feel free to thank us....

[Spidey]

And that would be a false assumption.

Maybe you don’t understand that I’m a skeptic when it comes to all politically motivated “studies”.

If you notice I originally implied I wanted the “source data” in some “comprehensive form” no...I don’t want to wade through tons of data.

I would just like a closer look at the methodology used to compile the data, so I can make a better judgment of my own.

In the end, if I can’t get what I want, I have to chalk the “study” up as total BS. I know what propaganda smells like when I see it.

[callmeslick]

And that would be a false assumption.

Maybe you don’t understand that I’m a skeptic when it comes to all politically motivated “studies”.

as am I. That is why I double check and usually triple check any fact sourcing I post here. However, this same data have appeared in everything from the Wall St. Journal, to Forbes, to FoxNews, etc. I found the figures(but not the nifty chart) in at least 30 places. Why do you have doubts?

[Will Robinson]

The source data may appear numerous places but the flawed conclusion you drew from it isn't nearly so well accepted. In fact I can only find it in left wing partisan circles. You have attempted to declare your conclusion is sound by simply associating it with the raw data that doesn't come close to supporting your twisted rhetoric.

[Spidey]

See the thing is…it’s not so much that I doubt the numbers as the interpretation of those numbers.

And I checked a few of those other sites, and they are all using the story from WalletHub…didn’t we learn anything from the “fake quote” thread?

I’m sorry but…there are way too many unknowns here for me to connect all of the dots, and make a proper deduction.

And don’t try to tell me “what I should know” your Jedi skills are way too weak.*

*” what you know to likely be VERY accurate compilations”

[callmeslick]

I made no firm conclusions past the fact that Red states are takers and Blue states are givers. Based on the sheer, accepted numbers.

[Spidey]

And that in itself may be true, but it doesn’t tell the entire story.

The best propaganda uses facts and distortion by omission.

[vision]

The best propaganda uses facts and distortion by omission.

Actually, the best propaganda uses repetition. No facts or anything nefarious necessary.

[Will Robinson]

The best propaganda uses facts and distortion by omission.

Actually, the best propaganda uses repetition. No facts or anything nefarious necessary.

That would be the 'most prevalent', the best would contain some factual content to enable the propagandist to cloud the issue if challenged. Like what slick is trying to do here.

[Will Robinson]

I made no firm conclusions past the fact that Red states are takers and Blue states are givers. Based on the sheer, accepted numbers.

Where is the criteria of what is a Red and what is a Blue state according to the sources?
Just having a current Rep. Governor isn't really telling us anything about the political makeup of the state. Nor is which presidential candidate was elected last election.

What does the study use to determine which people in the state owe gratitude to you and your fellow 'Blue state' citizens?
Look at Louisiana in that 'study'. Then look at it's history. Study? Meh!

Did the study deduct federal money used for military installations? Environmental expenditures at a federal level? Nuclear power or other energy concerns? U.S. Border Patrol? U.S. Customs? U.S. Coast Guard?

How many times did the Dem's buy a vote in Congress by passing legislation loaded with pork for the Red state? You know, like when they did that to buy votes for Obamacare! That money was turned down previously then all of a sudden the red state got the funds but it was the Dems who 'spent it' to buy the Dem president a vote...

Your study, and your point, is full of crap unless you can show how they factored all those and numerous other reasons the money was spent.

[callmeslick]

I made no firm conclusions past the fact that Red states are takers and Blue states are givers. Based on the sheer, accepted numbers.

Where is the criteria of what is a Red and what is a Blue state according to the sources?
Just having a current Rep. Governor isn't really telling us anything about the political makeup of the state. Nor is which presidential candidate was elected last election.

having eliminated those, one can look at the Congressional makeup, but you'd probably find fault with that, too.

Did the study deduct federal money used for military installations?

of course not. Those are Federal monies. Why should they. Pure politics leads to such spending, and it's location.

Environmental expenditures at a federal level? Nuclear power or other energy concerns? U.S. Border Patrol? U.S. Customs? U.S. Coast Guard?

of course those are part of it. Now, you wish to cherry pick Federal Spending. Figuring out the budget doesn't work that way.

How many times did the Dem's buy a vote in Congress by passing legislation loaded with pork for the Red state? You know, like when they did that to buy votes for Obamacare! That money was turned down previously then all of a sudden the red state got the funds but it was the Dems who 'spent it' to buy the Dem president a vote...

Your study, and your point, is full of crap unless you can show how they factored all those and numerous other reasons the money was spent.

numbers don't lie, but you seem to be trying to, awfully hard.....

[Spidey]

Numbers can’t lie, but then can be manipulated.

If you wanted to be fair with the “givers and takers” angle you would have to do a study to see how much return people who pay thousands in federal income taxes get, compared to those who pay much less or none. But no one would expect any thanks would they?

I also consider the military angle on this bogus because regardless of where the money is spent…the end product benefits everyone equally.

And one last thing…I might give you the original point of hypocrisy…and I do mean “might”. But that being said…if a state can keep its own taxes low, by getting more funding from the federal government…that is what I call “good management”.

[flip]

I don't call it good management Spidey, I call it coercion It's the number one way the Federal Government has been able to centralize power unto itself in this country. It's also why I use my own money and encourage others to support their local Sheriff's Associations. They are elected Constitutional authorities and do a bang up job of keeping power and authority decentralized and spread around. I am convinced that the only way to reverse our course is to remind them and the Governors of this. Seems to be working around here too

[callmeslick]

Numbers can’t lie, but then can be manipulated.

If you wanted to be fair with the “givers and takers” angle you would have to do a study to see how much return people who pay thousands in federal income taxes get, compared to those who pay much less or none. But no one would expect any thanks would they?

we live in a society, and as such, most spending benefits everyone. Taxation is graduated, as it should be, so such a study would make sense only if one looked at tax burden calculated as a percentage of net worth. It's rather interesting to see the politics of the folks dancing around the basic facts presented at the outset.......must really be hard to justify 'small government' ideologies, when those espousing them live in the beneficiary states.

[Spidey]

I didn’t say anything about changing that, I was merely speaking of givers and takers…didn’t someone say the blue states are wealthier…

Good for the person…good for the states? One big redistributed family.

My state is blue...and a taker.

[Will Robinson]

Slick, bottom line is your partisan rhetorical-device indictment of 'red staters taking more' doesn't hold water because your study effectively gerrymanders both the spending and the actual political history/makeup of the states in the very selective way that they are labeled Red, labeled 'other' or labeled Blue by the 'study'.

It is a study in rhetoric and nothing more.

The only dancing going on is the way you are stumbling around all these relevant factors that call into question your assertion.
Your attempt to suggest all the billions spent at military installations is money that the host state "takes" for itself is absolutely ridiculous when one considers it isn't any one state that benefits from them. And it's no coincidence most of the top ten largest bases are in what you call Red states!

[vision]

That would be the 'most prevalent', the best would contain some factual content to enable the propagandist to cloud the issue if challenged.

Find be an example of the "best" propaganda that uses facts. Here are a few popular phrases people can't let go of that have no factual basis: Obama is a socialist. Obama was not born in America. Obama is a Muslim. The list goes on and one and people actually believe this crap because it gets repeated over and over and over again, creating a massive circle-jerk. That's some seriously successful propaganda, no facts needed.

[vision]

ITT: I learned all the states Romney won were not actually Red states.

Of course, soon we will hear some conservative drivel about the success of Red stated then all the one's in the study above will suddenly become idealized.

Can't... Wait.

[Will Robinson]

ITT: I learned all the states Romney won were not actually Red states.

Of course, soon we will hear some conservative drivel about the success of Red stated then all the one's in the study above will suddenly become idealized.

Can't... Wait.

First off, the difference between what you should have learned and what you did learn is the result of your inability or your willful ignorance, not the fault of those who presented the challenge to the op because slicks twisted study is quite obviously bad science.

Second, if someone does use that bad science to praise the other side they are just as wrong as you and slick are in the way you are using it.

[callmeslick]

I'm NOT praising one side, but rather condemning one side for talking 'small government' whilst benefitting the most from big government.

[Will Robinson]

I'm NOT praising one side, but rather condemning one side for talking 'small government' whilst benefitting the most from big government.

Your condemnation is based on a bunch of non sense.

[callmeslick]

no, Will it isn't.....and your denial of hard numbers shows your true discomfort with the facts.

[Will Robinson]

no, Will it isn't.....and your denial of hard numbers shows your true discomfort with the facts.

I don't deny the numbers. I scoff at the ridiculous and illogical conclusion you have concocted based on that raw data.

[snoopy]

I don't know exactly what think about this discussion.

I'd like to jump to the defense of the "red" states... but I think this is really a complicated issue.

I'm thinking about it in terms of "rural" vs. "city" - cities tend to be economic centers, and cities also tend to be more "blue." Conversely, rural areas tend to be poorer, and also tend to be more "red." I'd like to see the numbers broken down in more categories than just states taken by candidates in the last presidential election... how does party affiliation match up to state money "benefit" on a per-person basis? How do party affiliation, charitable work, and money from the state interact? How does vocation relate to money from the state? I have my guesses about the story that those statistics would tell, but I'd like to see them. I think that many "red" people would, at some point, raise an argument about the legitimacy of the funds garnered.... I think there's a general perception (often incorrect) that "red" people tend to receive help legitimately while "blue" people tend to receive help fraudulently. I know that's something that has to be judged on a case-by-case basis... but I do think the sentiment generally exists.