Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CFIF)   No matter how you slice the numbers, the outcome is always the same: states that embrace conservative policies consistently outperform states where big government carries the day   (cfif.org ) divider line 252
    More: Obvious, legislative initiative, American Legislative Exchange Council, Raul Labrador, oral arguments  
•       •       •

5232 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 May 2012 at 1:53 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-03 03:08:23 PM  
California Median Income: $58171.62
Texas Median Income: $47,752.70


And if you are in CA you are much more likely to have employer provided healthcare!
 
2012-05-03 03:09:09 PM  

impaler: Another bizarre thing, is using "Absolute Domestic Migration" as an economic indicator. If that wasn't strange enough, they use total values, not percentage change of population. So New York losing 10,000 people would be ranked worse than Alaska losing 9,900 people.


I wasn't quite sure what "Absolute Domestic Migration" is supposed to mean, so I googled it, and it seems to be some metric that only ALEC uses. They don't even bother to explain what it means.

According to the US census, California's population increased by 3,382,308 between 2000 and 2010. If you're using just the raw number like the ALEC report, and not the percentage, that ranks California at #2.

ALEC had California ranked 49th for having a value of -1,505,126 for "Absolute Domestic Migration"

Even if you used the more appropriate percentage, California would still be ranked 19th.

Link
 
2012-05-03 03:13:23 PM  

Corvus: California Median Income: $58171.62
Texas Median Income: $47,752.70

And if you are in CA you are much more likely to have employer provided healthcare!


Working in the service industry is awesome!
 
2012-05-03 03:15:01 PM  
Yeah, my standard of living is so terrible up here in the PNW. Just awful. Why can't I live in Biloxi or Birmingham or Knoxville or somewhere?
 
2012-05-03 03:17:01 PM  

Poopspasm: Exactly what criteria would you use to determine a state's bias towards conservatism? Bear in mind that he has actual data on his side.


Well first I assume one would have to define terms. What makes a liberal state versus a conservative state, for example. Then, using those definitions, evaluate the state government policies of each state and assign a rating from most liberal to most conservative and in-between. Then crunch the numbers. That would at least address the argument.

National election numbers just... have very little to do with it. Especially when you start counting whole states as red or blue when most of them are some shade of purple, and has a lot to do with the candidates themselves as well as national policies (domestic and foreign). Whereas an analysis based on the actual state government policies would be the proper way to do such a study.
 
2012-05-03 03:17:23 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Yeah. He submits a huge list of things for funding and then vetoes it each time. This way he gets his district their federal dollars AND gets a record that shows he's fiscally conservative.


You forget where his district is.
 
2012-05-03 03:17:55 PM  
CFIF? ALEC?

I assume the Obvious tag was for the obvious bullshiat we were about to be directed to?
 
2012-05-03 03:21:47 PM  

HighOnCraic: thamike: "No matter how you slice the numbers?"

I think they meant, "Once you harmonize the statistical quirks."


2.bp.blogspot.com

You want me to de-prioritize my current reports until you advise of a status upgrade?
 
2012-05-03 03:22:33 PM  

goochmeister42: Ahem.

[i290.photobucket.com image 640x470]


i290.photobucket.com

Done in one biatches.
 
2012-05-03 03:24:59 PM  

EbolaNYC: Done in one biatches.


Then why did you repost it? And don't forget my points about the inaccuracies of this graph described in my earlier post.
 
2012-05-03 03:25:56 PM  
Done in one....you silly right wing bloggers and your lack of facts. At first it was cute, but now it's just a little sad.
 
2012-05-03 03:28:55 PM  

thamike: HighOnCraic: thamike: "No matter how you slice the numbers?"

I think they meant, "Once you harmonize the statistical quirks."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 489x363]

You want me to de-prioritize my current reports until you advise of a status upgrade?


The first rule of status upgrades is: you do NOT talk about status upgrades.
 
2012-05-03 03:29:56 PM  
It always amuses me to watch the reaction that this old and outdated graph instills in folks. Many think it describes the divide between the economic bases for the red/blue states, when it really does not show the situation very well at all.

Case in point:

Citrate1007: Done in one....you silly right wing bloggers and your lack of facts. At first it was cute, but now it's just a little sad.

 
2012-05-03 03:30:04 PM  

EbolaNYC: goochmeister42: Ahem.

[i290.photobucket.com image 640x470]

[i290.photobucket.com image 640x470]

Done in one biatches.


Six-year-old data is old.
 
2012-05-03 03:31:40 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: I wonder, is the person who greenlights these dumbass headlines a troll or a genuine GOP stooge? They don't even annoy me anymore, they're just really boring and repetitive. Oh well.

urbangirl: That is precisely where I stopped reading.

I stopped at "Big government."


I agree.
//yawn
 
2012-05-03 03:32:19 PM  

LibertyHiller: SixSeven-year-old data is old


It is 2005 data compiled by the Tax Foundation
 
2012-05-03 03:32:44 PM  

HighOnCraic: thamike: HighOnCraic: thamike: "No matter how you slice the numbers?"

I think they meant, "Once you harmonize the statistical quirks."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 489x363]

You want me to de-prioritize my current reports until you advise of a status upgrade?

The first rule of status upgrades is: you do NOT talk about status upgrades.


Let us harmonize our status upgrades. Headlever is looking for his Power Animal.
 
2012-05-03 03:34:05 PM  

HeadLever: It always amuses me to watch the reaction that this old and outdated graph instills in folks. Many think it describes the divide between the economic bases for the red/blue states, when it really does not show the situation very well at all.

Case in point:
Citrate1007: Done in one....you silly right wing bloggers and your lack of facts. At first it was cute, but now it's just a little sad.


I think we're mostly laughing at the indication that the people who are the most ardently anti-federal spending are the ones who benefit the most from federal spending.
 
2012-05-03 03:35:51 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: No matter how you slice the numbers, huh? Well, I'll be.

I'd like to slice the numbers on wealth. How's that work out for ya, red-staters? No?

Education?

Teen pregnancy?

Poverty rate?

Any sort of significant "quality of life" metric?

See, it's not enough for these guys to fail utterly in nearly every important way... they also insist on doing victory laps while they shiat themselves.


Actually, it's more like they're congratulating themselves on "brownest legs" and "strongest scent" after they shiat themselves.

By pretty much every metric you can think up, the more liberal states are in better shape than the more conservative ones: per-capita personal income, share of national GDP; teen pregnancy rates; literacy rates; employment rates; crime rates; health care; STDs; etc etc

So what to do? Hey I know! lets just invent NEW categories to be best at.
 
2012-05-03 03:36:31 PM  

FloydA: DammitIForgotMyLogin: goochmeister42: Ahem.

[i290.photobucket.com image 640x470]

Wait, Florida is democratic?

/not American, but from everything i've heard about America's wang, I would have thought they'd be quite solidly republican

Florida is a swing state- it goes back and forth between democrats and republicans. In 2008, Obama carried it, but in 2004, Bush did. (There is some debate about which way it went in 2000. Anyone who claims to know for certain is lying.)


So, the wang wags, in other words?
 
2012-05-03 03:36:34 PM  

Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: And don't you love how the left on one hand says that "OMG! WALKER'S IS TEH PHAIL BECUZ WISCONSIN LOST JERBS!!!!one!!!eleventy" at the same time they proclaim that Obama is The Greatest President Ever™ because the national rate of job loss has decreased - even though the country is still losing jobs faster than the replacement rate. In fact, Wisconsin's overall jobless rate fell from 7.6% to 6.8% year-over-year. So the same trend that makes Scott Walker a failure also means that Barack Obama is a great success? That is, quite simply, a line of crap.

Minnesota has an even lower unemployment rate AND grew jobs last year WHILE also gaining a surplus in the state budget under a Governor who is a Democrat.

Your argument is invalid.


And what party controlled the Minnesota Legislature? (Hint: it's the one whose symbol is the elephant...)
 
2012-05-03 03:38:19 PM  

WombatControl: Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: And don't you love how the left on one hand says that "OMG! WALKER'S IS TEH PHAIL BECUZ WISCONSIN LOST JERBS!!!!one!!!eleventy" at the same time they proclaim that Obama is The Greatest President Ever™ because the national rate of job loss has decreased - even though the country is still losing jobs faster than the replacement rate. In fact, Wisconsin's overall jobless rate fell from 7.6% to 6.8% year-over-year. So the same trend that makes Scott Walker a failure also means that Barack Obama is a great success? That is, quite simply, a line of crap.

Minnesota has an even lower unemployment rate AND grew jobs last year WHILE also gaining a surplus in the state budget under a Governor who is a Democrat.

Your argument is invalid.

And what party controlled the Minnesota Legislature? (Hint: it's the one whose symbol is the elephant...)


And what party does the governor who vetoed all of the absurdity coming out of the Minnesota Legislature belong to? (Hint: it's the one who's not guanopsychotic)
 
2012-05-03 03:40:19 PM  
Well, I guess if everything is so great in Bootsrappy Nation, then they won't mind if we cut off all Federal programs and spending to them.
 
2012-05-03 03:40:41 PM  

HeadLever: Maybe we could start by updating the graph.


Here is a current graph using percent of income that comes from government benefit programs. Still looks pretty red state.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-03 03:41:22 PM  

qorkfiend: WombatControl: Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: And don't you love how the left on one hand says that "OMG! WALKER'S IS TEH PHAIL BECUZ WISCONSIN LOST JERBS!!!!one!!!eleventy" at the same time they proclaim that Obama is The Greatest President Ever™ because the national rate of job loss has decreased - even though the country is still losing jobs faster than the replacement rate. In fact, Wisconsin's overall jobless rate fell from 7.6% to 6.8% year-over-year. So the same trend that makes Scott Walker a failure also means that Barack Obama is a great success? That is, quite simply, a line of crap.

Minnesota has an even lower unemployment rate AND grew jobs last year WHILE also gaining a surplus in the state budget under a Governor who is a Democrat.

Your argument is invalid.

And what party controlled the Minnesota Legislature? (Hint: it's the one whose symbol is the elephant...)

And what party does the governor who vetoed all of the absurdity coming out of the Minnesota Legislature belong to? (Hint: it's the one who's not guanopsychotic)


Yep Minnesota did absolutely nothing with unions and they are still growing jobs and have a surplus.

Makes you think that you don't need to have the GOP in charge to make any of those things happen huh?
 
2012-05-03 03:43:09 PM  

tdpatriots12: Poopspasm: Exactly what criteria would you use to determine a state's bias towards conservatism? Bear in mind that he has actual data on his side.

Well first I assume one would have to define terms. What makes a liberal state versus a conservative state, for example. Then, using those definitions, evaluate the state government policies of each state and assign a rating from most liberal to most conservative and in-between. Then crunch the numbers. That would at least address the argument.

National election numbers just... have very little to do with it. Especially when you start counting whole states as red or blue when most of them are some shade of purple, and has a lot to do with the candidates themselves as well as national policies (domestic and foreign). Whereas an analysis based on the actual state government policies would be the proper way to do such a study.


You could take the makeup by percentage of the state govt.

Here's Imaginarystate:
Their senate has 50 members - 28Reps and 22Dems
Their house has 125 members - 70Reps and 55Dems
They have 1 Gov - A Democrat
They have 10 Federal house members - 7Dems and 3 Reps
They have 2 Federal senators - 1Dem and 1 Rep

You could rank them with the differential of Reps to Dems.

In this case, there are a total of 188 elected officials. 102 are Reps, 86 are Dems, making a differential of +16Reps. Make that a percentage of total representation by taking 16 / 188: 8.5% in favor of Reps.

If someone were really good with the googles and maths and whatnot, you could come up with a ranking like that. If you wanted to go REALLY crazy, you could weigh different offices, so that a Republican governor would carry as much weight as 10 Democratic Representatives.

Then again, the above method may be laughably bad.
 
2012-05-03 03:47:10 PM  

qorkfiend: HeadLever: It always amuses me to watch the reaction that this old and outdated graph instills in folks. Many think it describes the divide between the economic bases for the red/blue states, when it really does not show the situation very well at all.

Case in point:
Citrate1007: Done in one....you silly right wing bloggers and your lack of facts. At first it was cute, but now it's just a little sad.

I think we're mostly laughing at the indication that the people who are the most ardently anti-federal spending are the ones who benefit the most from federal spending.


Like how Sarah Palin hates socialism but then she brags that all Alaskan get paid for the natural resources pumped from their state.
 
2012-05-03 03:47:10 PM  

FlashHarry: how do they do academically? do they outperform them there? how about insurance coverage and quality of life?


Shh. GDP growth is the only legitimate metric.
 
2012-05-03 03:48:05 PM  

Elandriel: Soon as I saw TFA tout ALEC I closed the tab.


It's been entertaining to watch ALEC become the lefts equivalent of the ACLU as a whipping boy over the last few months.

ZOMGALECBAD!!!
 
2012-05-03 03:49:04 PM  

qorkfiend: I think we're mostly laughing at the indication that the people who are the most ardently anti-federal spending are the ones who benefit the most from federal spending.


In some ways yes, but the entire story is not told by those numbers. Much of that money likely goes to to federal obligations within the state (federal lands, millitary bases, etc) and not necessarily to the states themselves.

Median income in each state another huge variable that plays into this. While the poorer states may not recieve any less than the next state, they may be sending less to Uncle Sam. Regardless, it is hard to really know if it is 'state welfare' without a better breakdown of where this money is actually directed. It also presents a false dichotomy in which is defined in blue/red terms when most states are much more purple and different areas of the state have very different political veiws. Just look at the blue/red maps broken down on a county basis sometime.
 
2012-05-03 03:49:08 PM  

impaler: You're the jerk... jerk: How much would that change the outcome?

Don't know. Here's something to think about: they are perfectly fine ranking states by their highest marginal tax rate, but don't do the same for estate tax. Why? Why is estate tax treated as a binary condition?


Likely because when they gave it the same treatment as income tax the results did not fit the desired narrative.
 
2012-05-03 03:57:23 PM  

Glicky: Here is a current graph using percent of income that comes from government benefit programs. Still looks pretty red state.


That is a little bit better. Thanks for that info. However, I would catution one part of that is the inclusuion of Social Security in that mix. That will skew the numbers in areas where older folks are a higher percentage of the population.

Here is some data on public assistance, but presented on a state basis. However, I don't think that this information is for federal spending only and likely includes state and local funds as well.
wealthalchemyblog.com
 
2012-05-03 04:01:27 PM  
From TFA: <i> Advocates of federalism - the belief that, consistent with the Tenth Amendment, as much responsibility for public policy as possible should be given to the states rather than the federal government</i>

Uhm, hello? That's called the Articles of Confederation. Federalism was a reaction <i>against</i> exactly that - it was the idea there ought to be an optimal balance, not "as much power as possible" to either side.

Hey look, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_01.html" target="_blank">Alexander Hamilton lays on an epic smackdown</a> from beyond the grave:

<i>Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.</i>

Ooh, Federalist Papers burn!
 
2012-05-03 04:02:26 PM  
farm9.staticflickr.com

7/2011
 
2012-05-03 04:03:07 PM  

MFAWG: Elandriel: Soon as I saw TFA tout ALEC I closed the tab.

It's been entertaining to watch ALEC become the lefts equivalent of the ACLU as a whipping boy over the last few months.

ZOMGALECBAD!!!


So you're implying that the right's attacks on the ACLU are completely unfounded and crazy? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
 
2012-05-03 04:03:44 PM  

MFAWG: Elandriel: Soon as I saw TFA tout ALEC I closed the tab.

It's been entertaining to watch ALEC become the lefts equivalent of the ACLU as a whipping boy over the last few months.

ZOMGALECBAD!!!


Yeah, it's not like they're ACORN or something . . .
 
2012-05-03 04:05:00 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: [farm9.staticflickr.com image 400x900]

7/2011


Apparently, Math & Science is not split down party lines...
 
2012-05-03 04:06:27 PM  

Glicky: HeadLever: Maybe we could start by updating the graph.

Here is a current graph using percent of income that comes from government benefit programs. Still looks pretty red state.

[i.imgur.com image 640x484]


According to this map, 80+% of the money for my state is for Indian Reservations.

80% of the money for 5% of the population.
 
2012-05-03 04:06:48 PM  

HeadLever: Much of that money likely goes to....


"Likely"?, really? If I didn't know better, I'd have to guess that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. So color me totally convinced.
 
2012-05-03 04:07:12 PM  

HeadLever: Glicky: Here is a current graph using percent of income that comes from government benefit programs. Still looks pretty red state.

That is a little bit better. Thanks for that info. However, I would catution one part of that is the inclusuion of Social Security in that mix. That will skew the numbers in areas where older folks are a higher percentage of the population.

Here is some data on public assistance, but presented on a state basis. However, I don't think that this information is for federal spending only and likely includes state and local funds as well.
[wealthalchemyblog.com image 640x471]


I wouldn't try to get social security maps involved anyways.

One could say that only proves in which states people can live long enough to collect.
 
2012-05-03 04:08:19 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: [farm9.staticflickr.com image 400x900]

7/2011


Indiana at #9 in Math and Science? Dear God, we're all doomed.

/hoosier
 
2012-05-03 04:09:59 PM  

pxsteel: Glicky: HeadLever: Maybe we could start by updating the graph.

Here is a current graph using percent of income that comes from government benefit programs. Still looks pretty red state.

[i.imgur.com image 640x484]

According to this map, 80+% of the money for my state is for Indian Reservations.

80% of the money for 5% of the population.


That's okay, most of that money is being spent on blankets, so just wait a few years...
 
2012-05-03 04:11:54 PM  
Be more like Texas and less like California.

We need to get rid of all these Apple, Google, and Intels. We should be more like Texas, with great conservative companies like Dell and Lockheed Martin (which, by the way, receives 3/4 of its revenues from the federal government.)
 
2012-05-03 04:12:03 PM  

HighOnCraic: thamike: "No matter how you slice the numbers?"

I think they meant, "Once you harmonize the statistical quirks."


No, they meant "The author and editor of this paper are both complete and utter morons who deserve to lose their journalistic licenses for the rest of their lives".

/Seriously annoyed with journalistic 'ethics' today
//I don't care who's right. Do your damn jobs. Do them properly.
 
2012-05-03 04:13:24 PM  

Justin Bieber's Acne Medication: From TFA: <i> Advocates of federalism - the belief that, consistent with the Tenth Amendment, as much responsibility for public policy as possible should be given to the states rather than the federal government</i>

Uhm, hello? That's called the Articles of Confederation. Federalism was a reaction <i>against</i> exactly that - it was the idea there ought to be an optimal balance, not "as much power as possible" to either side.

Hey look, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_01.html" target="_blank">Alexander Hamilton lays on an epic smackdown</a> from beyond the grave:

<i>Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.</i>

Ooh, Federalist Papers burn!


/facepalm

Go read Federalist No. 45 again. Note the part that says "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
 
2012-05-03 04:15:14 PM  

LibertyHiller: Six-year-old data is old.


Probably hasn't changed all that much, though.
 
2012-05-03 04:17:50 PM  

Justin Bieber's Acne Medication: Be more like Texas and less like California.

We need to get rid of all these Apple, Google, and Intels. We should be more like Texas, with great conservative companies like Dell and Lockheed Martin (which, by the way, receives 3/4 of its revenues from the federal government.)


Yeah, because Apple would never put operations in a state like Texas...
 
2012-05-03 04:18:47 PM  

PsiChick: HighOnCraic: thamike: "No matter how you slice the numbers?"

I think they meant, "Once you harmonize the statistical quirks."

No, they meant "The author and editor of this paper are both complete and utter morons who deserve to lose their journalistic licenses for the rest of their lives".

/Seriously annoyed with journalistic 'ethics' today
//I don't care who's right. Do your damn jobs. Do them properly.


images3.cinema.de

You have angered all these fictional characters by sucking the air out of the conversation in the other room.
 
2012-05-03 04:19:37 PM  

WombatControl: Justin Bieber's Acne Medication: Be more like Texas and less like California.

We need to get rid of all these Apple, Google, and Intels. We should be more like Texas, with great conservative companies like Dell and Lockheed Martin (which, by the way, receives 3/4 of its revenues from the federal government.)

Yeah, because Apple would never put operations in a state like Texas...


To be fair, Austin isn't "Real Texas". It's full of hippies and such.
 
2012-05-03 04:22:47 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Indiana at #9 in Math and Science? Dear God, we're all doomed.


Question is, what happened to Iowa?
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report