Can you pay down the debt WITHOUT growing the "economy"?

[Quantum Windbag]

We could reduce federal aid to republican states. That will go along ways towards reducing the deficit.

I keep seeing this idea that Republican controlled states draw more from the Fed while Democrat controlled states provide more.

Surely you've seen this;



I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue.

But, out of the box, that is

Takers - Blue 11 Red 18
Givers - Blue 9 Red 3


Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance. This then creates the situation that validates their flawed world view.

----------------------------

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

Federal Aid to States, 2010
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

State GDP varying years
List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Revenue by state
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other source.
Compare US Federal Spending by State for 2009 -Chart

If you don't take things for granted, and check things out for yourself, why did you just post a idiotic claim that has been debunked already?

 

[Norman]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

It's the difference between investing and spending.

If you fix your old car so you can go to work, that is obviously investing.
If on the other hand you get a new mercedes with every possible additions to show to your frineds. That's spending.

The problem is a lot of government programs coupled with the extremely low interest rates make you spend instead of invest. Instead of buying that car to go to work, you take UE benefits and loans and renew your apartment with granite tabletops or something. I think the nature of politics is really spending oriented because of the short terms and etc.

Of course, it would be a paradox to say that you can't pay down debt without taking more debt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

You're almost there! It's true growing the economy is the key and the way that's best accomplished is through free enterprise and capitalism. Let people and businesses keep as much of their money and choices as possible and the economy will prosper

 

[expat_panama]

Takers - Blue 11 Red 18
Givers - Blue 9 Red 3

Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning but it sounds like you're saying three things:

1. Federal money goes to the needy poor and comes from the responsible rich.
2. We know a state is poor by how much Federal money it gets.
3. Small gov't policies make people poor and big gov't policies make people well off.

Let's think about that. Incoming federal aid does not necessarily prove there is economic hardship; a better indicator of economic pain is the unemployment rate. Compare the above blue/red state map to this one that shows unemployment rates:

Here are the average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Combining our two maps shows three things:

1. Federal money does not help the poor.
2. People don't want federal money coming to their states and they vote to stop it.
3. Small gov't policies let people get jobs and big gov't policies make people poor.

 

[RKMBrown]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

You're almost there! It's true growing the economy is the key and the way that's best accomplished is through free enterprise and capitalism. Let people and businesses keep as much of their money and choices as possible and the economy will prosper

Your almost there! It's true letting people keep as much of their money and choices as possible and the economy will prosper. However, we need our government to continue to work on smart regulations as well as breaking up monopolies & oligopolies, foreign and domestic, in order to keep opportunities churning for newly formed businesses. Still further, we need incentive based hand-up systems oriented to get the fat, dumb, lazy segment of our population healthy, smart, and industrious. Otherwise, they will swamp our economy with their slums, theft, riots, and demands for hand-out systems.

 

[itfitzme]

Takers - Blue 11 Red 18
Givers - Blue 9 Red 3

Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning but it sounds like you're saying three things:

1. Federal money goes to the needy poor and comes from the responsible rich.
2. We know a state is poor by how much Federal money it gets.
3. Small gov't policies make people poor and big gov't policies make people well off.

Let's think about that. Incoming federal aid does not necessarily prove there is economic hardship; a better indicator of economic pain is the unemployment rate. Compare the above blue/red state map to this one that shows unemployment rates:

Here are the average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Combining our two maps shows three things:

1. Federal money does not help the poor.
2. People don't want federal money coming to their states and they vote to stop it.
3. Small gov't policies let people get jobs and big gov't policies make people poor.

It's strange that the net receivers of federal funds are states with lesser unemployment. That is odd.

Exactly why I said, "I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue."

It is important to keep in mind that receiving federal aid does not mean unemployed.

Also, those maps present nothing about how the monies are distributed, for what, or to whom. Your conclusion depends on assumptions of things that those maps do not indicate.

According to the US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/sipp/
http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/quarterly-est/household-char/hsehld-char-11.html

These are a list of the programs

Received benefits from one or more programs
Social Security
Railroad Retirement
Veterans' compensation
Unemployment compensation
Workers' compensation
Veterans' educational assistance
Medicare
One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)
Public or subsidized rental housing
Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food stamps (3)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Other cash assistance
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Medicaid

The means tested programs are both state and fed managed. Differentiation would have to be made.

 

[RKMBrown]

Takers - Blue 11 Red 18
Givers - Blue 9 Red 3

Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning but it sounds like you're saying three things:

1. Federal money goes to the needy poor and comes from the responsible rich.
2. We know a state is poor by how much Federal money it gets.
3. Small gov't policies make people poor and big gov't policies make people well off.

Let's think about that. Incoming federal aid does not necessarily prove there is economic hardship; a better indicator of economic pain is the unemployment rate. Compare the above blue/red state map to this one that shows unemployment rates:

Here are the average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Combining our two maps shows three things:

1. Federal money does not help the poor.
2. People don't want federal money coming to their states and they vote to stop it.
3. Small gov't policies let people get jobs and big gov't policies make people poor.

It's strange that the net receivers of federal funds are states with lesser unemployment. That is odd.

Exactly why I said, "I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue."

It is important to keep in mind that receiving federal aid does not mean unemployed.

Also, those maps present nothing about how the monies are distributed, for what, or to whom. Your conclusion depends on assumptions of things that those maps do not indicate.

According to the US Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
SIPP Table Packages

These are a list of the programs

Received benefits from one or more programs
Social Security
Railroad Retirement
Veterans' compensation
Unemployment compensation
Workers' compensation
Veterans' educational assistance
Medicare
One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)
Public or subsidized rental housing
Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food stamps (3)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Other cash assistance
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Medicaid

The means tested programs are both state and fed managed. Differentiation would have to be made.

You are a lying POS. Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Veterans' compensation, Unemployment compensation, Workers' compensation, Veterans' educational assistance, and Medicare are not federal assistance programs you dolt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

You're almost there! It's true growing the economy is the key and the way that's best accomplished is through free enterprise and capitalism. Let people and businesses keep as much of their money and choices as possible and the economy will prosper

Your almost there! It's true letting people keep as much of their money and choices as possible and the economy will prosper. However, we need our government to continue to work on smart regulations as well as breaking up monopolies & oligopolies, foreign and domestic, in order to keep opportunities churning for newly formed businesses. Still further, we need incentive based hand-up systems oriented to get the fat, dumb, lazy segment of our population healthy, smart, and industrious. Otherwise, they will swamp our economy with their slums, theft, riots, and demands for hand-out systems.

Our government is supposed to break up "Foreign monopolies"?

Free Enterprise IS the only system that incentives people!

 

[itfitzme]

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning but it sounds like you're saying three things:

1. Federal money goes to the needy poor and comes from the responsible rich.
2. We know a state is poor by how much Federal money it gets.
3. Small gov't policies make people poor and big gov't policies make people well off.

Let's think about that. Incoming federal aid does not necessarily prove there is economic hardship; a better indicator of economic pain is the unemployment rate. Compare the above blue/red state map to this one that shows unemployment rates:

Here are the average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Combining our two maps shows three things:

1. Federal money does not help the poor.
2. People don't want federal money coming to their states and they vote to stop it.
3. Small gov't policies let people get jobs and big gov't policies make people poor.

I suspect that the difference is on population density. That is easy enough to figure out.

Here is pop density vs UE.



I just grabbed some available data. Could be different years. UE is Aug 2013. Pop Density is 2008 projections for each state from the U.S. Census Bureau.

It has a trend. Rural is also correlated to Republican as well.

So we have a higher pop density with the higher UE rate. Even so, the lower pop density, Republican states with the lower UE rate receive net income in federal funds.

 

[itfitzme]

It's strange that the net receivers of federal funds are states with lesser unemployment. That is odd.

Exactly why I said, "I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue."

It is important to keep in mind that receiving federal aid does not mean unemployed.

Also, those maps present nothing about how the monies are distributed, for what, or to whom. Your conclusion depends on assumptions of things that those maps do not indicate.

According to the US Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
SIPP Table Packages

These are a list of the programs

Received benefits from one or more programs
Social Security
Railroad Retirement
Veterans' compensation
Unemployment compensation
Workers' compensation
Veterans' educational assistance
Medicare
One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)
Public or subsidized rental housing
Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food stamps (3)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Other cash assistance
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Medicaid

The means tested programs are both state and fed managed. Differentiation would have to be made.

You are a lying POS. Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Veterans' compensation, Unemployment compensation, Workers' compensation, Veterans' educational assistance, and Medicare are not federal assistance programs you dolt.

You are an idiot. Read the table. Line 9 says "One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)" What follows are the means tested programs. Then, I added that the" means tested programs are both state and fed managed."

You are a really stupid and ignorant person.

See, here is the problem. It isn't that people are lying. It is that you are a moron. You have stupid ideas. And you excuse your ignorance by claiming that everyone else is lying. It is you. You are the problem.

 

[itfitzme]

We could reduce federal aid to republican states. That will go along ways towards reducing the deficit.

I keep seeing this idea that Republican controlled states draw more from the Fed while Democrat controlled states provide more.

Surely you've seen this;



I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue.

But, out of the box, that is

Takers - Blue 11 Red 18
Givers - Blue 9 Red 3


Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance. This then creates the situation that validates their flawed world view.

----------------------------

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

Federal Aid to States, 2010
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

State GDP varying years
List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Revenue by state
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other source.
Compare US Federal Spending by State for 2009 -Chart

The solid red states are usually the low wage states at least in the south it's been my experience. But they keep voting in republicans that guarantee them that things won't get better. Look at the many republican governors that won't allow medicaid expansion in their states to short circuit obama care. Not having help with medical bills is a fast track to poverty for some.

That is my sense. The other thing that is important is that the cost of living also is lower in those states. I went for a WageIndex/CPI, or something like that, value to normalize things. Cost of living has a greater variance than wage index, so the lower wage states tend to get more bang for the buck on those wages. If you are on OASDI, then moving to one of the lower cost of living areas is best. Income doesn't change. NY and San Fran suck. Wages don't make up for the CPI swing.

 

[itfitzme]

We could reduce federal aid to republican states. That will go along ways towards reducing the deficit.

I keep seeing this idea that Republican controlled states draw more from the Fed while Democrat controlled states provide more.

Surely you've seen this;



I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue.

But, out of the box, that is

Takers - Blue 11 Red 18
Givers - Blue 9 Red 3


Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance. This then creates the situation that validates their flawed world view.

----------------------------

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

Federal Aid to States, 2010
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

State GDP varying years
List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Revenue by state
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other source.
Compare US Federal Spending by State for 2009 -Chart

If you don't take things for granted, and check things out for yourself, why did you just post a idiotic claim that has been debunked already?

Well, if you claim it has been "debunked", I know it is correct. Thanks, that makes things easier.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's strange that the net receivers of federal funds are states with lesser unemployment. That is odd.

Exactly why I said, "I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue."

It is important to keep in mind that receiving federal aid does not mean unemployed.

Also, those maps present nothing about how the monies are distributed, for what, or to whom. Your conclusion depends on assumptions of things that those maps do not indicate.

According to the US Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
SIPP Table Packages

These are a list of the programs

Received benefits from one or more programs
Social Security
Railroad Retirement
Veterans' compensation
Unemployment compensation
Workers' compensation
Veterans' educational assistance
Medicare
One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)
Public or subsidized rental housing
Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food stamps (3)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Other cash assistance
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Medicaid

The means tested programs are both state and fed managed. Differentiation would have to be made.

You are a lying POS. Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Veterans' compensation, Unemployment compensation, Workers' compensation, Veterans' educational assistance, and Medicare are not federal assistance programs you dolt.

You are an idiot. Read the table. Line 9 says "One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)" What follows are the means tested programs. Then, I added that the" means tested programs are both state and fed managed."

You are a really stupid and ignorant person.

See, here is the problem. It isn't that people are lying. It is that you are a moron. You have stupid ideas. And you excuse your ignorance by claiming that everyone else is lying. It is you. You are the problem.

You are a retarded lying POS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Takers - Blue 11 Red 18
Givers - Blue 9 Red 3

Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning but it sounds like you're saying three things:

1. Federal money goes to the needy poor and comes from the responsible rich.
2. We know a state is poor by how much Federal money it gets.
3. Small gov't policies make people poor and big gov't policies make people well off.

Let's think about that. Incoming federal aid does not necessarily prove there is economic hardship; a better indicator of economic pain is the unemployment rate. Compare the above blue/red state map to this one that shows unemployment rates:

Here are the average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Combining our two maps shows three things:

1. Federal money does not help the poor.
2. People don't want federal money coming to their states and they vote to stop it.
3. Small gov't policies let people get jobs and big gov't policies make people poor.

It's strange that the net receivers of federal funds are states with lesser unemployment. That is odd.

Exactly why I said, "I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue."

It is important to keep in mind that receiving federal aid does not mean unemployed.

Also, those maps present nothing about how the monies are distributed, for what, or to whom. Your conclusion depends on assumptions of things that those maps do not indicate.

According to the US Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
SIPP Table Packages

These are a list of the programs

Received benefits from one or more programs
Social Security
Railroad Retirement
Veterans' compensation
Unemployment compensation
Workers' compensation
Veterans' educational assistance
Medicare
One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)
Public or subsidized rental housing
Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food stamps (3)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Other cash assistance
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Medicaid

The means tested programs are both state and fed managed. Differentiation would have to be made.

The only strange thing is you think your numbers are accurate.

 

[expat_panama]

...those maps present nothing about how the monies are distributed, for what, or to whom. Your conclusion depends on assumptions of things that those maps do not indicate.

According to the US Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
SIPP Table Packages...

Let's not change the story here. Back in your post #218 you provided these links as the basis of Mother Jones' red-state-federal-aid flimflam:

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

Federal Aid to States, 2010
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

--so the percapita aid were talking about came from his map--

--so the study was based on aid to state and local governments. Apparently not only is the aid going to those who are not in need, it's going to areas where the populations do not want the aid.

Our tax dollars at work.

 

[itfitzme]

You are a lying POS. Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Veterans' compensation, Unemployment compensation, Workers' compensation, Veterans' educational assistance, and Medicare are not federal assistance programs you dolt.

You are an idiot. Read the table. Line 9 says "One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)" What follows are the means tested programs. Then, I added that the" means tested programs are both state and fed managed."

You are a really stupid and ignorant person.

See, here is the problem. It isn't that people are lying. It is that you are a moron. You have stupid ideas. And you excuse your ignorance by claiming that everyone else is lying. It is you. You are the problem.

You are a retarded lying POS.

You are just an asshole that freaks out everytime you jump to some stupid conclusion that you created out of your paranood deluional fantacy land you live in. You don't have the temperment for intelligent thought.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are an idiot. Read the table. Line 9 says "One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)" What follows are the means tested programs. Then, I added that the" means tested programs are both state and fed managed."

You are a really stupid and ignorant person.

See, here is the problem. It isn't that people are lying. It is that you are a moron. You have stupid ideas. And you excuse your ignorance by claiming that everyone else is lying. It is you. You are the problem.

You are a retarded lying POS.

You are just an asshole that freaks out everytime you jump to some stupid conclusion that you created out of your paranood deluional fantacy land you live in. You don't have the temperment for intelligent thought.

Listen jerk. You cite to graphic charts that show "states" by color that supposedly indicate that it is the republicans who are receiving all the welfare. This is a false meme that has been pushed by dumb asses like you for decades. Just because a state votes majority one party does not mean that state is owned by that party. Just because there are a number of leeches like you in the state that the federal government mandates must receive hand-outs does not mean the people in that state by majority agree with the practice, nor does it mean that the majority of republicans are receiving welfare, nor does it mean the majority of the upper middle income group where the bulk of income comes from in democrat states are democrat. This meme is complete bullshit. All it really means is the democrats are trying to buy votes in republican states with welfare you fool.

 

[itfitzme]

...those maps present nothing about how the monies are distributed, for what, or to whom. Your conclusion depends on assumptions of things that those maps do not indicate.

According to the US Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
SIPP Table Packages...

Let's not change the story here. Back in your post #218 you provided these links as the basis of Mother Jones' red-state-federal-aid flimflam:

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

Federal Aid to States, 2010
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

--so the percapita aid were talking about came from his map--

--so the study was based on aid to state and local governments. Apparently not only is the aid going to those who are not in need, it's going to areas where the populations do not want the aid.

Our tax dollars at work.

UE isn't going to work like we want. It measures people that have looked for work and is a percentage of the people that say they want work or have it. It isn't a stable statistic because it changes as the LF changes. Empratio is better because it isn't based on a subjective assesment. Means tested program enrollment is a far more robust stat for need. Indeed, it is the stat for it. For all we know, people in low pop density areas just stopped looking and aren't considered unemployeed. People may be employed and still on SNAP. UE isn't going to work because it doesn't mean what we'd like it to. 1-empratio is closer, but still a bit indirect.

Based on what information do we conclude; "Apparently not only is the aid going to those who are not in need, it's going to areas where the populations do not want the aid."? If it is means tested and applied for then it is both needed and desired. So who doesn't want it based on what info?

Here is a list of data that will be needed to nail down the ide

----State differences data ----
** Population density
** County pop densities
** Political leaning by county/state
** Employment to pop rate
** Federal Tax Revenue per cap
** Federal Funds per cap
** * * * SNAP, WIC, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, etc
** Wage Index
** Average income
** State CPI
** RGSP

 

[itfitzme]

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning but it sounds like you're saying three things:

1. Federal money goes to the needy poor and comes from the responsible rich.
2. We know a state is poor by how much Federal money it gets.
3. Small gov't policies make people poor and big gov't policies make people well off.

Let's think about that. Incoming federal aid does not necessarily prove there is economic hardship; a better indicator of economic pain is the unemployment rate. Compare the above blue/red state map to this one that shows unemployment rates:

Here are the average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Combining our two maps shows three things:

1. Federal money does not help the poor.
2. People don't want federal money coming to their states and they vote to stop it.
3. Small gov't policies let people get jobs and big gov't policies make people poor.

It's strange that the net receivers of federal funds are states with lesser unemployment. That is odd.

Exactly why I said, "I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue."

It is important to keep in mind that receiving federal aid does not mean unemployed.

Also, those maps present nothing about how the monies are distributed, for what, or to whom. Your conclusion depends on assumptions of things that those maps do not indicate.

According to the US Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
SIPP Table Packages

These are a list of the programs

Received benefits from one or more programs
Social Security
Railroad Retirement
Veterans' compensation
Unemployment compensation
Workers' compensation
Veterans' educational assistance
Medicare
One or more means-tested programs (1) (2)
Public or subsidized rental housing
Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food stamps (3)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Other cash assistance
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Medicaid

The means tested programs are both state and fed managed. Differentiation would have to be made.

The only strange thing is you think your numbers are accurate.

Dude, you aren't capable of making an objective assessment based on measurement data. You reject facts when you don't like the conclusion you've jumped to. Your feeling and subjective opinions don't make for proof of anything.

 

[itfitzme]

Well, from the tax foundation, the 2005 rankings of federal spending per tax dollar received for each state is



Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005 | Tax Foundation