landmasses, it makes sense that AK and WY are 1 and 2 on a per capita basis.
If you look at this list, it seems to me the primary correlation is geographic. That said, I'm more struck by the relative lack of variation. Almost everyone spends between 9K and 12K per capita, regardless of region or politics, with just a tiny handful of outliers.No, but there’s clearly a correlation there. And, given their population densities and landmasses, it makes sense that AK and WY are 1 and 2 on a per capita basis.
You also have to factor in Federal spending. The more the federal government spends, the less variation in spending between states would be my hypothesis. It would be interesting to see if it stayed the same (percentage wise) if the federal government spending was cut in half.If you look at this list, it seems to me the primary correlation is geographic. That said, I'm more struck by the relative lack of variation. Almost everyone spends between 9K and 12K per capita, regardless of region or politics, with just a tiny handful of outliers.
![]()
State and Local Direct General Expenditures, Per Capita
www.taxpolicycenter.org
I suppose you might make some arguments for political proclivities in individual cases - for example why Vermont spends so much more than New Hampshire. But on the other end, there are real head scratchers, like North Dakota and Wyoming, who far outspend their neighbors, with neither state being driven by a sudden spate of progressive policymaking.
Well, that is a ~30% difference.Almost everyone spends between 9K and 12K per capita, regardless of region or politics, with just a tiny handful of outliers.
Yeah, but back of the napkin math suggests a standard deviation of about 1600. That just seems really tight to me.Well, that is a ~30% difference.
Wasn’t there a thread on this when Trump originally brought it up?
I thought there was but I looked and couldn’t find it.
According to ChatGPT, which in real time cited it searched seven sources:While I agree, it’s more of a problem on one side than it is the other.
It’s not a coincidence that red state governments tend to have smaller budgets than blue state governments.
I remember during the sequestration fight back in the Obama years, the admin put defense spending on the cutting table, believing that it would prevent Republican legislators from letting the cuts kick in.
Republican legislators let the cuts kick in. And I got some brief satisfaction out of it. Because there’s no reason defense spending should be a sacred cow.
That said, it’s not our chief fiscal problem. The growth of entitlement spending is.
Where do you want to live?According to ChatGPT, which in real time cited it searched seven sources:
24 states have a DNC Governor.
17 states have a DNC Governor and DNC legislative control
Those are (alphabetically):
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
I then asked which states have the highest standard of living:
Not sure of the order, but assume they're in some consensus order. The bold print are those showing up in the 17 states just above...
8 of the 12 have DNC control. Virginia has a DNC Governor.
- Massachusetts
- New Hampshire
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- Vermont
- Utah
- Washington
- Colorado
- Virginia
- Connecticut
- Maryland
- Hawaii
Asked which states have the lowest standard of living, it listed 10 schools:
Asked how many had GOP legislative control. All of them.
- Mississippi
- Louisiana
- West Virginia
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- New Mexico
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- Tennessee
New Mexico and Kentucky have a DNC Governor.
If one looks at their personal gain, they're likely to view bigger state budgets as potential wasteful spending, but there is a definite correlation between DNC control and standard of living.
BTW, I asked GROK (Twitter/Musk's AI) the same question about 10 states with the highest standard living, it leaned even more toward DNC controlled states.
According to ChatGPT, which in real time cited it searched seven sources:
24 states have a DNC Governor.
17 states have a DNC Governor and DNC legislative control
Those are (alphabetically):
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
I then asked which states have the highest standard of living:
Not sure of the order, but assume they're in some consensus order. The bold print are those showing up in the 17 states just above...
8 of the 12 have DNC control. Virginia has a DNC Governor.
- Massachusetts
- New Hampshire
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- Vermont
- Utah
- Washington
- Colorado
- Virginia
- Connecticut
- Maryland
- Hawaii
Asked which states have the lowest standard of living, it listed 10 schools:
Asked how many had GOP legislative control. All of them.
- Mississippi
- Louisiana
- West Virginia
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- New Mexico
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- Tennessee
New Mexico and Kentucky have a DNC Governor.
If one looks at their personal gain, they're likely to view bigger state budgets as potential wasteful spending, but there is a definite correlation between DNC control and standard of living.
BTW, I asked GROK (Twitter/Musk's AI) the same question about 10 states with the highest standard living, it leaned even more toward DNC controlled states.
Spending is does come down to value in most of what we do. If a government is spending and your services and standard of living is crap...then it's a problem. If you're getting value for it, then it's not.What does this have to do with one party being worse on spending profligacy than the other? That was the point I was making.
I agree that both parties suck on the issue. But it really isn’t a 50/50 thing. Nor should we expect it to be - given their general orientations.
I'm just fine living where I do. All politics is local, and we do a great job here of getting rid of the nut jobs during the primaries.Where do you want to live?
People (and, more importantly, their money) have been leaving them in pretty big numbers.Spending is does come down to value in most of what we do. If a government is spending and your services and standard of living is crap...then it's a problem. If you're getting value for it, then it's not.
You brought up state spending. Standard of living should be part of that context.
Maybe I'll revert to your logic. What does state spending, relative to party politics, have to do with the federal budget?
Now I'm back to context matters. I didn't research actual state budgets, per capita. I just took your word for it. Blue states spend more. OK...great. If blue states have on average a higher standard of living, maybe they're getting the bang for their buck.
In any event, my point is still that while excessive, irresponsible spending is a bipartisan phenomenon, it is not equally bipartisan.Spending is does come down to value in most of what we do. If a government is spending and your services and standard of living is crap...then it's a problem. If you're getting value for it, then it's not.
You brought up state spending. Standard of living should be part of that context.
Maybe I'll revert to your logic. What does state spending, relative to party politics, have to do with the federal budget?
Now I'm back to context matters. I didn't research actual state budgets, per capita. I just took your word for it. Blue states spend more. OK...great. If blue states have on average a higher standard of living, maybe they're getting the bang for their buck.
You also have to factor in Federal spending. The more the federal government spends, the less variation in spending between states would be my hypothesis. It would be interesting to see if it stayed the same (percentage wise) if the federal government spending was cut in half.
Agreed fully, we have folks in the House who have never drafted legislation and make statements which disclose they couldn’t pass introductory political science course at IU- we are led by idiot sheep in many waysNo President can do this on their own authority. Requires a statutory amendment.
Can we make candidates take a civics seminar or something?
Eliminate the federal money and make the state and local governments raise taxes to pay for the services for their residents. Yes….I am fully aware of the “red state”, “blue state” statement that normally follows.You can account for federal spending by looking below. Per capita, North Dakota and Wyoming also rake in federal dollars. So both spend a lot in state and local money and get a lot of federal money, per person. Both are rural but there are other rural states that spend less.
![]()
Which states rely the most on federal aid?
A fifth of state and local government revenues come from federal funding.usafacts.org
Indiana gets more federal money, per person, than Illinois. Not a lot more, but more.
After COVID I’ll take my chance with a red state any dayWhere do you want to live?
Yep….and a lot of folks exited blue states around the same timeAfter COVID I’ll take my chance with a red state any day
You should sure about that?People (and, more importantly, their money) have been leaving them in pretty big numbers.
So what happens when the sources of those bucks decide not to play along?
I didn't say Democrats do it more. You said that and brought up state spending.In any event, my point is still that while excessive, irresponsible spending is a bipartisan phenomenon, it is not equally bipartisan.
You’re switching now from saying “both parties do it equally!” to “OK, Democrats do it more…but it’s worth it!”
Those can’t both be true.
Please stop trying to debate crazed. You’re too stupid to understand just how far out of your weight class you are. You’re just clogging up threadsI didn't say Democrats do it more. You said that and brought up state spending.
We were talking about the federal budget until you brought up state budgets. I didn't even look at state spending. I just took your word for it. I looked up DNC governed states, crosschecking standards of living.
We're not debating, bro. LOLPlease stop trying to debate crazed. You’re too stupid to understand just how far out of your weight class you are. You’re just clogging up threads
Shhhhhhh. You’re never debating. You just get handled or ignored. I’m not your broWe're not debating, bro. LOL
We agree deficits at the federal level aren't party specific.
He said spending at the state level is more prominent in states governed by Democrats. I didn't refute it and took him at his word.
I cross checked those states with standard of living lists and wonder what the value of the spending was.
More like my b!tch, then. LOLShhhhhhh. You’re never debating. You just get handled or ignored. I’m not your bro
You’re not fooling anyone. You know betterMore like my b!tch, then. LOL
Yet here you are, bro.You’re not fooling anyone. You know better