Something for Nothing: State Debt and the 2008 Presidential Vote
by Chuck DeVoreCNN, together with Moody’s Investor Services, published a map of the U.S. showing per capita state debt.
This debt map brought to mind another map, this one the Electoral College map from the 2008 election. President Obama won 28 states and the District of Columbia totaling 365 Electoral College votes, to McCain’s 22 states totaling 173 Electoral College votes.
Now, compare the high-debt states to the states shown in blue that voted for Obama—the linkage between debt and voting behavior is visually clear.
According to Moody’s, the average state per capita debt of the 28 Obama states is $1,728 while the average debt in the 22 McCain states is less than half, at $749. This information alone says a lot about voters and their attitude towards government and debt. Voters with a propensity to elect politicians who burden future generations who can’t yet vote with huge debts voted for Obama while fiscally responsible voters generally voted for McCain.
This trend gets starker when you look at the debt in the states that voted overwhelmingly for one candidate. The six states where Obama received the highest percentage of the vote were: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maryland. McCain received his highest percentage of votes in Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Alabama and Alaska. The strongest Obama states had a per capita debt high of $4,606 for Massachusetts and a low of $709 for Vermont—remember, the average per capita debt in the McCain states was only $749, barely above the debt level in Vermont, with its “less is more” ethic. Per capita debt in the strong McCain states ranged from a high of $1,345 in oil-rich Alaska to a low of $77 in coal-rich Wyoming. The average per capita debt state debt in the strong Obama states: $2,697, almost $1,000 greater than the average debt in the 28 states he won. McCain’s six strongest states tell the opposite tale with a per capita state debt of $713, a little more than a quarter of the debt load racked up in the states that most enthusiastically went for Obama.
Looking at the states with the narrowest margin of victory or loss for either candidate more than confirms the trend. The five states with the narrowest margin of victory for Obama were: North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, with a per capita average state debt load of $842, only a third of the debt average for the strong Obama states and barely above the winning McCain state average of $749. Meanwhile, the five weakest McCain states, Missouri, Montana, Georgia, South Dakota, and Arizona (!) registered an average per capita state debt of: $626, not much more frugal than the five states Obama barely carried. (For another very revealing way of looking at this data set, see the state debt graphs assembled by Justin Hart.)
Another thing comes to stark light with this study in mind: it makes absolute Chicago-style reward your friends and punish your enemies political sense that President Obama and his Democratic allies would use Federal dollars, our dollars, to bail-out profligate spending, pro-Obama states such as New York and California at the expense of frugal red states such as Wyoming and Oklahoma. The Stimulus and its proposed follow-ons are as much about this as they are about the jobs that weren’t really created.
This study is useful, if depressing, as America comes to grips with the alarmingly higher federal debt levels being incurred by President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress. Useful, because it shows the linkage between voters accustomed to getting something for nothing by sending their bill for their high-spending ways to their children and grandchildren. The study’s depressing side: generationally selfish voters won’t easily change their voting habits.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
145 Comments
Something for Nothing?
Like the old song says, "…….money for nothing and the checks are free."
A pathetic reflection of a Dictatorship! Those who work pay for those who don't work. Nice job Democrats & Obama! We're having a Tea Party, and you're going to be swallowed up!
We've had a painful year & a half lesson of how it feels to be taken over by Dictators. Never Again!
Um, if I haven't completely lost my mind, that's the 2004 electoral map that you have posted there. Am I missing something?
Hell.
We have suffered through a bloodless coup.
….." generationally selfish voters won’t easily change their voting habits. "
I bet if we take away the freebies they will learn to change their voting habits.
Only when people WORK for what they have do they REALLY appreciate it.
"This study is useful, if depressing" sums it up perfectly. Obama and many other Dems rode a wave of excited voters giving a strong mandate to take from the "have's" and give to the "have-nots". But anti-capitalism means anti-growth, and redistribution of wealth pretty much guarantees national economic stagnation. The Constitution was supposed to limit our vulnerability to these kind of political stunts, but… well, that's where the "depressing" part comes in.
Surprise surprise, the capitals of liberalism are also the capitals of debt, unemployment, welfare, race-baiting, unions, stagnation, and rural renewal in the form of bulldozing up bankrupted urban communities. When will the useful idiots in these areas wise up?
How can we get that on a Tea Shirt that say's; You're Already F*ng Me.
Just as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said….. 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'.
Now the bill is coming due in the United States of America.
That is Amerika.
Spelled with a "k", Komrade.
I think you are correct. Ouch. An explanation is needed from Mr. DeVore.
Thanks. I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me for a minute. It's highly embarrassing for Mr. DeVore, to say the least. I imagine it's nothing more than a link to the wrong graphic, but still…
Thats what you get if you vote for liberals… Bad liberal policies, that put your state into deep debt. What more will it take for these idiots who vote liberal to wake the hell up!
Not checks brother
"Money for nothin' and your chicks for free"
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/moneyfor.ht...
A bigger problem than the wrong graphic…the 2008 electoral map is close, but doesn't support his point like the 2004 map.
There's more: the link to the statistics shows a very misleading graph. In fact, even the tables in this article comparing averages are inconclusive (an overall average doesn't really tell you anything substantive. Although I personally eschew all consumer debt, debt by itself isn't necessarily bad, depending on the debt/income ratio, what the debt is for, etc).
Googling state debt per capita shows remarkably different numbers vs those from CNN. Personally, I can't imagine anyone trusting carte blanche any CNN statistics about anything.
I refuse to swallow statistical deception from any source, left or right.
There we have it! Those blue states are filled with the people "sucking" from the system. They are the "have-not's" taking from the "have's"; the welfare state taking from the contributor's.
We all know that roughly 50% of those living in the country do not pay any income tax.
The big question is have we reached that critical mass where the have-not's realize and do vote for free things by electing the progressives? Are we at that point of no return?
Our future depends upon it not. Time to stop it here and now this November.
And they must pay their fair share of the tax burden otherwise they have no interest in seeing that it be spent wisely and be kept as small as necessary, on the contrary this allows those who ony benefit from government to vote for more governent.
Flat tax. Eliminate the progressive income tax.
До скорого, камрад (See you soon, Komrade)
Have to brush up on the Russian if one wants to make it in the new USA.
Middle class America is paying for transfer of wealth to individuals, states and countries that don't produce. It's astonishing Obama has declared war on the same people he expects to keep paying for the welfare.
Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.
— Frank Zappa
Ho…Hummm……Yaaaaawnnn………..what should we expect from a group of Chicago thugs that Oprah
picked to run the USA?:-D
Chin Up Komrad's !
Liberals like to own stuff, they just do not like working for it.
Liberals like to own your stuff.
Silly me, I thought Slavery was against the law….
More proof obama is an anchor and we should cut the chain in deep water.
President Ronald Reagan was right when he said “Now, so there will be no misunderstanding. It’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back.” Mr. Reagan spoke these words at his inaugural on January 20, 1980. At that moment in time our country was driven to a precipice via a myriad of misguided policies, but it was President Carter, and his band of liberal Democrats that took the final steps off the ledge. Mr. Reagan caught us safely from the fall through inner-strength, after he survived an assassination attempt, and then brought to bear his uncommon display of common sense on our nations past economic calamity. President Reagan successfully led the country through the last battle in the cold war, renewed our national purpose, and provided leadership to a nation in dire need of it.
This nation has spent $1.8 Trillion dollars more than it has taken in in tax receipts, it has $12 Trillion on its national credit card, and has completely consumed all funds held in Social Security and other entitlement programs; and replaced them with an IOU. I invite anyone to pick up the telephone, and call a vendor to the State of California and see what those IOU’s are good for. The only way that Medicare, Medicaid, or even Social Security gets paid is via a printing press buttressed by the willingness of foreign governments to underwrite it. That is what the “full faith and credit” of the United States has come to, a promise to pay interest on an obligation to a hostile foreign government. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that promise may one day be meaningless. What then? We are not able to meet the obligations we presently have; why do we seek to create more of them via a nationalization of our health care system on the basis of a lie? In short: Uncle Sam is broke, the US economy is shrinking, and the President of the United States wants the federal government to run 1/6 of the US economy that health care represents; and the government is unable to run a monopoly, the US Post Office, at a profit.
As President Reagan warned in his speech in 1961, on the dangers of socialized medicine; the American people would not accept socialism outright, but under the banner of liberalism we would accept every facet of socialism. For the past sixty years the entitlement programs that started as humanitarian safety nets, under Democratic majorities, have since grown into retirement programs to the exclusion of private investment, and the most fraud ridden delivery of health care any nation has ever witnessed. Ladies and gentlemen, remember where we are presently situated fiscally, how long will it be until those promises are worthless? As you and I can only live beyond our means for a limited time, so too with governments, one way or the other the printing press will be stopped, and it is not always at a convenient time. I find it ironic how politicians, on both sides, ran around saying that this or that firm was “too big to fail so we must bail them out.” Who will bail us out?
Our situation can only be made worse by following President Obama’s now crystal clear philosophy of borrow, print, and spend – not necessarily in that order. Mr. Obama has placed an outstretched hand to a regime that is seeking nuclear weapons, Iran, and uses murderous force to squelch peaceful dissent. Mr. Obama recommended that “we bear witness to it.” If I witness a crime in progress or someone is in need of assistance, I will activate the 911 system, and if they can’t make it in time I will take action, and deliver what ever justified harm to the perpetrator or help I can to the victim. This is what upsets me most; liberal Democrats have chosen to follow, and vote for leaders that when jihad johnny flies planes into buildings, or a vibrant debate begins, like the one we are presently embroiled in, they turn their ire not on the enemy, or on the issue, but on the American people. This is wrong, and I will not stand for it. The Democratic Party that exists today is not the party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson or even John F. Kennedy – stridently striving to protect and promote core American values. The modern Democratic party is the party of appeasement and fiscal suicide. Witness the current fiscal situation in California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois; these states are run by liberal Democratic majorities that have with each passing year, raised taxes, raised spending, and engaged in social engineering at the expense of the now forgotten man in an effort to hold themselves beyond the reach of the electoral process in perpetuity.
Now, do not for one flat second think we are not going to make it. Winston Churchill once said, “When you are in hell, keep going.” Ladies and gentlemen, we are in all kinds of hell and I and all of you will keep going. With each passing week millions of Americans: Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are waking up to what is happening, and they are preparing for the next steps to gain seats to enact change grounded in our traditional values. I’m praying that the men and women who will fill these seats in 2010 will remember why they are there, when they get there – and if they don’t; it is up to us to remind them. It is not sufficient just to win the next election, as President Reagan said: “We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding — we’re going to begin to act beginning today. The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom . . . after all why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”
Averaging two averages doesn't work in baseball, either. It's the sum of all the parts that need to be averaged.
Using total population and total debt for the Obama states will probably show pretty much the same thing, though. High-population, high-debt states such as California, New Jersey and New York virtually ensure that will be the case. Whereas the most numerous McCain state, Texas, is comparatively low-debt.
I had noticed that issue as well, but when confronted with an obvious error (or outright misinformation), the rest of the article may as well be dust in the wind. You lose a lot of credibility when either case happens.
heres the 2008 map http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008...
and the 2012 map http://uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-hist...
Yes, he definitely used the wrong map. In his text, he gets the state won or lost by Obama and McCain correct, but he linked to the wrong map. I think it's an honest mistake, but it needs to be corrected. It took my a while to figure out what the heck he was talking about.
What is most criminal about this is that the heavily-indebted states are redistributing their DEBT to the more responsible states, and the INCOME of the fiscally responsible states' citizens to themselves. This is criminal in both respects.
Oops. Hey rightards: That's not a 2008 electoral map. That's a 2004 electoral map. How embarrassing. The 2008 map has a whole lot more blue on it, including Florida, VA, NC, CO, NM.
Nice attempt at propaganda. Notice how your ignorant audience bought it hook, line and sinker.
Yeah, we're smarter. You keep on proving it.
Obama, a failure on jobs
What do 9.5% and 71% have in common?
They are both proof of the failure of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid socialist machine.
9.5% was the unemployment rate in June. The Obama administration warned that unless its big government stimulus bill was passed, that unemployment would NOT rise above 8%. The bill was passed (in a panic, without being read) and nevertheless, unemployment rocketed past 8% to settle at 9.5%.
What’s more, the 9.5% unemployment rate is likely too rosy a picture of the American economy. The real unemployment rate – which includes those who are underemployed and those who have given up looking for a job and left the workforce–may be as high as 22% according to some analyses.
The stimulus has clearly failed to create jobs as promised.
Tea Party 101
* Be open and honest
* Speak truthfully
* Listen to and work for the people
* Adhere to the Constitution and your oath of office
* Support smaller government
* Lower taxes
* Always vote for freedom
http://remembernovember.com/
Nice catch. I wrote the same thing, then saw you already nailed them on it. Thumbs up.
Foamy7 beat you to it.
I guess that blows your whole "we're smarter" argument right out of the water.
Just make sure you don't run out of bullets brother.
Military EOD?
What I would like to see is a comparison of per-capita entitlements received by red/blue state. It might also be interesting to compare the color of the state looking at electoral votes and the popular vote separately. A comparison of entitlements received by voter political orientation would be revealing as well.
On second thought, I already know the answer to that last one.
I think Cowboy was being funny and I laughed out loud. In the case of the current Regime the Check and Money are free. It's Dire Straits that get their Chicks for free.
And while I agree this is misleading the point remains valid.
The 2008 election was a one of a kind election, conservatives stayed home, leftists did not.
Remember how much more money was spent by the left (the party of the little guy).
And yet Obama managed to get only 53% of the popular vote.
I think if I recall correctly it was like 4million people – in the right districts of course would have turned the electoral college over to McCain, Hardly a mandate, yet he governs as though he had one.
You know, 2010 is going to be a one of a kind election as well. Perhaps the biggest blow out in all American history! You looking forward to that I hope?
I would like to see a distribution map of where the stimulus money went. Just guessing most of it went to states that are not only blue but heavily unionized. Following in perfect suit with his Chicago style patronage/payback politics.
On a related front the Sestak job-gate may be coming back to bite the POSPOTUS.
What has long been considered standard practice in Chicago is actually against the law. That game perfected in Chi-town does not play on the national stage and the cover-up of the Sestak issue could be his un-doing.
Let's hope so anyway.
Liberals like Guns, Liberals fight for the Right to Steal from other people, so they just show up at work and shoot defenseless people, because for some strange reason Liberals are not permitted to steal from the workplace, even if they are Union Members.
Once the Free Money from the Government stops rolling in, I believe the Liberals will Arm-Up and take it to the streets.
Liberals are outnumbered though.
The results would almost certainly depend upon what is labeled as an entitlement. Or we could simplify it and simply say that anyone receiving a non-payroll check from any level of government for which no services are provided in exchange qualifies as an entitlement. No exemptions for any reason. I doubt it would be feasible, due to privacy and voting laws.
You are correct, though. It would be extremely revealing, and an important conversation for the country to have.
Personal responsibility is the issue-across the board! The apathetic people who are too busy working to pay attention to politics are being turned into slaves of the state. Those who CHOOSE not to work are busy paying attention to who "says" they are giving them the most for free. In my mind it equates them to those heads of tribes in Africa who sold their own people into slavery in Colonial times, or if that comparison makes you uncomfortable, what about the trading the Europeans did with the native Americans, they were taken advantage of -sold a bill of goods, yes? We've been sold – Globalization, via Chicago thugery-style politics. Lovely.
THINK!
Why are sooo many choosing to retire in their 50s? I am not blaming the individual- I say congratulations to you! However, do you ever think on a large scale it is part of the "overwhelming the system" the progressive terrorists have been working on? People have such a high opinion of themselves or a low one? I understand the idea of having a contract with a union(state employee, teacher, etc) but are not the pension plans(2+2=5) just ponzi schemes, like what Bernie Madoff did? How is that different than Social Security ? We are facing WAR from many fronts. Diabolical progressive social planning, e-gads.
I agree, the recent vote on his health care bill showed what is coming. 71% against wasn't it. No Black Panther could keep me away from the polls, I have a big stick too.
Roger that Foamy.
U.S. Army.
Good catch on the Map Mix Up.
I'm certainly looking forward to November. Although I do hope that the left gets out the vote as much as it can so they don't have any excuses for their miserable performance. Though they would make one up anyway. Probably amnesia or something on the part of the electorate.
This article looks a lot like the article I wrote on August 4th. Are you lifting, borrowing, or stealing my analysis? http://danielsrants.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/stat... By the way, that election map is from 2004.
Let's pray is does not come to that. Remember your history. Once the ruling class is at risk of death, they start wars:
To the Editor:
Mr. Geller and Mr. Sorrel; thank you for your responses to my letter demonstrating Representative Halls wider failure to his constituents, but, I am slightly confused. Are we discussing the same Mr. John Hall? When President Bush was serving as our Commander in Chief, John Hall and his fellow Democrats, sought on numerous occasions to minimize and legislatively obstruct funding for our troops. Now that President Obama is trying to get up to speed in that capacity, Representative Hall is johnny on the spot with what ever our war fighters may need, so long as Mr. Obama keeps his promise of retreat in 2011. In our next exchange please advise if you are defending the John Hall who voted against the war, but for the troops, or the one that voted for the troops, but against the war?
Do the both of you understand the gravity of our fiscal situation on a national as well as a State level? Do you understand that tax receipts are being front loaded now to avoid increases after the Bush Tax Cuts expire? Do you understand that a promise from Uncle Sam is worthless unless a real person and/or good can get there in time, at the right quantity, and price, to meet that promise? Do you understand that wars fought without clear objectives end in nightmares? Do you understand that Mr. Obama has stopped production of the F-22, as the F-35 jack-of-all-trades-master-at-none is now over budget and not met its primary testing goals after billions wasted. Do you understand that we are using millions in men and material against an enemy that can restore those resources at a fraction of our cost without using its MasterCard? Do you understand what happens when governments do not keep their promises as opposed to private citizens? This one Ill answer. War. When masses of people are promised goods and services, and those promises are not kept, they begin to go beyond the entitlement mentality, and proceed to the demand mentality. Greece is a great example, but I can quote you the history of France and Germany. Mr. Geller, you did not go to war because of Hitler or Togo, you went to war because economic systems broke down, and one side decided it was easier to steal and kill for what was needed rather than to work for it.
I know I live on a different mental plane then my Liberal Democratic friends, but at some point even the both of you will come to understand that I am mostly right. I appreciate all of your criticism, even the attacks, as a student I never let those who bullied me or those who claimed I would not amount to much bother me, nor will I now. I will do now, what I did then, what I hope all Americans do in the coming months and years, persevere. To do otherwise would betray all those countless Americans who suffered so we could live in a place where the bell of freedom still rings.
Respectfully,
The progressives are proud of all the dead people they were able to round up, to head for the polls. Let them enjoy it while it lasts. : )
I'm a member of the Exalted Order of the Royal Defuzilier. I trust you know what that is?
"It's Dire Straits that" we are in
That was one great pun if you follow the arrows
I wonder if progressives finally slither down to such a low-level of intelligence that their stupidity is no longer painful to them?
Just wondering, because it's still painful to normal people.
They are already making up excuses. Leftist lies, what else can be expected.
What we need to do is stop allowing them to get away with it.
Hey 'Progressing' lets hear you say 'Bush/Cheny' a coupla times huh?
It's pretty much the same if you voted for O you got money
The Joint Strike Fighter is a bad idea. The Navy cannot use a single engine Fighter.
Guy being shot off the deck of an Aircraft Carrier, and flying over the water needs 2 engines, just in case one craps out.
You have no idea how correct you are. Long live the F-18!
You mean like this? http://www.thefourthbranch.com/government-spendin...
Hmmm . . .
It looks like those red states are being subsidized by those blue states.
Not quite, Cowboy.
The coup is still going on and I for one am not going to lay down and let it succeed.
Too bad for the would-be rulers that Americans are awake. I don't think they counted on that.
Title like that and you have to be a Brit.
You guys used to stop in at Indian Head years back, and you gave us all kinds of help when one of our Ships took an Exorcist Missile hit in the Gulf years ago. The Ship had to sail with the dud warhead inside, seems the Brits got plenty of practice on the Exorcist in the Falklands.
I will admit those things go right over my head.
I always thought Hendrix was saying 'excuse me while I kiss this guy'.
The next election, and the one following it, will determine our fate for a long time to come.
I hope we have NOT reached that critical mass.
Who will bail us out?!!!!!!
No one! Right after we run the socialists out of the government, we will do what Americans always do. Roll up our sleeves and get to work! We will do the hard work we need to clean up the mess.
Stop the transfer of cash from red to blue states. Let them take care of their own problems. Make them stand up and make the hard decisions.
We don't need any freakin bailouts! What we need is Liberty and freedom from an oppressive government.
We are Americans! We can do and will do whatever it takes to be free!
No, I am not British. It's an (unofficial as in not recognized by DA or DoD) honorific given by US Army EOD to non-EOD personnel (I was a 21B and was assigned to run a security detail for an EOD unit at BCT level in 2004-05) in lieu of an actual award. The 1SG felt bad that he couldn't give us a medal because 1ID 3BCT had already given us some for the same thing. It's somewhat old-fashioned, and no longer given out very much, but SFC Ferris told us it was in appreciation for what we had done for them.
Odds are, if you ask some of the older guys in your unit, they can tell you what it is. Probably the 1SG or CSM would be a good bet, possibly an officer.
One of the things on the "I love me" wall that I am proudest of. It hangs right next to my BSM and PH.
You know when the left gets elected it's a mandate when the right gets elected they go to court
I am one of the older guys.
I went through Indian Head back in the early 80s, I'm Retired now.
We used to give out EOR Certificates (Explosive Ordnance Reconnaissance) to Non-EOD Troops back in the day, but, that got to be a bad idea, seems some of the Troops we EOR Certified would try to do things that were best left up to us.
Good on you for keeping the Techs safe while working.
Years back (back a long way, before Robots and Bomb Suits) we used to only take a Medic with us…. just in case things went terribly wrong.
Bet your Ass on that! I second and concur!
Harry. Are you telling me he does not say Excuse me while I kiss this guy? If he doesn't say that, what does he say?
These people want the benefits of freedom with out having to earn it, just like they want a house with out paying for it. It is time to stop bribing voters through the redistribution of other people's money.
Nice to see that you can see the difference between the pictures, oops a mistake has been made like that has not happened before. Tell you what I will point out couple more mistakes that have been made the election of FDR to four terms, someday getting up in the morning, cold coffee vs hot coffee, the election of Carter, the election of Specter, taxes, social security, the current chuckle head in charge.
Once you get past the pretty pictures you can read the content of the article to see that there is good information about how the voters are being bribed for their votes the redistribution of OPM.
You're killing me!
http://www.kissthisguy.com/
For all those lefttards. A 2004 map? Ok. So what you are saying that here in 2010 California is better off than in 04????? There is not a shade of RED dark enough to represent the situation in california. DemoKKKrats have this shade of red on thier hands and thier hands only.
Yeah. We are better off now than in 04. Muahhaa. You should feel LUCKY this map was used. Like I'm going to believe california is better off now than in 04. Don't think there is a shade of RED dark enough to represent the failures of california and the demoKKKrats.
Oh great sage…Help me see the errors of my way. Teach me wise one, I need to know just what color the sky is in your world. Is there always climate change? Do your drawers hitch up to a pinch? What is it like to take things from others without regret? What does Harry Reids arse smell like? Please swammi, I am begging.
Yes–unlike the Leftbots, we police our own.
Kind of blows your whole premise of us buying everything hook, line, and sinker, eh?
In fact, your assumption that we are unthinking is a Leftist meme pushed by academia, the media, hollywood, and Leftbots in general. The truth is just the opposite.
I guess that means that YOU fell for it hook, line, and sinker…
The gangsta O might refer to this as a "teachable moment" for you Leftbots…
Daniel, I did not see your blog. I wrote the original for my blog on August 5th, and posted it on the 6th at http://www.ChuckDeVore.com
"Barack Hoover Obama: Doing to the American economy what G-dzilla did for Tokyo" – Rush Hudson Limbaugh, mmm, mmmm mmmmm!
Look fair is fair, and it was stand up of you to make this post. Thumbs up from me.
You might have said something down below where everyone else – including Chuck is responding to you…
Like it is better now than in 04. I surely can't believe it's better. Be well.
You're a failure. Have some Cheetos. Progress toward obesity. After all, the President wants to control our caloric intake. Enjoy the Cheetos while you can, troll.
Thank you sir! Thank you for owning up to the mistake, and for giving us an explanation. Sure beats most pols.
I'll add that what was true years ago is still true today, that taking a bomb apart is a hell of a lot better than getting shot at.
I left Combat Arms to go into EOD, I was a Combat Engineer before EOD, back when Combat Engineer was 12B.
During the Invasion of Iraq the only ones doing EOD work were Combat Engineers, because there was just too much gunfire all over the place to send in EOD Techs.
You guys have it rough.
You're right. The data was compiled from 2008 though. I had a hevckava time finding a 2008 map that showed Missouri for McCain, as most maps show it going for Obama, which wasn't the case by about 3,000 votes. In my haste to correct the 2008 map that incorrectly showed Missouri for Obama, I used a mislabeled 2004 map. The map correction is now posted. The data is all the same, thus, the conclusion remains.
My apologies.
The map has been fixed, with an explanation and apology from Mr. DeVore.
Not to worry sir. This particular person is merely laying eggs for the sake of stirring up hate and discontent. Most of your readers were aware and unlike the left, we understand human mistakes. Keep fighting and writing sir, I for one enjoy.
Thank you for your work, Chuck. Everyone makes an error sometimes. The focus and truth of your article is not in dispute.
It's cool bra.
WELCOME TO THE LAND OF THE SOVIETS WHERE LABOR IS FREE!
Cool. Seems to be fixed now.
Ahhh I see "Excuse me, while I kiss the sky" geez for how many y ears I have been thinking excuse me while I kiss this guy. I assumed it was a free thinking free loving lyric of homosexual content. Heck if I knew, I barely even listed to his music.
This just proves that the trolls don't bother reading the articles they're criticizing. Yes the map was the wrong map, but that doesn't invalidate one letter of the text. However if they read the texts they might start making sense and they might start to relate to the conservative/libertarian philosophy. Can't have that.
I read from Foamy7 that this was fixed. Great!
Thank you!
Good on both of you. Good on Foamy7 for finding this, and good on Chuck Vore for quickly correcting it.
Here is a road map, to get US on a strong economic footing for the future of all of US.
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/P...
"There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization).
All of this makes current Republican rhetoric frustrating, to say the least. Republicans tolerated spending under Republican presidents for 30 years, accounting for 59% of our total national debt, all the while benefiting from federal spending at the expense of their counterparts in blue states, only to then go bananas when a Democratic president and Congress spend money…"
http://www.thefourthbranch.com/government-spendin...
Nice try gomer, but the map is a map of individual state debt, not federal debt.
So that pretty well blows your whole god damned theory all to hell.
Your other serious mental flaw is not understanding that democrat passed programs from
fifty years ago still have to be paid for even in Republican budgets, thereby increasing
the size of budgets under Republican presidents.
But don't worry, nobody will accuse you of being a free thinker, more like a_knee_jerker.
Here, I will repeat it for you to have another try. Republicans don't like to go into debt either at a state level or a national level. Debt is for suckers. It means we are paying interest instead of receiving interest.
and what is my theory? the point is the graphs on both this site and the one i linked are misleading, both sides find graphs to show their case and distort whatever the truth might be.
a more balanced report says this:
So what explains the distribution of federal taxing and spending? As you can see from the map, states that get the "worst deal"—that is, have the lowest ratio of federal spending to taxes paid—are generally high-income states either on the coasts or with robust urban areas (such as Illinois and Minnesota). Perhaps not coincidentally, these "donor" states also tend to vote for Democrat candidates in national elections. Similarly, many states that get the "best deal" are lower-income states in the mid-west and south with expansive rural areas that tend to vote Republican.
News reports commonly interpret this to mean that "red state" lawmakers are more successful at bringing home federal spending than "blue state" lawmakers. It's often suggested that the way to correct this imbalance is for "blue state" lawmakers to step up efforts to capture additional spending for their states, and for "red state" lawmakers to pare back their voracious appetite for ever-growing pork-barrel spending.
This interpretation may be appealing, but it's probably wrong. The much more likely factor driving the persistent imbalance between federal taxing and spending isn't the relative ability of lawmakers to "bring home the bacon," but is the fact that higher income states bear a larger fraction of the federal tax burden—an imbalance that is sharply amplified by the progressive structure of the federal income tax.
For whatever reason, so-called "blue states" tend to be high-income areas that pay the vast majority of federal taxes. Some 84 percent of federal individual income taxes—which account for over 40 percent of federal revenue—are paid by the those in the top 25 percent of the income distribution. The majority of these taxpayers live in wealthy, urban, politically "blue" areas like New York, California, and Massachusetts.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html
First off, I notice you skipped right over the fact that the chart was for state debt incurred within the state and not federal debt.
Secondly, you fail to understand a basic concept about federal spending for goods and services received as opposed to welfare payments for no goods received. Since conservative states and areas have a stronger work ethic and a tendency to be friendly to military needs the federal government will often direct large portions of its budget towards places that can deliver the end result on behalf of the federal government.
We are talking about the fact that conservative states tend to do well with military bases, defense related projects, etc. So the federal government searches for locations that will actually get the job done.
Utah for example has record low welfare payments and an unusually high number of federal installations. Including huge IRS sites, along with key military sites and key national security sites. This means that Utah is providing service to the federal government by producing the desired federal goods, services, etc. At the same time Utah does not get much federal money on welfare related issues, where no goods or services are being provided.
As far as the large populace states paying more taxes, that goes without saying. That is to be expected. However, if you measure things on a per capita basis then your entire whole stupid theory is busted into tiny pieces. Per capita, conservative states pay more taxes.
And yes, the rich tend to gather towards bigger cities but that is not always the case. And there is evidence that the rich are leaving states that tax them higher. California for example has seen a huge exodus of rich leaving California for states with easier tax systems. The same with New York.
So again, you just come across as a big talker that fails to get his facts straight. And your logic is that of a child.
you don't even know what my theory is. you have wrongly assumed it is what I've copied from the other sites is my point. those are for illustrative purposes. I'll spell my point out for you: Graphs are easily misinterpreted.
if you have an issue with the statements about federal spending, I suggest you take them to the sites i got them from.
Since you ignore all my key points, get most of your facts simply wrong, emphasize non-existing correlations I will have to continue thinking you are a clueless dope.
And I see what your theory is based on your own words. The fact that you are too stupid to see that it is you making the theories is your own mental problem.
Let me know when you decide to get out of your evasive drooling mode.
Oh, you need more? No problem. Where to start with this piece of shit attempt at analysis.
Let's look at the top 5 Obama states ranked by debt per capita, based on your numbers.
1. Connecticut
2. Mass.
3. Hawaii
4. New Jersey
5. New York
Hmmm. Looks familiar. It looks very much like the list of the wealthiest states in the America.
Ranked by income per person:
1. Connecticut
2. Massachussetts
3. New Jersey
4. New York
5. Wyoming
That's neat. Is it possible that debt and wealth are related? As in, the richer you are, the more debt you can responsibly carry? Let's try a quick and dirty little test.
Let's regress the ranking for the top 10 highest debt Obama states against their rankings in income (both per capita). What we get is a coefficient of determination that suggests income ranking explains about 60% of the variation in debt rankings. (You'd need to key in the stats for all the states to produce a statistic that it bullet proof, but who has time? This is good enough for blog arguments.) Not bad.,
But what about Wyoming??!!! the right wingers scream. It has high income and low debt. What could explain that? It's a good question. Jump over to the Census Bureau and we find that Wyoming ranks No. 8 highest in federal per-capita spending per state. That "frugal red state," as the author calls it, gets a much bigger portion, per person, of the federal pie than your average state. So the WYOs aren't saddling their kids with debt. They're saddling everyone else's kids with debt. That's a much better fiscal philosophy, if you can get away with it.
Again, this is all back of the envelope. But, really, I've seen enough. This analysis tells me nothing. It's worthless. And the accompanying spin is worse than pathetic. If you want something worth printing, adjust for income levels and take into account both federal payments and state debt. Then you might have something worth debating.
Interesting contention. California used to receive more from the federal government than it paid back during the Cold War when aerospace and defense were doing well. Today, we get back about $0.77 on the dollar. Why? Two main reasons: the progressive nature of the federal tax code means that wealthy Californians pay more, per capita, than residents of states such as Mississippi; and California's high energy costs, high state taxes, and heavy red tape have driven out the defense industry to states such as Texas and Alabama, thus, California's share of the reduced federal defense acquisition and R&D pie is far less than it was in the early 90s when I started working in that industry.
You must be logged in to post a comment.