Republican States Are More Dependent On Government

Although not really "new" information, it is surprising to see that the states who rely on government subsidies most often, are the ones who continue to vote for them time after time, shooting themselves in the foot, unwittingly, one must presume. Surely.

New Mexico is the most-dependent state in the U.S., according to WalletHub's data. The state gets $2.19 in federal funding for every dollar paid in federal income taxes. In contrast, New Jersey, which is the least-dependent state, gets only about 50 cents in federal funding for every dollar paid in taxes, WalletHub calculated.

The analysis found that red states, or those that voted Republican in the 2012 presidential election, were much more likely to depend on the government than blue states.

That's somewhat ironic, considering the Republican Party's general reluctance to support federally funded initiatives like Medicaid expansion, and its long-term dedication to across-the-board budget cuts to slash the federal deficit.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ironic, indeed. It boggles the mind.

(The map they offered to show the states, apparently doesn't exist, but you know who you are.)

Aren't these states typically the ones yelling "Get the Federal Government out of my state!" ? If the Feds did pick up and pull out, looks as though they would be left in a world of hurt. I suggest probably paralyzed with shock.

But maybe then they would fathom the exploitation, and realize for once how they've been used by their own party.

Debunked here:

In addition to the welfare myth, we’re also told that red states are the poorest states (which would make sense if red states really were taking all the welfare dollars). PolitiFact rated such a claim as “true” noting, “The Census data also show that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median household income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.” Whether or not a state is red or blue is based off how they voted in the 2012 election.

In another case of how sloppy PolitiFact’s “fact checking” can be, they didn’t even take cost of living differences into account when determining which states were the poorest.

Or that half of those “red” states have Democratic Governors.

When we look at the ten poorest states by median household income adjusted for cost of living differences, we find Maine, West Virginia, Hawaii, Mississippi, Arkansas, Montana, Vermont, New Mexico, New York, and Louisiana. If Washington D.C. had statehood, it would’ve ranked 5th poorest, knocking Louisiana off the top ten list. Of these ten states (not including D.C.), four voted Democratic in the past election compared to six tilting right, though there would be a perfect 50-50 split in voting patterns if D.C. was included.

Regardless, comparing the wealth of a state by how they voted in a single presidential election is a ridiculous way to measure what types of policies help and harm growth.

rare.us...[ex/

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Not to mention the publicly-traded companies whose CEO's are paid more money than they can ever hope to spend, allowed to "hide it" off-shore, and rely on government programs to subsidize the workers who are egregiously underpaid.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Aren't these states typically the ones yelling "Get the Federal Government out of my state!" ? If the Feds did pick up and pull out, looks as though they would be left in a world of hurt. I suggest probably paralyzed with shock.

I say, fine. Let them. Let them secede. Let them stop collecting taxes altogether, and see how long their 'state' survives.
I live in Kansas. It's going down the toilet. People are fleeing as fast as they can.

Cruz wants to eliminate the IRS? Who is going to look after our national infrastructure? Do the 'red' states intend to support their own highway systems and public utilities without taxes?

Riiiiiight.

It must be the Democrat voting pockets.

Mississippi for example

LOL. This old saw again. They also total all government spending, not just handouts like welfare, and you notice that military bases tend to be in "red states" and that accounts for a large portion of that federal "income". When Tinker Oklahoma has Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of aircraft and the support necessary, the "federal spending" numbers in Oklahoma get radically skewed.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Meh. I've read that Republicans as a rule earn more than democrats, but this is addressing the "state" those individuals are in.

Furthermore, No one can deny the propaganda they use to continue to get the votes. It's sad these people remain such suckers for them.

Republicans need to paint a picture of Democrats as elites. People who want to take their money to squander on affluent public unions, global warming, welfare, opera, etc. And they need to tell voters that Democrats are against religion, and their fundamental values.

Without poorer voters, Republicans wouldn't be able to win elections.

super-economy.blogspot.com...

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

The poor and downtrodden don't vote. There are many reasons. For one, you don't stay poor and downtrodden for long if you have your act together and can make day long appointments. Getting away from work is another issue (despite the law). The ability to find transportation another.

Point being: the rules aren't made by the bottom 20% of earners that depends the most on those programs. Nor do the northern states share a border with Mexico that is all but unguarded.


ETA: i should also point out that states like Jersey are run by criminal enterprise. Voting in some pork for the poor gives quite a bit of extra fat for skim. I would be shocked if Jersey, Illinios, and NY weren't the highest in pork for the poor.

Which is another point: the statistics are unrelated to politics. What drives them is not political. Its socioeconomic and/or criminal. The political relationship bein proposed is irrelevant.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Cruz wants to eliminate the IRS?

Buzzy, the best I can tell Cruz wants to eliminate anything that contributes to keeping humanity alive, up and running!

And eliminate separation of church and state as well. (I can see that coming, he would try to sneak it in).

But, the guy doesn't have a dog's chance. All that campaign money wasted on him. It's sickening.

New Mexico has a lot of Democrat pockets too !!

New Mexico House Election Results by District


and New Mexico has 2 Democrat U.S. Senators !!!
Senators of the 114th Congress

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

They have lower inflation, so it's easier to qualify for welfare.

While Blue states have high inflation and living cost so it's hard to qualify for welfare.

Pretty easy to explain.

a reply to: xuenchen

Xu, would you do me a favor and see if you can find a map? I looked.

I know it's mostly southern states, but I'd still like to see one.
(And just think how much fun YOU could have with it.)

If it's too much trouble, no worries.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Debunked here:

Sorry no it's not. The cost of living doesn't have to be factored in because all that matters is how much government money the state receives vs the amount the state paying into the government. When it boils down to it the red states do get more than what they pay in this is something the little right wing blogger forgot to factor in.

originally posted by: xuenchen
It must be the Democrat voting pockets.

Mississippi for example

Yes when all else fails blame the Democrats in the Republican states.

This post is laughable.

Nearly all of the 'Red' states you speak of have something in common: federally recognized tribes of American Indian
1.) federal income taxes are not levied on income from trust lands
2.) state income taxes are not paid on income earned on federal Indian reservations
3.) state sales taxes are not paid by Indians on transactions made on federal Indian reservations
4.) Local property taxes are not paid on reservation or trust land

Additionally, The US has a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation to protect tribal rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out mandates of federal law with respect to tribes and villages aka federal funding goes in, does not come out.

Finally, look no further than California on this "map" for proof of inconsistencies. Did you forget about the billions of federal bailout $$$$s requested, or was it simply more convenient to flat-out ignore it: www.wsj.com...

a reply to: NavyDoc

LOL. This old saw again

Yep Doc, here it is again. But it bothers me and it will continue to bother me, because I honestly believe the people don't vote at all, except for the Republican elites, or they vote on the so-called morality issues.

Much like what the Gorilla above said, but I think it's more complicated than that.

a reply to: preezy120

This post is laughable.

Nearly all of the 'Red' states you speak of have something in common: federally recognized tribes of American Indian
1.) federal income taxes are not levied on income from trust lands
2.) state income taxes are not paid on income earned on federal Indian reservations
3.) state sales taxes are not paid by Indians on transactions made on federal Indian reservations
4.) Local property taxes are not paid on reservation or trust land

Additionally, The US has a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation to protect tribal rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out mandates of federal law with respect to tribes and villages aka federal funding goes in, does not come out.

I think this post has more to do with your own biases, than it does the topic, but thanks for trying.

Next.

originally posted by: preezy120
This post is laughable.

Nearly all of the 'Red' states you speak of have something in common: federally recognized tribes of American Indian
1.) federal income taxes are not levied on income from trust lands
2.) state income taxes are not paid on income earned on federal Indian reservations
3.) state sales taxes are not paid by Indians on transactions made on federal Indian reservations
4.) Local property taxes are not paid on reservation or trust land

Additionally, The US has a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation to protect tribal rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out mandates of federal law with respect to tribes and villages aka federal funding goes in, does not come out.

Finally, look no further than California on this "map" for proof of inconsistencies. Did you forget about the billions of federal bailout $$$$s requested, or was it simply more convenient to flat-out ignore it: www.wsj.com...

This is a new twist don't blame the Democrats that live there blame the Native Americans.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

2014 House Election Results

wallet hub

This is a comprehensive listing showing:
Return on taxpayer investment; ie Alabama receives $2.46 from the federal gov for every dollar it pays
Federal funding % of state budget
Federal employees per capita

What you'll learn:
No matter how they measure it,Mississippi sucks,
Midwestern taxes subsidize the reddest states