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  
•       •       •

5230 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 May 2012 at 1:53 PM (2 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 04:24:31 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Like how Sarah Palin hates socialism but then she brags that all Alaskan get paid for the natural resources pumped from their state.


Since much of Alaska is public land, it is pretty logical that Alaska gets royalties from natural resource extraction. This is a loss of reserves that the public owns that is transferred to the private entities. Not sure how that plays into the socialism thing, but it make sense from the policy standpoint.
 
2012-05-03 04:25:00 PM

WombatControl: 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."


What could possibly go wrong?


"Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five thousand (5,000.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

/And old state law in Mississippi that was overturned by the evil Federal government.
 
2012-05-03 04:29:14 PM

thamike: 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 image 640x429]

You have angered all these fictional characters by sucking the air out of the conversation in the other room.


Cut her some slack; some jokes ARE obscure on Fark.
 
2012-05-03 04:31:08 PM

qorkfiend: There's a distinct lack of data in that article.


And the distinct odor of ALEC.
 
2012-05-03 04:31:27 PM

DVOM: "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.


Since no one has ever been able to find this information (we have had this discussion a number of times), no one really knows.

That being said, I did a little study correlating the amount of federally owned land and millitary bases with the numbers presented in this table. Out of the top 15 states with the highest number of millitary bases and public land per capita, 13 of them recieved more money than they were taxed. That does not prove anything more than the bare assuptions made for state welfare, but the correlation is there.
 
2012-05-03 04:33:50 PM

Smelly McUgly: 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?


This.

I'm moving back to TX from OR next week.

/sad panda
 
2012-05-03 04:34:35 PM
Quality of life by Sstate as defined by the UN Human Development Index

1. Connecticut - 0.962
2. Massachusetts - 0.962
3. Hawaii - 0.961
4. California - 0.958
5. Minnesota - 0.957
6. New York - 0.957
7. New Jersey - 0.955
8. New Hampshire - 0.950
9. Rhode Island - 0.950
10. Colorado - 0.949
11. Washington - 0.946
12. Illinois - 0.946
13. Maryland - 0.945
14. Virginia - 0.945
15. Vermont - 0.944
16. Iowa - 0.942
17. Nebraska - 0.942
18. Wisconsin - 0.942
19. Alaska - 0.941
20. North Dakota - 0.941
21. Oregon - 0.940
22. Delaware - 0.938
23. District of Columbia - 0.937
24. Florida - 0.936
25. Michigan - 0.936
26. Pennsylvania - 0.934
27. Texas - 0.934
28. Utah - 0.934
29. Kansas - 0.933
30. Wyoming - 0.930
31. North Carolina - 0.929
32. Ohio - 0.929
33. Arizona - 0.928
34. Maine - 0.928
35. New Mexico - 0.927
36. South Dakota - 0.926
37. Indiana - 0.925
38. Georgia - 0.922
39. Nevada - 0.920
40. Missouri - 0.918
41. Idaho - 0.916
42. Montana - 0.908
43. South Carolina - 0.904
44. Kentucky - 0.900
45. Tennessee - 0.899
46. Arkansas - 0.894
47. Oklahoma - 0.890
48. Louisiana - 0.889
49. Alabama - 0.888
50. West Virginia - 0.879
51. Mississippi - 0.867
 
2012-05-03 04:35:08 PM

abb3w: Probably hasn't changed all that much, though.


Notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-05-03 04:45:07 PM
HighOnCraic:

You do realize that those laws were overturned by a constitutional amendment. Which isn't the federal government acting alone, but the federal government acting with the approval of three-fourths of the state governments.

/ Civics 101 FTW...
 
2012-05-03 04:46:20 PM

HighOnCraic: Cut her some slack; some jokes ARE obscure on Fark.


A Backdraft joke is at most as obscure as a Darkman joke and we are, after all, Farkers. We are the 101st Airborne of the internet. We do not go quietly into the night. We shall Fark on the beaches, we shall Fark in the hills, and so forth...
 
2012-05-03 04:51:53 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I don't give a flying fark what that dickweed says; I'd still rather be in California than Texas


A state that is hemmoraging jobs and on the verge of bankruptcy or a state that creating more jobs each month than the rest of the nation combined.

Tough call.
 
2012-05-03 04:52:13 PM

WombatControl: HighOnCraic:

You do realize that those laws were overturned by a constitutional amendment. Which isn't the federal government acting alone, but the federal government acting with the approval of three-fourths of the state governments.

/ Civics 101 FTW...


Uh-oh--everybody sit the f*ck down for a second--we got a guy who thinks flippant regards to introductory college classes have been virtually weaponized.
 
2012-05-03 04:53:08 PM

Bullseyed: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I don't give a flying fark what that dickweed says; I'd still rather be in California than Texas

A state that is hemmoraging jobs and on the verge of bankruptcy or a state that creating more jobs each month than the rest of the nation combined.

Tough call.


Are they good paying jobs though? I heard most of the new jobs being created there are minimum wage jobs.
 
2012-05-03 04:54:34 PM

Nadie_AZ: Fart_Machine: Dancin_In_Anson: I seem to recall a while back a lot of crowing about the amount of federal dollars that went to ROM PAUL's district even though he is not a big fan of federal spending.

RON PAUL is not a big fan of federal spending UNLESS it's being done in his his district.

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.


Unless Ron Paul is the president, he can't veto anything.

/It is scary that people like you with zero knowledge of government are voting.
 
2012-05-03 04:55:16 PM

thamike: HighOnCraic: Cut her some slack; some jokes ARE obscure on Fark.

A Backdraft joke is at most as obscure as a Darkman joke and we are, after all, Farkers. We are the 101st Airborne of the internet. We do not go quietly into the night. We shall Fark on the beaches, we shall Fark in the hills, and so forth...


I meant the "harmonize the statistical quirks" part.
 
2012-05-03 04:58:55 PM

impaler: Ignoring that issue, giving weight ranks from 1-50, instead using some sort of normalization of actual value being measured (such as tax rate), is always a dishonest method.


Conservative think tanks are allergic to honesty. It doesn't pay much.
 
2012-05-03 05:00:16 PM

HighOnCraic: thamike: HighOnCraic: Cut her some slack; some jokes ARE obscure on Fark.

A Backdraft joke is at most as obscure as a Darkman joke and we are, after all, Farkers. We are the 101st Airborne of the internet. We do not go quietly into the night. We shall Fark on the beaches, we shall Fark in the hills, and so forth...

I meant the "harmonize the statistical quirks" part.


Alas, I missed that thread. I guess some jokes actually are obscure on Fark. Color me American.
 
2012-05-03 05:00:24 PM
Here's an idea: let's cut federal aid spending to 0, with the expectation that states maintain current aid levels through their own means. Sounds pretty fiscally conservative. But most blue states would see a tax decrease, while the republican states would see an increase in total taxes. Let's see a republican at the national level do this and laugh.
 
2012-05-03 05:02:52 PM

CheatCommando: Conservative think tanks are allergic to honesty.


Unknown Fact--They are also, literally, tanks. Tanks of lisping conservatives looking for the washroom.
 
2012-05-03 05:07:32 PM

WombatControl: HighOnCraic:

You do realize that those laws were overturned by a constitutional amendment. Which isn't the federal government acting alone, but the federal government acting with the approval of three-fourths of the state governments.

/ Civics 101 FTW...



Constitutional Amendments 11-27

Link

Hmmm... I see something about voting rights (Amendment XXIV), but I don't see the 1964 Civil Rights Act on that list.
 
2012-05-03 05:11:19 PM

Since no one has ever been able to find this information (we have had this discussion a number of times), no one really knows.

That being said, I did a little study correlating the amount of federally owned land and millitary bases with the numbers presented in this table. Out of the top 15 states with the highest number of millitary bases and public land per capita, 13 of them recieved more money than they were taxed. That does not prove anything more than the bare assuptions made for state welfare, but the correlation is there.


Could you expound upon this? What dataset(s) did you use? How did you calculate the correlations? Did you run any regressions?

I am very curious about this now.
 
2012-05-03 05:11:30 PM

thamike: WombatControl: HighOnCraic:

You do realize that those laws were overturned by a constitutional amendment. Which isn't the federal government acting alone, but the federal government acting with the approval of three-fourths of the state governments.

/ Civics 101 FTW...

Uh-oh--everybody sit the f*ck down for a second--we got a guy who thinks flippant regards to introductory college classes have been virtually weaponized.


weknowmemes.com
 
2012-05-03 05:12:19 PM

HeadLever: 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.


Are farm subsidies counted as public assistance? They are money from the government that you receive for doing nothing, just like other forms of welfare.
 
2012-05-03 05:20:42 PM
Conservative states are miserable, backward hell-holes.
 
2012-05-03 05:20:46 PM
How about average standard of living? Oh sorry, I just wrecked your argument.
 
2012-05-03 05:22:09 PM

WombatControl: 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."


The Federalists papers were they ever debated on and ratified by congress help me out here, or were they a series of articles, you know sort of like opinion columns or blog posts?
 
2012-05-03 05:23:44 PM

Shvetz: How about average standard of living? Oh sorry, I just wrecked your argument.


Slice. One must slice an argument, no matter how one chooses to do so.
 
2012-05-03 05:25:40 PM

Bullseyed: A state that is hemmoraging jobs and on the verge of bankruptcy or a state that creating more jobs each month than the rest of the nation combined.


With a catch...
thinkprogress.org
 
2012-05-03 05:29:00 PM

spongeboob: WombatControl: 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."

The Federalists papers were they ever debated on and ratified by congress help me out here, or were they a series of articles, you know sort of like opinion columns or blog posts?


I think he he ran off to retake Civics 101. Maybe he'll pass this time.
 
2012-05-03 05:29:27 PM

OceanVortex: Magorn: You mean like Wisconsin which is the only state in the union to post net job LOSSES over the last year despite a GOP controlled everything?


Wisconsin does seem to be a great test case. It went from Dem control in '09-'10 where it was in the top to middle of the pack nationally during the economic downturn, to suddenly LAST PLACE in the country when it came to job growth as the Republicans took over. In fact, the job losses started right around the time Walker's budget bill kicked in. Which makes sense-- you cut the pay or lay off 100k+ teachers, nurses, and public workers in the state, they buy less from local businesses, and everyone spirals down. And despite cutting budgets to local schools to give huge tax breaks to corporations and their CEOs... we aren't seeing a huge flood of businesses moving in here. Turns out, minor changes in marginal tax rates don't drive a business's bottom line- it is demand for their product. And if people don't have money to spend, they can't buy your product.

Seriously, Wisconsin is now behind Mississippi.... after just a year and a half... amazing.


And another four years of Obamaini's magIC act will make the entire value of the country disappear...not just a single state to spite a political opponent.
 
2012-05-03 05:29:57 PM

HighOnCraic: WombatControl: HighOnCraic:

You do realize that those laws were overturned by a constitutional amendment. Which isn't the federal government acting alone, but the federal government acting with the approval of three-fourths of the state governments.

/ Civics 101 FTW...


Constitutional Amendments 11-27

Link

Hmmm... I see something about voting rights (Amendment XXIV), but I don't see the 1964 Civil Rights Act on that list.


You're looking for the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically Sections 1 and 5.
 
2012-05-03 05:37:22 PM

spongeboob: WombatControl: 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."

The Federalists papers were they ever debated on and ratified by congress help me out here, or were they a series of articles, you know sort of like opinion columns or blog posts?


I'm going to assume that was a serious question...

They were written by the same people who were instrumental in drafting the Constitution (James Madison wrote most, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay). So the same people who wrote the Federalist Papers wrote most of the Constitution.

Wikipedia has a decent summary on them.
 
2012-05-03 05:37:47 PM

KhanAidan: Could you expound upon this? What dataset(s) did you use? How did you calculate the correlations? Did you run any regressions?

I am very curious about this now.


1) the first step was to calculate the amount of federally owned land that is within each state.
2)secondly, I assumed that each millitary base was equivalent in cost to managing 10 million acres of land
3) I added up the amount of public land and the equivalent acres from the millitary base calculations as these are both direct federal obligations. Let's call this total 'Adjusted Acres'.
4) next I divided up the Adjusted Acres with the current population within each state in order to quantify adjusted acres per capita.
5) next I ranked the states in order of Adjusted Acres per capita and compared that to state benifit/tax table posted at the top of this thread.

The ranking of states looked like this: Alaska (no shock there), Hawaii, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Virgina, Mississippi, Colorado, South Dakota, Arizona, and Maine.

The bolded states were ones with a ratio below 1.
 
2012-05-03 05:37:54 PM

Magorn: You mean like Wisconsin which is the only state in the union to post net job LOSSES over the last year despite a GOP controlled everything?


So you are ignoring the lowered unemployment rate... Yet you tout the federal rate numbers... Weird.
 
2012-05-03 05:40:37 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Sure, from all of the extra Federal dollars they receive for being so "bootstrappy."


It honestly doesn't matter how many times one explains shared benefit and why that analysis is retarded shiat... Democrats don't learn.

Blue states don't get any benefit from highways, rail transport, power generation, military, mining, oil exploration, lowered food prices etc. They believe every state is in utter isolation.

Some of you truly are idiots.
 
2012-05-03 05:41:33 PM
Remember ALEC? He's back... in pog form!
 
2012-05-03 05:41:46 PM

pciszek: Are farm subsidies counted as public assistance? They are money from the government that you receive for doing nothing, just like other forms of welfare.


I don't belive so, but I am not sure on that.
 
2012-05-03 05:42:35 PM
That is why Mississippi, Alabama and West Virginia are wealth-generating powerhouses, while New York, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut are glorified mud-hallers full of barefoot, illiterate hillfolk.
 
2012-05-03 05:43:22 PM

Glicky: Be more like Texas and less like California

Ummmm. No.

If I wanted to be like Texas, I would move to Texas. The primary problem with California's finances is Prop 13, by the Paleo-Teabagger Howard Jarvis.


The primary problem with California's finances is Prop 13, by the Paleo-Teabagger Howard Jarvis.

The primary problem with California's finances is Prop 13, by the Paleo-Teabagger Howard Jarvis.

The primary problem with California's finances is Prop 13, by the Paleo-Teabagger Howard Jarvis.


/bear bear bear bear bear bear bear bear bear
 
2012-05-03 05:45:31 PM

snowshovel: And another four years of Obamaini's magIC


Could someone please explain the capital IC in magic, and Obamaini's to me thanks.
 
2012-05-03 05:45:31 PM
I find it absolutely amazing that they uncovered this absolute of absolute truths!

What's even cooler is they have their own confirmation bias team of voodoo economists!
 
2012-05-03 05:52:12 PM
www.world-guides.com

srsly?
 
2012-05-03 05:54:12 PM

MyRandomName: Magorn: You mean like Wisconsin which is the only state in the union to post net job LOSSES over the last year despite a GOP controlled everything?

So you are ignoring the lowered unemployment rate... Yet you tout the federal rate numbers... Weird.


Remember how I mentioned how it's neighbor Minnesota has an even lower unemployment rate than WI and is actually growing jobs under a Democrat governor who isn't furthering a neoconservative agenda like it's neighbor in WI?

BTW: The US overall is also increasing in job numbers. WI can't say that either.
 
2012-05-03 06:02:07 PM

Jacobin: [www.world-guides.com image 400x640]

srsly?


I guess you are responding to me about Mississipi being included near the top?

If so, that is because of the high number of millitary bases that I counted during my calculations (6) and relatively low population (2.8 million). The amount of fedeally owned land in Mississipi is only about 2.1 million acres (about 7% of the state's land mass)

As a note, the number of millitary bases may be somewhat old, so if you have more information on the number of bases, let me know. I was not really able to find a good site that listed al the current bases and had to search for each one independntly.
 
2012-05-03 06:10:04 PM
goochmeister42


Ahem.


Your little chart reinforces the arguments made by the articles. Red States for the most part tend to be less populated and have lower median incomes for the population hence lower taxes paid to the fed govt. When cost of living is low these red states tend to be more business friendly so businesses will gravitate to them. Company like major Oil companies and such may maintain their headquarters and a small staff in say LA or NYC but the bulk of their employees will be in Louisiana, Texas, Arizona or some other such place where wages are lower and land is cheaper. The validates there premise about domestic immigration.
 
2012-05-03 06:32:46 PM

Almet: 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.


Or you use regression models, and account for the Rep/Dem breakdown in different branches, in different levels all at the same time if you 'd like.
 
2012-05-03 06:39:47 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.)


To add to this, the southern, more liberal part of Florida is modern and is the "Florida" you see on tv. The Florida panhandle is a pit.
 
2012-05-03 06:41:38 PM

WombatControl: spongeboob: WombatControl: 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."

The Federalists papers were they ever debated on and ratified by congress help me out here, or were they a series of articles, you know sort of like opinion columns or blog posts?

I'm going to assume that was a serious question...

They were written by the same people who were instrumental in drafting the Constitution (James Madison wrote most, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay). So the same people who wrote the Federalist Papers wrote most of the Constitution.

Wikipedia has a decent summary on them.


So 3 guys opinions then, and from your link
The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights.

So do you think the Bill of Rights should or shouldn't be part of the Constitution?
 
2012-05-03 06:42:43 PM

goochmeister42: Ahem.

[i290.photobucket.com image 640x470]


The Real welfare states part 2 Unless you consider things like National Parks, Federal land, military bases and NASA welfare. Otherwise real welfare it is pretty evenly distributed among blue and red.

img706.imageshack.us

img835.imageshack.us
 
2012-05-03 06:42:54 PM

Buffalo77: Your little chart reinforces the arguments made by the articles. Red States for the most part tend to be less populated and have lower median incomes for the population hence lower taxes paid to the fed govt. When cost of living is low these red states tend to be more business friendly so businesses will gravitate to them. Company like major Oil companies and such may maintain their headquarters and a small staff in say LA or NYC but the bulk of their employees will be in Louisiana, Texas, Arizona or some other such place where wages are lower and land is cheaper. The validates there premise about domestic immigration.


Why, then, are those states so heavily dependent on the Federal government?
 
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 »






Report