Why do blue states have higher education rates and less people below the poverty line?

[oyarde]

In Big Cities, Welfare , ( not, a handup , by private charity ) , is considered normal and acceptable , in smaller communities , it is not desired. In these cities , currently, there are huge populations of tax ticks that have been this way , and those before them in the family were as well. This was the example set for them. Only way you can possibly improve this ( break the cycle ) ? End all publicly funded Welfare. Simple as that . This is not possible , because the Socialist Politicians are in control ( enablers ) and there are enough recievers to out vote those that pay . The takers , out number , the producers.

[oyarde]

Last time I looked , 20 % of LA County recvd some Welfare , if I recall , I grew up ,near a town of, slightly less than 50 K. I knew the guy who ran the Local United Way , he knew the name of all 90 some families in the County , on Welfare.

[oyarde]

The only way I see , for a correction, and it is needed , is for failure . Past , beyond the point where it may be obtained in the political process. That, is , just my guess ....

[Keith and stuff]

I don't know why people are better educated, less religious and modern socially liberal in certain states. It just is? And that just happens to be where most of the high tech centers and all of the financial centers are located.

[misean]

Just wondering why this seems to be the case.

I don't know if that is true. Utah and the Dakotas have some of the highest incomes and they are solidly red states.

A more interesting point is why are states with the biggest unfunded public sector liabilities and biggest per capita budget short falls blue states? If you look at any list with any metric, eight or nine out of the top 10 states in the worst financial shape are blue states. The worst states like Illinois and California are solidly blue.

[The Northbreather]

I think you mean higher indoctrination to the collectivist system rates.

[Zippyjuan]

One look:
http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan...d-states-are-c

Of the top 10 states (and including DC) in per capita GDP, only two -- Alaska and Wyoming -- are Republican. And Alaska is heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Of the bottom 10 states in per capita GDP, only two -- Michigan and New Mexico -- are Blue.

So, 8 of the 10 most prosperous states are Blue, and 8 of the 10 poorest states are Red. A rather "stark difference in economic vitality," is it not?

And there's more.

Red states have higher rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, higher crime crates, and lower education levels than Blue states.

So what gives?


...why haven't Republicans had more success rejuvenating the economies of deep red states? Why are so many deeply conservative states among the worst performers on a range of statistics, from output and income, to educational attainment, to life expectancy and literacy?

Red states are also more likely to be net receivers of government benefits compared to the amount of tax dollars they send to Washington while blue states are more likely to be net contributors to the government.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02...federal-taxes/

[Steven Douglas]

Red states are also more likely to be net receivers of government benefits compared to the amount of tax dollars they send to Washington while blue states are more likely to be net contributors to the government.

Well, that would present a dichotomy, wouldn't it? Almost a glaring hypocrisy, were it not for the mind-numbingly fallacious implications, and for a number of reasons. The biggest of which is the conflation of VOTERS and STATE, as if they were the same thing. They are not. Another is the ridiculous aggregated "per capita" reckoning, with the bizarre implication that all voters in the state are somehow evenly distributed recipients and beneficiaries of state spending. They are not.

Spending by state is all reckoned in the aggregate only. That's ALL federal funding to the state, which includes all federal outlays consisting of:

• Retirement, disability, and other direct payments
• Grants
• Procurement
• Salaries and wages

That tells us absolutely nothing about which individuals in a particular state are receiving which benefits, if any. If a state has an enormous federal subsidy in an industry (public or private) that does not result in a benefit to the majority of the voting population (e.g., agriculture or energy), it would be completely disingenuous as well as intellectually dishonest to imply that the VOTERS (wrongly conflated being synonymous with STATE) are "net receivers of government benefits".

Another obfuscating implication involved here, which is aided by a lack of any critical thought applied, is that per capita implies a kind of one-to-one Give vs. Receive-In-Return relationship. That's utter bullshit. The massive amounts of retirees living on pensions in Florida are paying out very little in Federal taxes, and receiving MASSIVE amounts--but not "in return".

Furthermore, the amounts spent toward one beneficiary in a state is not necessarily an obligation on the parts of other citizens, of any state, let alone others, which are somehow being "subsidized" by taxpayers outside the state.

Likewise those on disability and welfare. What you posted almost implies that there is more federal welfare spending per capita in Red States. Is that true? After all, we are looking BLUE VS. RED, and economic incentives for voting as a function of RECIPIENT benefits.

A little critical thought and a quick drill-down on per capita federal welfare spending per state, and suddenly a different picture emerges. Alaska is actually number two, but it's exceptional and anomalous for a number of reasons. All the rest on the top ten are decidedly blue.

1 - New York
2 - Alaska
3 - Rhode Island
4 - Maine
5 - Vermont
6 - Massachusetts
7 - Minnesota
8 - Pennsylvania
9 - New Mexico
10 - Delaware

Who are lowest ten per capita out of the fifty states?

41 - Arizona
42 - Michigan
43 - South Dakota
44 - Virginia
45 - Utah
46 - Montana
47 - Georgia
48 - Texas
49 - Colorado
50 - Nevada

And out of those blue ones in the bottom ten, four are swing states. It's all a question of a willingness to stop aggregating and anthropomorphizing everything, and actually look under all the neatly labeled "State" rocks and see what is actually creepy-crawling underneath each one. Farmers in some red states get massive federal farm subsidies. Does it matter that they're in a distinct minority, or that most people in the state are not farmers, and do not receive a DIME in benefits? Likewise, federal payments to Native Populations? Give me a fucking break.

The devil is not in the meaninglessly aggregated amounts, outgoing or incoming. It's all in the details of the actual distribution.

The "Liars Figure" chart you posted has a disgusting title which asks "Do You Get Back More Than You Pay In Taxes?", because it implies that You=State.

[Tod]

A friend posted this on FB and another of her friends immediately expressed indignation that she was so thoughtlessly insulting so many people. My friend (a customer, actually) works for a school system and is an Obama supporter.

[Tod]

One look:
http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan...d-states-are-c


Red states are also more likely to be net receivers of government benefits compared to the amount of tax dollars they send to Washington while blue states are more likely to be net contributors to the government.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02...federal-taxes/

On that graphic, I think the second line is backwards. It should read "The Ratio of Benefits Received to Taxes Paid, by State"