Alabama is #47!!!!! Alloak, how can that be?

#50 is a blue state. Great job HuffPo.

#50 is a blue state. Great job HuffPo.

I think they meant Republican States are more dependent on government that Democrat States.

Which is exactly what they said and exactly what that map indicates. New Mexico is an outlier and does effect the total but doesn't change HuffPo's thesis.

At the absolute bottom of the list is a blue state. New Mexico #50. Any point that was (supposedly) being made is totally squashed. Thanks for the chuckle, though.

At the absolute bottom of the list is a blue state. New Mexico #50. Any point that was (supposedly) being made is totally squashed. Thanks for the chuckle, though.

Alabama is right there with them at 47. Look at the top of the list, NJ is #1, Delaware is #2, Illinois 3 and Minnesota 4. Look at the entire picture, not the cherry picked points that help you.

New Mexico - #50. A BLUE STATE? How can that be?

Thanks HuffPo.

New Mexico - #50. A BLUE STATE? How can that be?

Thanks HuffPo.

Yeah whatever. This flew over your head or you are being obtuse. About what I would expect from #47. You must be proud. 😛

Mississippi #49
Kentucky #48
Alabama #47
Montana #46
West Virginia #45
Arizona #44
Louisiana #43
South Dakota #42
Maine #41

Alloak, care to comment?

With a blue state in last place, ever stop and think there may be other factors at play besides voting patterns? Ya think?

This is the type of garbage that attempts to establish proof based on a faulty correlation and serves no purpose but to divide people. Thanks HuffPo.

It never claimed to be an absolute. It said that overall red states got more from the federal government than blue states. You can bag on New Mexico all that you want to, but the overall 50 states average says it all. It appears that the money the Feds gave Alabama was not spent on reading comprehension classes.

It never claimed to be an absolute. It said that overall red states got more from the federal government than blue states.

I'm not debating that. I'm saying this can be attributed to numerous factors other than voting patterns. Unlike voting patterns, meaningful parameters.

Again, this type of crap doesn't establish anything meaningful. All it does is divide people. Good for HuffPo.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by alloak41]

New Mexico is an outlier and does effect the total but doesn't change HuffPo's thesis.

And that thesis is what? That certain states accept more revenue than they pay in. The reason for that is the citizens in those states are more likely to vote for one party over another?

Please.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by alloak41]

Whoever said it was just a river.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by gondicar]

New Mexico is an outlier and does effect the total but doesn't change HuffPo's thesis.

And that thesis is what? That certain states accept more revenue than they pay in. The reason for that is the citizens in those states are more likely to vote for one party over another?

Please.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by alloak41]

No, genius, you have your cause and effect reversed. The states where the voters say that they want government out of their lives (red states) are the states that accept the most help from the federal government. Now do you understand?

New Mexico is an outlier and does effect the total but doesn't change HuffPo's thesis.

And that thesis is what? That certain states accept more revenue than they pay in. The reason for that is the citizens in those states are more likely to vote for one party over another?

Please.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by alloak41]

No, genius, you have your cause and effect reversed. The states where the voters say that they want government out of their lives (red states) are the states that accept the most help from the federal government. Now do you understand?

He made you look silly.

Bingo!

It quantifies a position counter to all that stuff alloak likes to believe & post.

Based on that article? Are you kidding me? Total BS. Ranks right up there with the "intelligence" maps. The use of the words "mooch" and "dependent" are of course totally loaded and misleading. One of the biggest factors you failed to take into consideration is federal military spending. Bases, troops, production facilities, all of that does not constitute "Mooching" off of the federal government, or being dependent. Also, how much in farm subsidies are paid out each state? Do you consider that mooching? Let's create a map of corporate welfare and see what it looks like.

New Mexico is an outlier and does effect the total but doesn't change HuffPo's thesis.

And that thesis is what? That certain states accept more revenue than they pay in. The reason for that is the citizens in those states are more likely to vote for one party over another?

Please.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by alloak41]

No, genius, you have your cause and effect reversed. The states where the voters say that they want government out of their lives (red states) are the states that accept the most help from the federal government. Now do you understand?

So what's your point? Should a person change their political philosophies because they live in a state that accepts more than it pays in? Or should I move to a state where the numbers are reversed since I rarely vote for Democrats?

How much Alabama pays in or accepts in revenue is absolutely and totally beyond my control. You're trying to attach meaning to something that has no meaning.

Based on that article? Are you kidding me? Total BS. Ranks right up there with the "intelligence" maps. The use of the words "mooch" and "dependent" are of course totally loaded and misleading. One of the biggest factors you failed to take into consideration is federal military spending. Bases, troops, production facilities, all of that does not constitute "Mooching" off of the federal government, or being dependent. Also, how much in farm subsidies are paid out each state? Do you consider that mooching? Let's create a map of corporate welfare and see what it looks like.

Spot on. Here's an idea. Let's put all the military bases, illegal immigrants, and agricultural operations in Connecticut and Massachusetts and see what happens to HuffPo's "thesis."

In the meantime, I've noticed all the Arizonians and Texans moving in droves to retire in Rhode Island.

Based on that article? Are you kidding me? Total BS. Ranks right up there with the "intelligence" maps. The use of the words "mooch" and "dependent" are of course totally loaded and misleading. One of the biggest factors you failed to take into consideration is federal military spending. Bases, troops, production facilities, all of that does not constitute "Mooching" off of the federal government, or being dependent. Also, how much in farm subsidies are paid out each state? Do you consider that mooching? Let's create a map of corporate welfare and see what it looks like.

Spot on. Here's an idea. Let's put all the military bases, illegal immigrants, and agricultural operations in Connecticut and Massachusetts and see what happens to HuffPo's "thesis."

In the meantime, I've noticed all the Arizonians and Texans moving in droves to retire in Rhode Island.

This whole thing goes both ways.

One of the reasons that maps like this are made and articles like that are written are as a response to the right-wing theme of "People vote Democrat for the free stuff. All those lazy idiots vote Democrat while we are the producers and we pay for it all. Every election, Democrats take an early lead until Republicans get off work! HAW HAW!"

If this "HuffPo thesis" is silly, BS, whatever, then isn't the same reasoning used in reverse also BS?

Wonder how much of the 47% that won't take responsibility for their own lives voted for Romney anyway? Hmmmmmm.

The use of the words "mooch" and "dependent" are of course totally loaded and misleading.

When used against the left, it seems to be OK...

Here's the methodology for the statistical analysis:

Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government (Federal Funding in $ Divided by Federal Income Taxes in $): Weight = 1
Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue (Federal Funding in $ Divided by State Revenue in $ then Multiplied by 100): Weight = 1
Number of Federal Employees per Capita (Number of Federal Workers Divided by Number of State Residents): Weight = 0.5
Number of Civilian Non-Defense Federal Employees per Capita (Total Federal Civilian Employment Minus Total Civilian Employment of Army, Air Force, Navy & Defense Department): Weight = 0.25

Conclusions will, of course, vary.

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that." - Homer Simpson

At the absolute bottom of the list is a blue state. New Mexico #50. Any point that was (supposedly) being made is totally squashed. Thanks for the chuckle, though.

Like every complex story, outliers and exceptions to the rule exist. But it’s hard to ignore patterns that emerge. And when you overlay with data about quality of education and education policy, it isn't hard to start to understand why things are what they are. It's been shown time and again that a well-educated population is a major key to economic success, and by and large, the states that need/take the most federal support dollars are also the ones that are doing the poorest job educating their kids (regardless of whether they are red/blue politically). It is pretty consistent no matter what source you go by. Here's just a few...

http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/

http://www.nea.org/home/44479.htm

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by gondicar]

If this "HuffPo thesis" is silly, BS, whatever, then isn't the same reasoning used in reverse also BS?

Absolutely. Its total BS both ways. We're all way better than that.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by DougMacKenzie]

I think the thesis has a little more to do with an attempt at opening the eyes of the voters of the Red States. It seems those folks screaming for smaller government will suffer the most as government shrinks.

Perhaps voters in those States should listen less to rich right wing conservatives and sum up their own situation based on facts.

Every single American is dependent, in one way or another, on our Federal Government. I think HuffPo is pointing out the irony of the people who are most dependent on the Government vote against their interests.

Some people will call that low information voting.

Maybe the folks in the Red States are just super patriotic and are willing to accept more hardship for the good of the rest of the Nation.

I salute them.

I think the thesis has a little more to do with an attempt at opening the eyes of the voters of the Red States. It seems those folks screaming for smaller government will suffer the most as government shrinks.

Perhaps voters in those States should listen less to rich right wing conservatives and sum up their own situation based on facts.

Every single American is dependent, in one way or another, on our Federal Government. I think HuffPo is pointing out the irony of the people who are most dependent on the Government vote against their interests.

Some people will call that low information voting.

Maybe the folks in the Red States are just super patriotic and are willing to accept more hardship for the good of the rest of the Nation.

I salute them.

So I guess what you are saying is that folks with conservative values should "open their eyes" and listen to the poor left wing conservatives? Smaller government, at least to me, does not mean no government. It means cutting all the duplication of services, the fraud, the waste, and getting rid of some of the intrusiveness of especially the last 15 years. How could that be a bad thing? I work for the government in education right now and you would not believe the idiotic waste of time, money and resources that goes on. I've worked for the government in past years in vocational rehab and it was even worse there. It all starts at the top, not with the rank and file. There is almost zero accountability for administration at the federal, state, or local level. If I lost my job because the government became more efficient I would do what I had to do to survive. I can live with that. It would beat the hell out of living off of the hard earned income of others of no other reason than to be taken care of. I believe if people got to keep more of their money the economy would get better, not worse, and would eventually be better for everyone. If you are implying that the only way these conservative people can be successful is through government provision and to think otherwise is low information ignorance then we will just have to disagree. As someone with conservative values I would rather work for minimum wage, live within my means, and feel good about what I am doing than be a dependent mooch.

If this "HuffPo thesis" is silly, BS, whatever, then isn't the same reasoning used in reverse also BS?

Absolutely. Its total BS both ways. We're all way better than that.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by DougMacKenzie]

I agree. And I can't think of one good reason why the ordinary citizens, regardless of ideology, continue to pick at each other. We're all in the same boat. We should save that stuff for the politicians. Keep their feet to the fire, insist on a higher level of performance and better governance.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by alloak41]

If this "HuffPo thesis" is silly, BS, whatever, then isn't the same reasoning used in reverse also BS?

Absolutely. Its total BS both ways. We're all way better than that.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by DougMacKenzie]

I agree. And I can't think of one good reason why the ordinary citizens, regardless of ideology, continue to pick at each other. We're all in the same boat. We should save that stuff for the politicians. Keep their feet to the fire, insist on a higher level of performance and better governance.

This from the guy who referred to people who thought differently from him as "low info voters". Give me a break, all oak.

I think the thesis has a little more to do with an attempt at opening the eyes of the voters of the Red States. It seems those folks screaming for smaller government will suffer the most as government shrinks.

Perhaps voters in those States should listen less to rich right wing conservatives and sum up their own situation based on facts.

Every single American is dependent, in one way or another, on our Federal Government. I think HuffPo is pointing out the irony of the people who are most dependent on the Government vote against their interests.

Some people will call that low information voting.

Maybe the folks in the Red States are just super patriotic and are willing to accept more hardship for the good of the rest of the Nation.

I salute them.

Maybe you're right. Maybe some of us (even in the moocher States) have been too concerned about the size, scope, and expense of government and it's all just a big waste of time. So far we've spent $18 Trillion that we didn't have ($6 Trillion just in the last six years) and people are still unhappy. I would venture to say maybe even more unhappy.

Maybe if the number was $36 Trillion things would be super. Maybe the government should just continue to get bigger and more expensive into eternity and sooner or later everything will be swell. Why worry about it?

If this "HuffPo thesis" is silly, BS, whatever, then isn't the same reasoning used in reverse also BS?

Absolutely. Its total BS both ways. We're all way better than that.

[Edited on 3/25/2015 by DougMacKenzie]

I agree. And I can't think of one good reason why the ordinary citizens, regardless of ideology, continue to pick at each other. We're all in the same boat. We should save that stuff for the politicians. Keep their feet to the fire, insist on a higher level of performance and better governance.

This from the guy who referred to people who thought differently from him as "low info voters". Give me a break, all oak.

Wow, let it go troll. Find another hobby other than bullying conservatives around a band website.

Don't worry about it. He's wrong anyway. I don't consider people who think differently than I do as LIV's, and never said so. Not even close. Whether they agree with me or not is not factored into the definition one iota. There are folks on this website, for example, that probably disagree with me daily and they are NOT low-info voters.