It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What States are Leeching off the taxpayer? - The numbers.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 
Thanks friend, that looks like a decent relationship, actually...what, about 7 matching states?

Appreciate your work on this. It is interesting irony, but jjkenobi brought up a good point earlier as well I was kind of tinkering with. Regardless, I don't really see any good reason to try to argue what you've found.

Does this suggest a dichotomy in these states between those active in the political process but not drawing this support themselves, as compared to those benefiting from it without realizing their involvement in the process also endangers their benefits? It's a paradox.




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 



Your conclusion contains absolutely no evidence and data - like I provided and continue to provide.



I am not the thread starter here. I simply tried to answer your question and quickly found that I could not because the data that you have based your conclusion on is unrelated and unverified.

In case you missed it, I am not trying to prove you wrong so I have no need for evidence, I am simply requesting that you provide us with verifiable and related evidence that your assertion is correct. When that happens and I actually have some data that can be used to provide you with an answer to your question... That is when it is my turn to present evidence.

I am simply asking you to backup your claim with data from the same year and actual data about state representation rather than a vote from 3 years later and a list of states that doesn't show the lists criteria.

No offense intended, I just find the fact that the data is unrelated by year and representation and the list being unverifiable currently makes your conclusion less than reliable.

If you can provide a verifiable list of state representation and the criteria of the state by state federal spending from the same year than we would have something to talk about.


edit on 20-1-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Indigo5
Maine is so full of hippies and retirees occupying double-wides that any mention of cutting the dole brings outrage aplenty.


Maine was 9th on that list.

How would you explain the rest in the Food Stamps rankings?...
1. Mississippi
2. Oregon
3. Tennessee
4. New Mexico
5. Michigan
6. Louisianna
7. Kentucky
8. West Virginia


edit on 20-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Really? That's all you've pulled from my post?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello

If you can provide a verifiable list of state representation and the criteria of the state by state federal spending from the same year than we would have something to talk about.


edit on 20-1-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)


Apologies if I sounded snarky in my response. Agreed the data is disparate in a few narrow reagrds and not all from the same precise year, but I would argue that reasonably confident conclusions can be made since most of those southern Red States have been Red for over 50 years. Electoral map history is something that I have spent time on and some times forget others might not know the electoral history of various states.

I provided correlating data on poverty and food stamps.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
There is an obvious correlation between states receiving federal dollars also having the largest military bases.

North Dakota, for example, is home to .2% of the US population, yet ND has some of the largest and most expensive military bases in the world, Not to mention our minuteman 3 nuclear ICBM installations.

On the other side, we have Massachusetts, which has virtually no military installations.

Since the federal government is spending $700 billion in its defense budget, states with large military installations are going to be receiving tens or hundreds of billions more than states that dont...
edit on 20-1-2012 by METACOMET because: sp



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Really? That's all you've pulled from my post?


No...I also noticed the BS baiting.... not interested...Sorry.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You love that people are on welfare. You love that we have guns to our head extorting our wages. You love that nothing will ever be right, fixed or even honest.




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
There is an obvious correlation between states receiving federal dollars also having the largest military bases.

North Dakota, for example, is home to .2% of the US population, yet ND has some of the largest and most expensive military bases in the world, Not to mention our minuteman 3 nuclear ICBM installations.

On the other side, we have Massachusetts, which has virtually no military installations.

Since the federal government is spending $700 billion in its defense budget, states with large military installations are going to be receiving tens or hundreds of billions more than states that dont...
edit on 20-1-2012 by METACOMET because: sp


That would fall under Defense Spending, not federal outlays to states.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Interesting post.

I'm curious but it seems like the states with the highest populations are the ones that receive the lowest per capita payback where as states with low populations ie. North Dakota get more back. If a state with a low population gets federal dollars to say build a highway, then it will appear like they are getting more per capita then a state with a higher population that gets similar federal money for a job.

What would the charts look like if the dollars were shown rather than the dollars/population?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Originally posted by Indigo5

That would fall under Defense Spending, not federal outlays to states.


Show me that this is the case. Reading through your link, I see no distinction between "federal spending" and "defense spending"
edit on 20-1-2012 by METACOMET because: fx



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So nothing about political gaming or even the fact that this is a thrice repost registered at all?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I can accept that just for the sake of conversation. So just for the sake of conversation I will also assume that your data is fine and just take it as representative of reality.

As we are now in hypothetical territory, In that case, I feel this is easily explained.

The Red States obviously then have the largest receiving of federal dollars. To me this would suggest that they have a greater understanding of the unintended consequences that can come from such federal spending as they have been on the receiving end.

The Blue States receiving less, it would suggest to me that they have little understanding of the unintended consequences from receiving federal dollars from the fact that their state is less affected from such spending.

Another way of saying this is that red staters are fed up with it because their states have received a disproportionately greater amount of money and see it as a bad thing while blue staters have received a disproportionately smaller amount of money so see it as a good thing.

Of course this issue is much more complicated than either of us have explained.

To stop being hypothetical I would also like to add...

that this does not take into consideration the understanding of any states population of their representation's political agenda vs their values. Simply who they believed represented their values and who they voted for.

that this does not take into consideration that red staters are (not as far as I am aware) against all federal spending but rather very specific federal spending. This list includes all spending so a better comparison I think would be a list of the specific programs they are against and how much their state receives rather than lumping all federal spending in the same boat.

that this does not take into consideration the population of the states and the physical size of the state (obviously texas would spend more money on highways than rhode island, etc...)

If I sat here and thought about it I am sure I could come up with hundreds more reason why this is too general to draw any conclusion from the data. A good thought exercise anyhow, I gave you a S&F just for that.



edit on 20-1-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
So the most populous states get more money. I get it! You're trying to teach us that mathematics works! Good show! Or was your point that the states with the most minorities gets more money from the government? So, red states take care of more people than blue states. Makes sense to me.

In other news: water is wet, fire burns. More at 11:00.


/TOA



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


As for a breakdown on what the spending includes, here is a doc from the conservative Brookings Institution summarizing what each state gets per capita...and it singles out the states on Social Programs etc. They make you work for it though
Its the only doc on the page that is a zip file...

2010 data, the only one on the page that has ZIP beside it.

State Table -- Per Capita Assistance by Budget Function » (ZIP)

www.brookings.edu...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
Originally posted by Indigo5

That would fall under Defense Spending, not federal outlays to states.


Show me that this is the case. Reading through your link, I see no distinction between "federal spending" and "defense spending"
edit on 20-1-2012 by METACOMET because: fx


I think most people in government or private life understand that US Miltary Bases are paid for by the Defense Department, not money given to states.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello


that this does not take into consideration the population


Per capita does just that, takes population into account...My numbers are per capita.

Sorry not to respond to the entirity of your post. Some good points made worth thinking about, though I feel the whole of the data I have provided suggests other explanations.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
There is an obvious correlation between states receiving federal dollars also having the largest military bases.

North Dakota, for example, is home to .2% of the US population, yet ND has some of the largest and most expensive military bases in the world, Not to mention our minuteman 3 nuclear ICBM installations.

On the other side, we have Massachusetts, which has virtually no military installations.

Since the federal government is spending $700 billion in its defense budget, states with large military installations are going to be receiving tens or hundreds of billions more than states that dont...
edit on 20-1-2012 by METACOMET because: sp


Thats a damn good point.
I thought at first the answer was obvious,
with the OP answering there own question.

Now reading more replies and thinking about it,
this graph while it gives us an insight, is NOT
accurate in all regards of the states BLUE. VS. RED.
edit on 20-1-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
So the most populous states get more money. I get it! You're trying to teach us that mathematics works!


Perhaps I should have defined "per capita"...the numbers account for population and divide by it both on Federal Funding and Tax Dollars collected....This gives a "Per person" per state making population a mute factor.

edit on 20-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Again...the idea that the Federal Government counts Defense Spending as a State expenditure is in no way accurate. Defense spening is it's own budget item and they don't hand those checks to states.

this should seem obvious?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
This doesn't surprise me one bit.

I have actually witnessed someone rip Obama while he was collecting food stamps for his family. (Georgia at the time)
Obama bad. Mongo hungry.
edit on 20-1-2012 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join