2017 Update: State's Rights

[lopri]

.. or Federal dependency data has been updated. Nothing much has changed and the state's rights-states are the biggest takers that depend most on federal government's largess.

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...national-government-and-the-states-a-paradox/

(Original data from: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mo...l-government/2700/#dependency-and-state-taxes)

 

[imported_tajmahal]

"3) the number of federal employees per capita. The third measure received only half the weight of each of the others in the calculation."

I wonder why?

 

[justoh]

Why can't you receive benefits and also demand rights? It's not news. It's not even ironic. Just a coincidence. 1/10

 

[MikeMike]

"3) the number of federal employees per capita. The third measure received only half the weight of each of the others in the calculation."

I wonder why?

What are your thoughts on this being only .5?

 

[lopri]

Probably to mask the even worse dependency of the red states, is my guess. XD

The original data is from Wallethub.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I fail to see the presumed hypocrisy here. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What are your thoughts on this being only .5?

I don't know, it's stated in the OP's article, but no information as to why.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

not Mark Twain btw.

 

[lopri]

That the states receiving more from the federal government are demanding less interference from the federal government? You do not see an irony here?

Maybe a business analogy would help. What would you say about a boardroom policy of "The more investment, the fewer votes"?

 

[fskimospy]

I fail to see the presumed hypocrisy here. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

The hypocrisy is that the states with representatives that complain the most about the power of the federal government are the most dependent on the federal government for help. It's basically like when a parent has a child that complains they have to follow the rules so long as they live in the house.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

He typo'd there, guys; what he really means is he refuses to see the hypocrisy.

 

[lopri]

BTW - The WaPo article linked to the first post explains the irony. The article was not written by a flipping liberal, but by a conservative. His argument is that Blue states should care more about the state's rights by claiming their fair share, instead of keep providing for the Red states. (which, by the way, is not what I agree with)

 

[Jhhnn]

I fail to see the presumed hypocrisy here. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

You would, obviously.

Red State voters bite the hand that feeds them. They're so bitterly partisan that they can't see that federal funding is mostly based on need, not on politics.

They embrace astounding contradictions. They believe in the Job Creators but when the Job Creators fail to deliver it's de gubmint's fault in some way, apparently because they let the Job Creators have it their own way.

 

[woolfe9998]

The hypocrisy is that the states with representatives that complain the most about the power of the federal government are the most dependent on the federal government for help. It's basically like when a parent has a child that complains they have to follow the rules so long as they live in the house.

Isn't it annoying that something this simple and obvious even has to be explained? This is par for the course with the right, this business of pretending to be obtuse. "I don't understand what this Russia investigation is about."

 

[lopri]

I have to say I am somewhat surprised at the fact Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio are net givers.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't it annoying that something this simple and obvious even has to be explained? This is par for the course with the right, this business of pretending to be obtuse. "I don't understand what this Russia investigation is about."

I'm not sure which is worse, if it's an act or if it isn't. He is the master of the 'who, me?' though so who knows.

 

[vi edit]

It'd be neat to see a further breakdown of what that $8 for SC went to. Medicaid, environmental, education, advanced gerrymandering algorithms, ect. What are they putting that $8 per $1 paid towards?

 

[fskimospy]

I have to say I am somewhat surprised at the fact Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio are net givers.

The more rural a state is generally the more dependent on the federal government it is. I was a bit surprised by Ohio though.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It'd be neat to see a further breakdown of what that $8 for SC went to. Medicaid, environmental, education, advanced gerrymandering algorithms, ect. What are they putting that $8 per $1 paid towards?

Having lived in SC, probably welfare programs. There's a lot of shockingly poor areas in that state.

 

[Jhhnn]

BTW - The WaPo article linked to the first post explains the irony. The article was not written by a flipping liberal, but by a conservative. His argument is that Blue states should care more about the state's rights by claiming for their fair share, instead of keep providing for the Red states. (which, by the way, is not what I agree with)

I'm with you. We have to compensate for loss of opportunity & jobs in the poorer parts of the country, otherwise local commerce will collapse & the only way to live there is to be primitive & out of touch with the rest of America. They're Americans, too, and we can't just let them sink.

 

[Jhhnn]

Having lived in SC, probably welfare programs. There's a lot of shockingly poor areas in that state.

Well yeh, but don't give a damn limousine conservatives claim bleeding heart limousine liberals don't care & are believed. Go figure.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I have to say I am somewhat surprised at the fact Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio are net givers.

But that doesn't fit their narrative.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Well yeh, but don't give a damn limousine conservatives claim bleeding heart limousine liberals don't care & are believed. Go figure.

There's always hand-wringing and pontificating by well-to-do's about 'what to do with the poors'. Generally speaking they're just pawns to everyone, no matter how they lean.

 

[FIVR]

Welfare is for Whites Only. This is the secret covenant Trump has with his base. Just as Rep. Steve King said; they can't restore their civilization with "other people's babies"... but they sure can restore it with other people's money.

 

[glenn1]

That the states receiving more from the federal government are demanding less interference from the federal government? You do not see an irony here?

Maybe a business analogy would help. What would you say about a boardroom policy of "The more investment, the fewer votes"?

Honestly why do you care? It's not like you're going to vote against such arrangements. The data seems to imply that you're getting the social welfare redistribution that you want. Or is what you really want is the admiration and appreciation of those poor people you think you're trying to help. If it was really about helping the poor without ulterior motive then wouldn't care about any hypocrisy from those you were trying to help.

 

[lopri]

Original data:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/