Here is an interesting fact for those that say Romney only lost because half of the country basically wants free stuff and is freeloading.

Have a look at these two data sets.

This one shows us federal taxes paid and federal spending received in each state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

This one shows us how each state voted in the recent presidential election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012


Using this data, I determined the average amount of net taxes paid - or spending received - to the federal government per-capita for states that voted for each candidate.

Obama: $ 530
Romney: ($1,831)

Obama states actually pay net taxes of $530 per capita. Romney states pay no net taxes and actually receive $1,831 per capita in federal spending. You guys will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with another excuse.

Add to this fact the idea that voting for Obama is essentially voting for higher taxes. Voting for Romney is voting for across the board tax cuts. Obama states are already paying net taxes and are voting for even higher taxes. Romney states aren't even paying taxes and are actually receiving government payments, and yet they still want lower taxes.

Who here is being responsible and who is freeloading?

Did you totally forget about state expenditures or did that slip your mind?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Wage equivalent by state and how they voted

Hawaii $17.50 Democrat
Alaska $15.48 Republican
Massachusetts $14.66 Democrat
Connecticut $14.23 Democrat
Washington, D.C. $13.99 Democrat
New York $13.13 Democrat
New Jersey $12.55 Democrat
Rhode Island $12.55 Democrat
California $11.59 Democrat
Virginia $11.11 Democrat

This certainly belies the rumers half the country is on food stamps. Only 4.1 % of americans are on welfare.That is out of over 300 million people in this country.

Dreamsglore wrote:This certainly belies the rumers half the country is on food stamps. Only 4.1 % of americans are on welfare.That is out of over 300 million people in this country.

I never said half the country was on food stamps. The dynamics that make up voting in this country are extensive, this is one small part of that dynamic. What i said is this dynamic is growing.

alecto wrote:Did you totally forget about state expenditures or did that slip your mind?

It didn't slip my mind actually. My post is in response to those who claim that Romney lost because half of the country basically wants free stuff from the federal government, so state expenditures are irrelevant in this discussion.

That being said, have you come up with a better excuse yet or are you ready to face reality?

alecto wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:This certainly belies the rumors half the country is on food stamps. Only 4.1 % of americans are on welfare.That is out of over 300 million people in this country.

I never said half the country was on food stamps. The dynamics that make up voting in this country are extensive, this is one small part of that dynamic. What i said is this dynamic is growing.

I never said you did. I said "rumors".

boards of FL wrote:Have a look at these two data sets.

This one shows us federal taxes paid and federal spending received in each state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

This one shows us how each state voted in the recent presidential election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012


Using this data, I determined the average amount of net taxes paid - or spending received - to the federal government per-capita for states that voted for each candidate.

Obama: $ 530
Romney: ($1,831)

Obama states actually pay net taxes of $530 per capita. Romney states pay no net taxes and actually receive $1,831 per capita in federal spending. You guys will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with another excuse.

not at all... there are a lot of very rich folks in the blue states, cali alone could skew the data.

here ya go daddy



IVE HAD TO EDIT THIS. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME IN ARGUMENT ON ANOTHER FORUM AND ITS DATA IS PRE OBAMA.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Nearly 15% of the U.S. population relied on food stamps in May, according to the United States Department of Agriculture

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/pf/food_stamps_record_high/index.htm

this was the most update actual map I could find. lots of blue states have large populations. that accounts for a lot of things including food stamp usage, and it also accounts for the claim of higher education. mass amount of people.

In legislation passed in 1996, in response to a mounting tide of frustration, the nation shifted towards welfare as a means of increasing the quality of life for the poor towards welfare as a means of moving citizens towards permanent self-sufficiency in employment.

In other words, instead of simply writing checks to recipients, money was to be directed towards training, education and job placement with only temporary support (TANF).

The federal government established guidelines under which the states would receive money for programs that to some degree would be matched by the states, and in return the states could apply for waivers if they offered up better plans (with the accompanying accountability).

Through this plan, the idea was that best practices would float to the top and be adopted by other states.

Protective of their money, the onus on the states to carefully track the employment attainment and retainment which, according to many states sapped the money meant to educate and train workers in the burdens of time and bureaucracy.

So while the states are bickering with the feds in a classic Republican vs. Democratic showdown, the states are doing a lousy job of coming up with a better answer or seeking the waivers they claim to want to much, program spending is up and guess what - so is poverty.

While the idea of giving recipients temporary aid while they regroup, retrain and get (back) to work is one most everyone agrees to, and cutting their dependency, neither party has been successful in reducing or eliminating the pathologies of poverty. We have more poor in the country than we have had since Johnson's War on Poverty in the 1960's.

boards of FL wrote:Have a look at these two data sets.

This one shows us federal taxes paid and federal spending received in each state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

This one shows us how each state voted in the recent presidential election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012


Using this data, I determined the average amount of net taxes paid - or spending received - to the federal government per-capita for states that voted for each candidate.

Obama: $ 530
Romney: ($1,831)

Obama states actually pay net taxes of $530 per capita. Romney states pay no net taxes and actually receive $1,831 per capita in federal spending. You guys will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with another excuse.

Cute try. However, STATES don't vote as one vote. EACH INDIVIDUAL casts their own vote.

According to the exit polls, had it not been for families earning under $55,000 per year voting for President Obama he would have lost this election and the one in 2008. Yes, wealthy people, and upper middle income voted for both but their vote was split 49/49%.

Thank you for your cute effort.

Poor ol' JFK is rolling in his grave. His famous statement was
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."
Read more at http://quotes.dictionary.com/search/ask_not_what_your_counry_can_do_for_you?page=1#GwBhYM43ck8S9vQ1.99

If you recall, President John F. Kennedy was a Democrat. He'd be appalled today to see Democrats looking for more and more handouts, just the opposite of what he said to CHEERING CROWDS.

Dreamsglore wrote:This certainly belies the rumers half the country is on food stamps. Only 4.1 % of americans are on welfare.That is out of over 300 million people in this country.

Not quite

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Have a look at these two data sets.

This one shows us federal taxes paid and federal spending received in each state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

This one shows us how each state voted in the recent presidential election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012


Using this data, I determined the average amount of net taxes paid - or spending received - to the federal government per-capita for states that voted for each candidate.

Obama: $ 530
Romney: ($1,831)

Obama states actually pay net taxes of $530 per capita. Romney states pay no net taxes and actually receive $1,831 per capita in federal spending. You guys will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with another excuse.

According to the exit polls, had it not been for families earning under $55,000 per year voting for President Obama he would have lost this election and the one in 2008.

We can slice and dice the data in several ways to say "this group pushed Obama to victory": Obama won the female, the black, the hispanic, the asian, the under age 44, the highly educated, low income (even if Romney gained ground over McCain in the under $30k group), the ideological battle for moderates (the real marginal voter), and the unmarried.

Families earning less than 55k are a group 10% larger than higher earners. Saying a Presidential candidate needs significant votes from this group is kind of a "no shit, Sherlock" type of statement.

in order to clarify my original post. my data was back when bush was prez lol thats was when it was 4 % lol

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

IVE HAD TO EDIT THIS. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME IN ARGUMENT ON ANOTHER FORUM AND ITS DATA IS PRE OBAMA.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Nearly 15% of the U.S. population relied on food stamps in May, according to the United States Department of Agriculture

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/pf/food_stamps_record_high/index.htm

this was the most update actual map I could find. lots of blue states have large populations. that accounts for a lot of things including food stamp usage, and it also accounts for the claim of higher education. mass amount of people.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/02/02/some-43-million-americans-use-food-stamps/

Markle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:This certainly belies the rumers half the country is on food stamps. Only 4.1 % of americans are on welfare.That is out of over 300 million people in this country.

Not quite

You need to go back to school. 46 million in poverty doesn't mean 46 million are on welfare. Only 4.1% are on welfare and the rest of the 46 million may get food stamps but that is not half the country.300-46 million people is not half. These people are called the working poor. Some only get a little of food stamp help based on their income.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Markle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:This certainly belies the rumers half the country is on food stamps. Only 4.1 % of americans are on welfare.That is out of over 300 million people in this country.

Not quite

You need to go back to school. 46 million in poverty doesn't mean 46 million are on welfare. Only 4.1% are on welfare and the rest of the 46 million may get food stamps but that is not half the country.300-46 million people is not half. These people are called the working poor. Some only get a little of food stamp help based on their income.

The simple fact is, as you know, that 47% pay no income tax and we have. or are very close, to the "Tipping Point" where that group will only vote for someone who will give them free cable, Internet, cell phones, food, reduced price housing. Taking a few jobs under the table and presto, big flat screen, booze or whatever and why vote for someone who thinks you should get a job?

President Obama has worked hard to lower the standard of living in our country and is doing quite well at that goal.