What is?

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Just stop. I know you claim it to be rhetorical, you claim it everytime but we all know you do it so you can say some irrelevant shit. Just talk shit if that is your goal. You don't need to hide behind the claim that it is rhetorical.

The "color" of the STATE has NOTHING to do with the political background of the people getting assistance which is why the color of the state shouldn't be used. You see a chart that says Red states use the most assistance. Let's go back in time as you like to do. History shows that Democrats are more than twice as likely to receive assistance. So when you see a "red" state using more assistance than a "blue" state history can be used to conclude that the majority of democrats in that red state are probably using assistance more than the republicans in that state.

You use it because it makes it look like Republicans mooch off the government more when in reality it is your own party. Now, go lick the underside of a pigs nutz.

The states in question benefit in more ways than assistance programs. The "Blue States" are paying for their highways, bridges, public works, schools, medicare, etc. The anti-gov't spending red states in question say one thing, but do another, especially their political leaders. As I said before there is more than one factor at play. Perhaps the lack of education leads to people railing against the Federal gov't without said folks realizing that the "blues" are dumping money into their states.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

The states in question benefit in more ways than assistance programs. The "Blue States" are paying for their highways, bridges, public works, schools, medicare, etc. The anti-gov't spending red states in question say one thing, but do another, especially their political leaders. As I said before there is more than one factor at play. Perhaps the lack of education leads to people railing against the Federal gov't without said folks realizing that the "blues" are dumping money into their states.

I see. I come at you guys with facts and y'all lose your shit. It's simple, Just because the state is red does not mean republicans get more food stamps. That is all this was about. Both of you have now launched into something this never was. History supports my post and common sense supports my view on the states color.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

I see. I come at you guys with facts and ya'll lose your shit. It's simple, Just because the state is red does not mean republicans get more food stamps. That is all this was about. Both of you have now launched into something this never was. History supports my post and common sense supports my view on the states color.

I never said anything about food stamps and I haven't "lost my shit.". All I said is there is a tendency for Red/Rural/Southern/Less educated states tend to be net recipients of federal tax dollars. That's a position I feel confident can be proven. Why would you expect me to argue a point that I have neither taken nor have any data to support?

 

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

Just because the state is red does not mean republicans get more food stamps.

That's an interesting point that i didn't think of. Also, there are varying degrees of red and blue. Swing states should be excluded from the equation.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You definitely have a relaxed brain.

Me using history in this context is for your benefit.

The color of the state "Political Affiliation" has NOTHING to do with who is getting assistance in that state. YOU have no idea if the person getting assistance is Democrat or Republican. All you have is information stating that more people in a red state are getting assistance. Show us the undeniable factual proof that the people getting assistance in the "red" state are Republicans.

That is where YOUR wont for use of historical facts can help us all here. History shows Democrats use more assistance and it is prudent to assume they still do as people don't change.

That’s a lot of words to say you didn’t and likely can’t prove what you are claiming.

If you want “come at us with facts”, then do so.
Conjecture that the assignment of “red” or “blue” to a state is some type of fraud perpetrated by “they” is a ridiculous premise, even for you.

Let’s break it down to easy numbers for you:
You have two states of equal population. One is a grey state, one is orange. Grey is mostly men. Orange is mostly women.
The orange state gives the feds $1 in taxes but takes $2 in support. The grey one gives the feds $1 in taxes but takes $1.25.
Which state is more of a “taker”, and why? Following the state, who is more of a “taker”- men or women, and why?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

That's an interesting point that i didn't think of. Also, there are varying degrees of red and blue. Swing states should be excluded from the equation.

That’s a good point.
Of the top 10 most federally dependent states, none of them are swing states (the accepted swing states being AZ, GA, PA, MI, WI).
The same goes for the 10 least federally dependent states.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

That's an interesting point that i didn't think of. Also, there are varying degrees of red and blue. Swing states should be excluded from the equation.

That's the thing though, Red or Blue is irrelevant. Did they suddenly start asking the people getting food stamps who they vote for?? It's misleading when these people use that metric to say one group uses more of something than another group.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

That’s a lot of words to say you didn’t and likely can’t prove what you are claiming.

If you want “come at us with facts”, then do so.
Conjecture that the assignment of “red” or “blue” to a state is some type of fraud perpetrated by “they” is a ridiculous premise, even for you.

Let’s break it down to easy numbers for you:
You have two states of equal population. One is a grey state, one is orange. Grey is mostly men. Orange is mostly women.
The orange state gives the feds $1 in taxes but takes $2 in support. The grey one gives the feds $1 in taxes but takes $1.25.
Which state is more of a “taker”, and why? Following the state, who is more of a “taker”- men or women, and why?

Stop with the hypotheticals. There is plenty reality you can use. However, you are stuck on states. Nobody is disputing what states are using more of whatever. The point is that political affiliation should not be attached to it at all. You may have a "red" state using more BECAUSE of its democratic population. So to say "This Red state uses more..." makes it look like "These Republicans are using more..." It's a spin on the facts, period.

 

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

That’s a good point.
Of the top 10 most federally dependent states, none of them are swing states (the accepted swing states being AZ, GA, PA, MI, WI).
The same goes for the 10 least federally dependent states.

Do you think federal dependence changes based on which party is in power?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

That's the thing though, Red or Blue is irrelevant. Did they suddenly start asking the people getting food stamps who they vote for?? It's misleading when these people use that metric to say one group uses more of something than another group.

Misleading HOW? Why is it OK to classify Illinois as high-crime BECAUSE they are a blue state (and Chicago because they are a blue city), but when a red state takes more money than they give, it is a “misleading” metric?

Do you really know nothing at all about math and statistics? Use my oversimplified example of just comparing two states. Which state is more the taker, and are the takers men or women?

I HAVE to use a hypothetical. When I give you actual statistics, you posit some type of stupid conjecture that someone is falsifying whether a state is red or blue leaning.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Misleading HOW? Why is it OK to classify Illinois as high-crime BECAUSE they are a blue state (and Chicago because they are a blue city), but when a red state takes more money than they give, it is a “misleading” metric?

Do you really know nothing at all about math and statistics? Use my oversimplified example of just comparing two states. Which state is more the taker, and are the takers men or women?

They aren't classified as high crime because they are blue jackass, there is a lot of crime there, that's why? It's people like YOU who want to label everything. Why are you making the states political??? Does it change the math???

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Spot On. I’ve had my skepticism of russel brand at the beginning of his YouTube channel which he declared him self as an independent and only wanted to investigate the truth that been propaganda in the legacy media and talking heads. Nows he gained millions of followers and they want shut his channel and clearly shadow band.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Do you think federal dependence changes based on which party is in power?

That’s a good question.

Here are the top 10 after Trump was in office for 2 years: AL, AZ, NM, AR, WV, MS, KY, LA, AK, MT.
8 of the 10 states on the list are red states. None of them are swing states.

Here are the top 10 after Obama was in office for 6 years: AR, MT, OR, AZ, NM, LA, KY, TN, MS, MO.
8 of the 10 states on the list are red states. None of them are swing states.

It's kind of anecdotal because it only covers 3 presidencies over the course of ~14 years, but is seems to be a common trend that red states are takers take more than the blue states.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

That’s a good question.

Here are the top 10 after Trump was in office for 2 years: AL, AZ, NM, AR, WV, MS, KY, LA, AK, MT.
8 of the 10 states on the list are red states. None of them are swing states.

Here are the top 10 after Obama was in office for 6 years: AR, MT, OR, AZ, NM, LA, KY, TN, MS, MO.
8 of the 10 states on the list are red states. None of them are swing states.

It's kind of anecdotal because it only covers 3 presidencies over the course of ~14 years, but is seems to be a common trend that red states are takers take more than the blue states.

Rob, what do you consider as "assistance"?