2017 Update: State's Rights

[lopri]

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.

It is surely a useful data to rebut the propaganda spewed out by Limbaugh et al.? 47%? Moochers? Welfare Queens?

Besides which, only "argument" relayed in the OP was the one started by the conservative writer at WaPo who believes the liberals should care more about the state's rights (because they are losing out). But as Jhhnn explained above, I do not agree with that notion at all.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Don't be silly! Pointing out that someone's thinking is illogical is helpful for everyone involved. In this case it appears that voters from these states focus on the things the federal government asks of them and takes the things the federal government does for them for granted. If you really have their best interests in mind alerting them to this fact is probably a smart idea so they don't shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak.

 

[fskimospy]

It is surely a useful data to rebut the propaganda spewed out by Limbaugh et al.? 47%? Moochers? Welfare Queens?

Besides which, only "argument" relayed in the OP was the one started by the conservative writer at WaPo who believes the liberals should care more about the state's rights (because they are losing out). But as Jhhnn explained above, I do not agree with that notion at all.

It is one of those ideas that seems compelling until you realize the consequences of it. I'm sure it would make life in liberal states much better if they weren't subsidizing uncompetitive conservative states to the extent that they are. The thing is though that there are an awful lot of people in those conservative states that didn't vote for conservatives and those are often the people that need help the most.

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't be silly! Pointing out that someone's thinking is illogical is helpful for everyone involved. In this case it appears that voters from these states focus on the things the federal government asks of them and takes the things the federal government does for them for granted. If you really have their best interests in mind alerting them to this fact is probably a smart idea so they don't shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak.

This is so obvious it would require some sort of brainwashed religious belief mental state not to see it.

 

[First]

But that doesn't fit their narrative.

Oh, so does this mean now you get the OP?

 

[brycejones]

Oh, so does this mean now you get the OP?

Who him?

 

[Jhhnn]

But that doesn't fit their narrative.

Dunno about Ohio but the rest are low population energy exporters which would seem to have a lot to do with it.

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.

We just want them to quit trying to tear down the federal govt, the one we all depend on, them often more than the rest of us.

 

[glenn1]

Dunno about Ohio but the rest are low population energy exporters which would seem to have a lot to do with it.


We just want them to quit trying to tear down the federal govt, the one we all depend on, them often more than the rest of us.

Citizens' votes don't depend on how much they give to, or take from the federal treasury. You seem to be implying a quid pro quo where they should just agree to your political preferences because you think that they're getting more money than they deserve and they should just shut up and be happy about it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

OH! I think all the railing against the Feds and for States Rights by conservatives is just resentment over the fact they need the help the Federal Government gives. Look up the Oriental proverb about gratitude.

 

[Jhhnn]

Citizens' votes don't depend on how much they give to, or take from the federal treasury. You seem to be implying a quid pro quo where they should just agree to your political preferences because you think that they're getting more money than they deserve and they should just shut up and be happy about it.

Voters don't have to make sense, 'tis true. Witness Trump, whose election will be remembered as a day of infamy, the day American conservatives let their inner 3 year olds have temper tantrums of epic proportions

Don't need no steenking enlightened self interest, that's for sure.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How do they define and quantify "other financial assistance received"? I didn't think that North Dakota's oil boom depended so heavily on federal assistance but I guess that's wrong.

EDIT: I think my head is just going derp because the North Dakota numbers just don't make sense to me. North Dakota has the highest GDP per capita in the nation, among the highest median incomes, among the lowest unemployment rates, and the second-lowest use of food stamps in the nation, yet despite all the federal income tax revenues that would presumably be generated, they still manage to take $5 from the federal government for every $1 they pay back? Is the oil industry actually a net loss that has to be maintained by massive subsidies? This makes absolutely no sense to me and I think I'm missing something obvious.

 

[agent00f]

How do they define and quantify "other financial assistance received"? I didn't think that North Dakota's oil boom depended so heavily on federal assistance but I guess that's wrong.

EDIT: I think my head is just going derp because the North Dakota numbers just don't make sense to me. North Dakota has the highest GDP per capita in the nation, among the highest median incomes, among the lowest unemployment rates, and the second-lowest use of food stamps in the nation, yet despite all the federal income tax revenues that would presumably be generated, they still manage to take $5 from the federal government for every $1 they pay back? Is the oil industry actually a net loss that has to be maintained by massive subsidies? This makes absolutely no sense to me and I think I'm missing something obvious.

Senators are money(ie handout)-makers, and wyoming has 2 for a very low population.

 

[agent00f]

Citizens' votes don't depend on how much they give to, or take from the federal treasury. You seem to be implying a quid pro quo where they should just agree to your political preferences because you think that they're getting more money than they deserve and they should just shut up and be happy about it.

People who want independence from the feds should get it.

For some reason all the rural flyover republicans only talk big, but I guess that's expected conservative behavior.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Senators are money(ie handout)-makers, and wyoming has 2 for a very low population.

Yeah, but Wyoming actually ends up near the bottom of the chart in the OP. I'm not questioning the overall results or fact that Republican (particularly Southern) states tend to take more from the federal government, but North Dakota as an outlier just isn't making sense to me. I'm guessing it has to do with the way pipeline funds are supported among other things, but that doesn't seem to jive with the residents being #1 in federal support and the state government being #50.

 

[IronWing]

The federal government has been acting as the tax collector for the low tax states for decades.

 

[agent00f]

Yeah, but Wyoming actually ends up near the bottom of the chart in the OP. I'm not questioning the overall results or fact that Republican (particularly Southern) states tend to take more from the federal government, but North Dakota as an outlier just isn't making sense to me. I'm guessing it has to do with the way pipeline funds are supported among other things, but that doesn't seem to jive with the residents being #1 in federal support and the state government being #50.

My mistake for writing wyoming instead of nd.

That data looks to be from USAspending.gov with this definition for the "other" category: https://www.usaspending.gov/transparency/Pages/StateSummary.aspx?StateCode=ND&FiscalYear=2016
The page for ND: https://www.usaspending.gov/transparency/Pages/StateSummary.aspx?StateCode=ND&FiscalYear=2016

Key line:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services $57,694,591,883

I originally suspected high number of natives reliant on medicaid, but what's odd is that figure grew from from basically nothing in <2011 to 30B in 2012/2013 and 60B after. I mean, there are only 40k natives in the state. Now I think it might be anomalous data collection where some processing is done through the state (corp relocated there) and that's not really recipients.

 

[ivwshane]

My mistake for writing wyoming instead of nd.

That data looks to be from USAspending.gov with this definition for the "other" category: https://www.usaspending.gov/transparency/Pages/StateSummary.aspx?StateCode=ND&FiscalYear=2016
The page for ND: https://www.usaspending.gov/transparency/Pages/StateSummary.aspx?StateCode=ND&FiscalYear=2016

Key line:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services $57,694,591,883

I originally suspected high number of natives reliant on medicaid, but what's odd is that figure grew from from basically nothing in <2011 to 30B in 2012/2013 and 60B after. I mean, there are only 40k natives in the state. Now I think it might be anomalous data collection where some processing is done through the state (corp relocated there) and that's not really recipients.

I don't know if its related but ND did vote to expand Medicaid in 2013 via the ACA.

 

[agent00f]

As a followup it seems to be obamacare money since indiana and Kentucky the two other states near the top also had their DSHS money shoot up after 2011.

---
What's odd is Indiana expanded medicaid in 2014, and indiana in 2015, but their skyrocketing happened much ealier. So not "expansion" per se but obviously something ACA related.

The numbers here are just crazy though. ND has a population of <1million, but "medicaid/medicare" costs of 60B? That's >60k per person. Clearly something odd going on here.

 

[agent00f]

There's literally <100k medicaid enrollees in ND, a fraction of Indiana or kentuky so there's obviously something bizarre going on here.

http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/total-monthly-medicaid-and-chip-enrollment/?currentTimeframe=13&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

Even with ~1million on medicaid in those other states, 60-100B/year is way too high. There's something off about those usa-spending numbers.

 

[vi edit]

According to this old article "defense spending" also counts towards that disbursement.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2012/08/03/states-that-get-most-federal-money.html

"Often that program was defense spending. States like Virginia, Alaska, Maryland and New Mexico received the most money per capita in federal procurement spending, which includes things like Medicaid and NASA, but the majority of which goes to the Department of Defense. To give an idea of the amount of money the federal government poured into military bases and research centers in these states, the government spent approximately $7,300 per person on all programs in Nevada. It also spent approximately $5,000 per person on defense spending alone in Virginia."

North Dakota has nukes....

But it also said this:

With the third-smallest population in the U.S., North Dakota’s federal spending per capita was understandably larger than more populous states. North Dakota ranked third in the country for receiving Direct payments other than retirement and disability. What is unusual is the large amount of money that North Dakota farmers received from the federal government — the state ranked second in agricultural assistance in the nation, behind only Texas, which has a population more than 37 times that of North Dakota.

I believe the term is "White Welfare".

 

[glenn1]

According to this old article "defense spending" also counts towards that disbursement.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2012/08/03/states-that-get-most-federal-money.html

"Often that program was defense spending. States like Virginia, Alaska, Maryland and New Mexico received the most money per capita in federal procurement spending, which includes things like Medicaid and NASA, but the majority of which goes to the Department of Defense. To give an idea of the amount of money the federal government poured into military bases and research centers in these states, the government spent approximately $7,300 per person on all programs in Nevada. It also spent approximately $5,000 per person on defense spending alone in Virginia."

North Dakota has nukes....

But it also said this:

With the third-smallest population in the U.S., North Dakota’s federal spending per capita was understandably larger than more populous states. North Dakota ranked third in the country for receiving Direct payments other than retirement and disability. What is unusual is the large amount of money that North Dakota farmers received from the federal government — the state ranked second in agricultural assistance in the nation, behind only Texas, which has a population more than 37 times that of North Dakota.

I believe the term is "White Welfare".

I'd be happy to cut that also. Just shows that when Uncle Sam starts giving out money for whatever reason, that constituency suddenly feels that's a virtuous thing as opposed to the other guys' whose is pure welfare pork.

 

[agent00f]

According to this old article "defense spending" also counts towards that disbursement.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2012/08/03/states-that-get-most-federal-money.html

"Often that program was defense spending. States like Virginia, Alaska, Maryland and New Mexico received the most money per capita in federal procurement spending, which includes things like Medicaid and NASA, but the majority of which goes to the Department of Defense. To give an idea of the amount of money the federal government poured into military bases and research centers in these states, the government spent approximately $7,300 per person on all programs in Nevada. It also spent approximately $5,000 per person on defense spending alone in Virginia."

North Dakota has nukes....

But it also said this:

With the third-smallest population in the U.S., North Dakota’s federal spending per capita was understandably larger than more populous states. North Dakota ranked third in the country for receiving Direct payments other than retirement and disability. What is unusual is the large amount of money that North Dakota farmers received from the federal government — the state ranked second in agricultural assistance in the nation, behind only Texas, which has a population more than 37 times that of North Dakota.

I believe the term is "White Welfare".

That's all true but these specific ND medical numbers are clearly wrong.

https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/state-investments/index.html. Indiana and Kentucky largely match up but HHS only shows 10B for ND.

 

[vi edit]

The article I linked was from 2012. So numbers won't match up. It just provided a bit more background on what all counts and gave more details (albeit dated).

 

[Jhhnn]

How do they define and quantify "other financial assistance received"? I didn't think that North Dakota's oil boom depended so heavily on federal assistance but I guess that's wrong.

EDIT: I think my head is just going derp because the North Dakota numbers just don't make sense to me. North Dakota has the highest GDP per capita in the nation, among the highest median incomes, among the lowest unemployment rates, and the second-lowest use of food stamps in the nation, yet despite all the federal income tax revenues that would presumably be generated, they still manage to take $5 from the federal government for every $1 they pay back? Is the oil industry actually a net loss that has to be maintained by massive subsidies? This makes absolutely no sense to me and I think I'm missing something obvious.

There are only 750K people in N Dakota & it's not exactly where wealthy people want to live so they don't put a helluva lot into the federal kitty with their middling median incomes. Ag subsidies are large, I suspect.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/federal_revenue_by_state.php?chart=Z0&year=2014&units=b&rank=T

 

[agent00f]

The article I linked was from 2012. So numbers won't match up. It just provided a bit more background on what all counts and gave more details (albeit dated).

I'm talking about the USAspending site listing $60B for ND medicare/medicaid but HHS lists $10billion. That's basically what the discrepancy comes down to. I suspect HHS knows much they spent better than some internet site.