Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Workers

[edthecynic]

The fact is there are more part time and temporary workers then ever in the history of this nation. And most of that due to THIS administration's policies.
Class envy bullshit.

BULLSHIT!!!!!

How did THIS administration's policies cause a Baby Boom in the 1940s and 50s??????

ROFL why are the baby boomers having an inability to create a business? Is there some law that states baby boomers have to work part time and can't create their own business? Is creating a business harder for baby boomers for some reason? Is it the drugs, or the poor education, why do just baby boomers need someone to hold their hands when all the prior generations were just fine?

Again you are desperately trying to change the subject by playing dumb!

Aging Boomers who do not retire entirely from the workforce usually reduce their hours to part-time. It has nothing to do with this administration's policies as the poster I answered claimed. Why would someone who wants to enjoy their Golden Years and only work part-time want to start a business? You've probably never worked a day in your life, let alone ever started a business or you wouldn't equate starting a business to part-time work!!!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The government doesn't attack businesses. Anyone who claims this is just ignorant of the facts.

The government is primarily a puppet of big business. They bend over backward to pass laws that benefit business.

The debt has nothing to do with the value of the dollar. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Despite President Obama’s claims to have issued fewer rules than predecessor George W. Bush (“In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.”), rules impacting small business have bumped upward in the past several years.
As the table below shows, at year-end 2012, overall rules in the pipeline (active, completed, and long-term) affecting small business according to federal agencies stand at 854.
In fact, the number of rules with small-business impacts under Obama since 2010 has regularly exceeded 800.

Small Business Regulations Surge Under Obama - Forbes

There are business costs associated with each new government regulation that goes down the pike. An increase in those government regulations does not promote or encourage more job growth.

 

[RKMBrown]

BULLSHIT!!!!!

How did THIS administration's policies cause a Baby Boom in the 1940s and 50s??????

ROFL why are the baby boomers having an inability to create a business? Is there some law that states baby boomers have to work part time and can't create their own business? Is creating a business harder for baby boomers for some reason? Is it the drugs, or the poor education, why do just baby boomers need someone to hold their hands when all the prior generations were just fine?

Again you are desperately trying to change the subject by playing dumb!

Aging Boomers who do not retire entirely from the workforce usually reduce their hours to part-time. It has nothing to do with this administration's policies as the poster I answered claimed. Why would someone who wants to enjoy their Golden Years and only work part-time want to start a business? You've probably never worked a day in your life, let alone ever started a business or you wouldn't equate starting a business to part-time work!!!

Please show me where the number of people that are retired and working for supplemental income are being counted as part time workers. I was talking about non-retired folks. Baby boomer generation extended through 1963, no? I'm a fifty year old baby boomer who has never been out of work a single day in my life who has started and sold a number of business, you turd.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Huh

Red States Are Welfare Queens | USAHM Conspiracy News

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let’s go through the top twenty.

Nevada, with the nation’s highest unemployment, at 11.7 percent, has a welfare-participation rate about one-quarter of California’s. In California, 3.8 percent of the population receives monthly welfare checks. In no other state is more than 3 percent of the population on the dole.

Some may assume that the illegal-immigrant population in California expands its welfare rolls. But in Texas, which also has a large illegal-immigrant population, less than one half of one percent of the population receives welfare.

California: America?s Welfare Queen | National Review Online

No state can top the amount of debt and problems that California is facing, sorry.

From 2011

High poverty, low welfare use in Texas | Texas Watchdog

Texas has one of the highest poverty rates and one of the lowest rates of public assistance use in the country, according to two briefs by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Texas, which ranked 9th in poverty and 45th in welfare use, is among several states - Alabama and Arkansas are two others - where poverty is much higher and public assistance much lower than the national average, a story about the reports by Stateline today says.*

If you're looking to challenge statistics regarding Texas, I do believe information dating June 2012 to be a but more accurate. What can you provide that's a bit more current?

 

[edthecynic]

ROFL why are the baby boomers having an inability to create a business? Is there some law that states baby boomers have to work part time and can't create their own business? Is creating a business harder for baby boomers for some reason? Is it the drugs, or the poor education, why do just baby boomers need someone to hold their hands when all the prior generations were just fine?

Again you are desperately trying to change the subject by playing dumb!

Aging Boomers who do not retire entirely from the workforce usually reduce their hours to part-time. It has nothing to do with this administration's policies as the poster I answered claimed. Why would someone who wants to enjoy their Golden Years and only work part-time want to start a business? You've probably never worked a day in your life, let alone ever started a business or you wouldn't equate starting a business to part-time work!!!

Please show me where the number of people that are retired and working for supplemental income are being counted as part time workers. I was talking about non-retired folks. Baby boomer generation extended through 1963, no? I'm a fifty year old baby boomer who has never been out of work a single day in my life who has started and sold a number of business, you turd.

If they work less than 35 hours they are counted as part-time. If they work 35 hours or more they are counted as full-time.

Gee, what a surprise, you never talk about what is actually being discussed. Students and the elderly make up the majority of part-timers.

www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1986/02/art2full.pdf*

Characteristics of part-time workers
Younger (ages 16 to 24) and older (65 and over) workers
account for a much higher proportion of the part- than full-
time employed. (See table 4.)

Americans Working Part-Time After Age 65 - Planning to Retire (usnews.com)

Americans Working Part-Time After Age 65

Don’t count on full-time retirement, even after age 65. About 15.5 percent of Americans age 65 and older were still working in 2008, according to recently released data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Most of those seniors (62 percent) have cut back to part-time work. But over a third (38 percent) continue to work 35 hours a week or more during the traditional retirement years.

 

[itfitzme]

No state can top the amount of debt and problems that California is facing, sorry.

From 2011

High poverty, low welfare use in Texas | Texas Watchdog

Texas has one of the highest poverty rates and one of the lowest rates of public assistance use in the country, according to two briefs by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Texas, which ranked 9th in poverty and 45th in welfare use, is among several states - Alabama and Arkansas are two others - where poverty is much higher and public assistance much lower than the national average, a story about the reports by Stateline today says.*

so you admit that you have lied yet AGAIN

Red States Are Welfare Queens

and n the next post:

Texas has one of the highest poverty rates and one of the lowest rates of public assistance use in the country, according to two briefs by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Texas, which ranked 9th in poverty and 45th in welfare use

leftard being a repeated LIAR? I am shocked

That you have no actual evidence to the contrary is hardly surprising.

I can prove that, in terms of food subsidy program $ vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are identical. (2010 US Census)

In terms of federal food and nutrition program $ per capita, Texas receives more than California (2010 US Census)

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are nearly identical at 0.24 and 0.23.

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the top ten biggest collectors of federal grant $ include 6 Republican states vs 4 Democrat states

I can prove that, in terms of terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the states that draw the least in federal grant $ include 6 Democrat states vs 4 Republican states.

So, what are you talking about? As, it looks to me like you are lying by using some single state out of fifty instead of the complete set of states. You do know that there are fifty states in the United States, right?

 

[itfitzme]

No state can top the amount of debt and problems that California is facing, sorry.

From 2011

High poverty, low welfare use in Texas | Texas Watchdog

Texas has one of the highest poverty rates and one of the lowest rates of public assistance use in the country, according to two briefs by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Texas, which ranked 9th in poverty and 45th in welfare use, is among several states - Alabama and Arkansas are two others - where poverty is much higher and public assistance much lower than the national average, a story about the reports by Stateline today says.*

If you're looking to challenge statistics regarding Texas, I do believe information dating June 2012 to be a but more accurate. What can you provide that's a bit more current?

More years than just one. More states than just two.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/Chart-A.pdf

California budget HISTORICAL DATA GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY



Column 8, lines 2012 and 2013, ending balances of $872.2 and $1689.2

 

[Vox]

From 2011

High poverty, low welfare use in Texas | Texas Watchdog

Texas has one of the highest poverty rates and one of the lowest rates of public assistance use in the country, according to two briefs by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Texas, which ranked 9th in poverty and 45th in welfare use, is among several states - Alabama and Arkansas are two others - where poverty is much higher and public assistance much lower than the national average, a story about the reports by Stateline today says.*

so you admit that you have lied yet AGAIN


and n the next post:

Texas has one of the highest poverty rates and one of the lowest rates of public assistance use in the country, according to two briefs by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Texas, which ranked 9th in poverty and 45th in welfare use

leftard being a repeated LIAR? I am shocked

That you have no actual evidence to the contrary is hardly surprising.

I can prove that, in terms of food subsidy program $ vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are identical. (2010 US Census)

In terms of federal food and nutrition program $ per capita, Texas receives more than California (2010 US Census)

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are nearly identical at 0.24 and 0.23.

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the top ten biggest collectors of federal grant $ include 6 Republican states vs 4 Democrat states

I can prove that, in terms of terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the states that draw the least in federal grant $ include 6 Democrat states vs 4 Republican states.

So, what are you talking about? As, it looks to me like you are lying by using some single state out of fifty instead of the complete set of states. You do know that there are fifty states in the United States, right?

what can you prove?

you state in one post that "red states" are using more welfare money than the blue ones. yet in the very next post you provide statistics which prove the exact opposite.

so you are so confused that you are not connecting those two pieces - the first one is the BS leftard propaganda spew, the second one - is the statistical truth.

that is what I was pointing at - the disconnect in your own mind

 

[Vox]

Welfare Caseloads total recipients (per capita) statistics - states compared - State Master

the top 15 of welfare recipients per capita are not even close to be "mostly red states"

 

[itfitzme]

No state can top the amount of debt and problems that California is facing, sorry.

From 2011

High poverty, low welfare use in Texas | Texas Watchdog

Texas has one of the highest poverty rates and one of the lowest rates of public assistance use in the country, according to two briefs by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Texas, which ranked 9th in poverty and 45th in welfare use, is among several states - Alabama and Arkansas are two others - where poverty is much higher and public assistance much lower than the national average, a story about the reports by Stateline today says.*

If you're looking to challenge statistics regarding Texas, I do believe information dating June 2012 to be a but more accurate. What can you provide that's a bit more current?

Texas Debt Ratio



California Debt Ratio

 

[itfitzme]

so you admit that you have lied yet AGAIN


and n the next post:


leftard being a repeated LIAR? I am shocked

That you have no actual evidence to the contrary is hardly surprising.

I can prove that, in terms of food subsidy program $ vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are identical. (2010 US Census)

In terms of federal food and nutrition program $ per capita, Texas receives more than California (2010 US Census)

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are nearly identical at 0.24 and 0.23.

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the top ten biggest collectors of federal grant $ include 6 Republican states vs 4 Democrat states

I can prove that, in terms of terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the states that draw the least in federal grant $ include 6 Democrat states vs 4 Republican states.

So, what are you talking about? As, it looks to me like you are lying by using some single state out of fifty instead of the complete set of states. You do know that there are fifty states in the United States, right?

what can you prove?

you state in one post that "red states" are using more welfare money than the blue ones. yet in the very next post you provide statistics which prove the exact opposite.

so you are so confused that you are not connecting those two pieces - the first one is the BS leftard propaganda spew, the second one - is the statistical truth.

that is what I was pointing at - the disconnect in your own mind

Not really. One is 2010 US Census Bureau data. This one I said, I can prove.

The other is an article about 2011. That one isn't my data.

"High poverty, low welfare use in Texas | Texas Watchdog"

You do understand what "year" is. You do get that things change with "time". These are pretty basic concepts, "year" and "time".

See, every decade (that is ten years), the US Census Bureau does a population census. "Census" means "everybody". In between years, many agencies do "surveys". A "survey" means a sample.

The year 2012 is two years after the year 2010. This is called counting. So, 2012 is different from 2010. For one reason, they are different "years". For the other reason because on is a "census" and the other is a "survey."

I understand that this idea of interpreting data is hard. You will get it. Just keep practicing.

 

[Vox]

That you have no actual evidence to the contrary is hardly surprising.

I can prove that, in terms of food subsidy program $ vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are identical. (2010 US Census)

In terms of federal food and nutrition program $ per capita, Texas receives more than California (2010 US Census)

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are nearly identical at 0.24 and 0.23.

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the top ten biggest collectors of federal grant $ include 6 Republican states vs 4 Democrat states

I can prove that, in terms of terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the states that draw the least in federal grant $ include 6 Democrat states vs 4 Republican states.

So, what are you talking about? As, it looks to me like you are lying by using some single state out of fifty instead of the complete set of states. You do know that there are fifty states in the United States, right?

what can you prove?

you state in one post that "red states" are using more welfare money than the blue ones. yet in the very next post you provide statistics which prove the exact opposite.

so you are so confused that you are not connecting those two pieces - the first one is the BS leftard propaganda spew, the second one - is the statistical truth.

that is what I was pointing at - the disconnect in your own mind

Not really. One is 2010 US Census Bureau data. This one I said, I can prove.

The other is an article about 2011. That one isn't my data.

"High poverty, low welfare use in Texas | Texas Watchdog"

You do understand what "year" is. You do get that things change with "time". These are pretty basic concepts, "year" and "time".

See, every decade (that is ten years), the US Census Bureau does a population census. "Census" means "everybody". In between years, many agencies do "surveys". A "survey" means a sample.

The year 2012 is two years after the year 2010. This is called counting. So, 2012 is different from 2010. For one reason, they are different "years". For the other reason because on is a "census" and the other is a "survey."

I just provided the link there - above. It is statistics from the Department of Children and Families - not a survey, and article or an assumption.
It is bare statistics.

it proves all those screams about "red states being the biggest recipients of welfare money" is a LIE.
the amount of welfare recipients per capita is shown there.
The first 15 are the VAST MAJORITY of the blue states.

2/3 to be exact.

one more lie debunked.

But my post was about YOUR disconnect - you provide the links to the statistics which deny your false premise - and that is what is FUNNY

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Huh

Red States Are Welfare Queens | USAHM Conspiracy News

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let’s go through the top twenty.

Nevada, with the nation’s highest unemployment, at 11.7 percent, has a welfare-participation rate about one-quarter of California’s. In California, 3.8 percent of the population receives monthly welfare checks. In no other state is more than 3 percent of the population on the dole.

Some may assume that the illegal-immigrant population in California expands its welfare rolls. But in Texas, which also has a large illegal-immigrant population, less than one half of one percent of the population receives welfare.

California: America?s Welfare Queen | National Review Online

No state can top the amount of debt and problems that California is facing, sorry.

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: May 25, 2013

LOS ANGELES — After years of grueling battles over state budget deficits and spending cuts, California has a new challenge on its hands: too much money. An unexpected surplus is fueling an argument over how the state should respond to its turn of good fortune.

I know it may come as a shock to some, but this is just an attempt by Democrats to "fudge and manipulate the numbers" in order to try to convince others of something that simply wasn't true in order to justify liberal policies.

The surplus comes barely three years after the state was facing a deficit of close to $60 billion.

Not mentioned anywhere in the story: California’s crushing debt burden.

The combined debt of California’s state and local governments is at least $848 billion and could escalate past $1.1 trillion, according to a new report.

SOURCE: Report: California?s Actual Debt At Least $848B; Could Pass $1.1T « CBS Sacramento

The break down in what the state of California ACTUALLY owes.

California’s state, county, and city governments, along with school districts, redevelopment agencies and special districts are totaled, the outstanding balance is $383.0 billion. The officially recognized unfunded liability for California’s public employee retirement benefits – pensions and retirement health care – adds another $265.1 billion. Applying a potentially more realistic 5.5% discount rate to calculate the unfunded pension liability adds an additional $200.3 billion. All of these outstanding debts combined total $848.4 billion. The study also shows that by extrapolating from available data that is either outdated or incomplete, and using a 4.5% discount rate to calculate the unfunded pension liability, the estimated total debt soars to over $1.1 trillion.

SOURCE: California Public Policy Center | Calculating California?s Total State and Local Government Debt

Nice try, but it simply isn't true, California's debt is actually much larger than your source would really "like" to see.

 

[itfitzme]

so you admit that you have lied yet AGAIN


and n the next post:


leftard being a repeated LIAR? I am shocked

That you have no actual evidence to the contrary is hardly surprising.

I can prove that, in terms of food subsidy program $ vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are identical. (2010 US Census)

In terms of federal food and nutrition program $ per capita, Texas receives more than California (2010 US Census)

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, California and Texas are nearly identical at 0.24 and 0.23.

I can prove that, in terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the top ten biggest collectors of federal grant $ include 6 Republican states vs 4 Democrat states

I can prove that, in terms of terms of the ratio of total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid, the states that draw the least in federal grant $ include 6 Democrat states vs 4 Republican states.

So, what are you talking about? As, it looks to me like you are lying by using some single state out of fifty instead of the complete set of states. You do know that there are fifty states in the United States, right?

what can you prove?

you state in one post that "red states" are using more welfare money than the blue ones. yet in the very next post you provide statistics which prove the exact opposite.

so you are so confused that you are not connecting those two pieces - the first one is the BS leftard propaganda spew, the second one - is the statistical truth.

that is what I was pointing at - the disconnect in your own mind

The article says "Texas has one of the highest poverty rates and one of the lowest rates of public assistance" which is comparing Texas to the country. I just compared California and Texas.

California and Texas can both have lower rate of public assistance than the country while both having different per capita and per federal tax dollars. They can have those while also having similar total federal grant monies received vs federal tax dollars paid.

I made a specific comparison to California and Texas for Grant Monies and Food Nutrition. I have specifically limited mine to Food Subsidies because that is the data I have, not total Welfare.

The problem you are having is you can't distinguish between a comparison between two states vs a comparison between a state and a county. You can't distinguish between "poverty rate", "public assistance", "total grants", and "Food Nutrition". You also seem unable to distinguish between per capita and per federal tax dollars paid.

The problem isn't the article or the 2010 data I provided. The problem is you can't distinguish between different things.

 

[itfitzme]

No state can top the amount of debt and problems that California is facing, sorry.

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: May 25, 2013

LOS ANGELES — After years of grueling battles over state budget deficits and spending cuts, California has a new challenge on its hands: too much money. An unexpected surplus is fueling an argument over how the state should respond to its turn of good fortune.

I know it may come as a shock to some, but this is just an attempt by Democrats to "fudge and manipulate the numbers" in order to try to convince others of something that simply wasn't true in order to justify liberal policies.

The surplus comes barely three years after the state was facing a deficit of close to $60 billion.

Not mentioned anywhere in the story: California’s crushing debt burden.

The combined debt of California’s state and local governments is at least $848 billion and could escalate past $1.1 trillion, according to a new report.

SOURCE: Report: California?s Actual Debt At Least $848B; Could Pass $1.1T « CBS Sacramento

The break down in what the state of California ACTUALLY owes.

California’s state, county, and city governments, along with school districts, redevelopment agencies and special districts are totaled, the outstanding balance is $383.0 billion. The officially recognized unfunded liability for California’s public employee retirement benefits – pensions and retirement health care – adds another $265.1 billion. Applying a potentially more realistic 5.5% discount rate to calculate the unfunded pension liability adds an additional $200.3 billion. All of these outstanding debts combined total $848.4 billion. The study also shows that by extrapolating from available data that is either outdated or incomplete, and using a 4.5% discount rate to calculate the unfunded pension liability, the estimated total debt soars to over $1.1 trillion.

SOURCE: California Public Policy Center | Calculating California?s Total State and Local Government Debt

Nice try, but it simply isn't true, California's debt is actually much larger than your source would really "like" to see.

You are completely mindless in your understanding of finances. Businesses, individuals, states and countries all carry debt. It is called investment or leverage.

You are confused as to what debt is. California is one of the largest economies in the world. One then expects it to have more debt. That is how things work.

This may help you

"Definition of 'Leverage'
1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment.

2. The amount of debt used to finance a firm's assets. A firm with significantly more debt than equity is considered to be highly leveraged.

Leverage is most commonly used in real estate transactions through the use of mortgages to purchase a home."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/leverage.asp

Individuals take on debt for things like automobiles and houses. The reason is that, having established sufficient credit and ability to make the payments, they save money in the long run by owning a house rather than renting or are able to earn money by owning a car to commute for work .

Businesses invest in capital equipment, even financing for the purpose of materials, in order to increase total output and meet the demand that they would otherwise not be able to. This keeps the market from being picked up by a competitor and also allows them to earn profits that are in excess of the debt payments.

 

[itfitzme]

what can you prove?

you state in one post that "red states" are using more welfare money than the blue ones. yet in the very next post you provide statistics which prove the exact opposite.

so you are so confused that you are not connecting those two pieces - the first one is the BS leftard propaganda spew, the second one - is the statistical truth.

that is what I was pointing at - the disconnect in your own mind

Not really. One is 2010 US Census Bureau data. This one I said, I can prove.

The other is an article about 2011. That one isn't my data.

"High poverty, low welfare use in Texas | Texas Watchdog"

You do understand what "year" is. You do get that things change with "time". These are pretty basic concepts, "year" and "time".

See, every decade (that is ten years), the US Census Bureau does a population census. "Census" means "everybody". In between years, many agencies do "surveys". A "survey" means a sample.

The year 2012 is two years after the year 2010. This is called counting. So, 2012 is different from 2010. For one reason, they are different "years". For the other reason because on is a "census" and the other is a "survey."

I just provided the link there - above. It is statistics from the Department of Children and Families - not a survey, and article or an assumption.
It is bare statistics.

it proves all those screams about "red states being the biggest recipients of welfare money" is a LIE.
the amount of welfare recipients per capita is shown there.
The first 15 are the VAST MAJORITY of the blue states.

2/3 to be exact.

one more lie debunked.

But my post was about YOUR disconnect - you provide the links to the statistics which deny your false premise - and that is what is FUNNY

I have compiled Census Bureau Data from 2010, not a survey, that proves that the red states have the largest ratio of federal monies received to federal taxes paid.

It basically goes as population density with higher population density producing more and taking less.

The reason I decided to compile the data myself is to eliminate this "they are lying" issue. The fact is that you are simply wrong.

The fact is that the high population density areas are more productive and more efficient than the low population density areas. And, the high population density areas tend to lean blue while the rural areas lean red. The net result is that the blue states provide more in tax revenues than the red states.



And I can show that, in fact, the red states take in more in federal grant money both per capita and compared to federal tax dollars provided. They also lean towards taking more in food and nutrition program money per capita.

The "they are lying" comment is unsubstantiated bullshit.

Here are some of the data sources.

Data sources
trends ? Dave Troy: Fueled By Randomness
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005 | Tax Foundation
Monday Map: Federal Aid to State Budgets | Tax Foundation
Federal Taxes Paid vs. Spending Received by State | Tax Foundation
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=1#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1
http://www.bls.gov/lau/staadata.txt
Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States
Consolidated Federal Funds Report
Federal, State, & Local Governments ? Census Bureau Reports about Governments
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/nsfrd.pdf
Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
SIPP Table Packages
State Labor Force Participation Rates
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07db05co.xls
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10db05co.xls
http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf
County Voting Patterns
Compare US Federal Spending by State for 2009 -Chart
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2013/pdf/gsp0613.pdf

So, unless you can prove that the IRS, the Census Bureau, the BLS, and the Tax Foundation are all lying, then you are simply misinterpreting the statistics that you are reading.

 

[Contumacious]

They start with a CNS article that flat out lies, using incorrect numbers not even found in the referenced data. They then compound it with even more bullshit articles that use false numbers. Then when exposed, they yell, "Your lying", because they have no objective evidence to rebut with.

Liars are easy to spot because the call other people liars right away. It is funny that way. If you aren't lying, you just put up the facts.

BUDGET HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

967,000,000,000

.

 

[Rebelitarian]

Shocked?

I'm not. Not really. It is, afterall, the goal of the democrat party

Census Bureau: Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Full-Time Workers…

Work harder everyone, millions of Obamabots are depending on you.

Via CNS News:

Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year-round full-time workers, according to data released this month by the Census Bureau.

They also out-numbered the total population of the Philippines.

There were 108,592,000 people in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 who were recipients of one or more means-tested government benefit programs, the Census Bureau said in data released this week. Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, there were 101,716,000 people who worked full-time year round in 2011. That included both private-sector and government workers.

That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.

- See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

You are just as guilty if you voted Republican as well as Democrat as both parties were taking orders from the Bilderberg Group as how to destroy America.

Endgame

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho]EndGame HQ full length version - YouTube[/ame]

It is sad that it is going to take riots and people being hauled off to FEMA Camps when the Constitution Party could have turned all this around back in 2008.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtCW2yN3eT4&list=PL045C310F94D8D20A]Vote Chuck Baldwin for President and Bring Down the NWO! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[itfitzme]

Here, I will walk you through this.

I have compiles tables for the states 2010 political party demographics, population, federal taxes paid, federal grant monies received, total food and nutrition monies received, and population density. This lets me calculation a number of derived values like per capita and per federal tax dollars.

I put in considerable effort to get straight to some numbers, so I am in the process of reorganizing. As an example, I have this nice graph;



The values are calculated by identifying each red and blue state. For each, the total RGSP for all the blue and red states are added to get a total RGSP for all the blue states and all the red states. I then counted all the red and blue states. I then divided the Total_RGSP by total number of states to get an average RGSP per state.

This is a source for the 2010 political party affiliation by state.

Political party strength in U.S. states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It reads, "The partisan breakdown "demographics" provided in the following table are obtained from that state's party registration figures (from late 2010 whenever possible) where indicated."

It then provides a table of the voting demographics.

Here is a source for real dollar gross domestic product by state (or RGSP) for 2010

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2013/pdf/gsp0613.pdf

The result is the following table

State.........................RGSP.........................Dem RGDP.........................Rep RGDP.........................DemRep 2010
Vermont....................23,341.........................$23,341,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
North Dakota..............31,618.........................$0 ......................... $31,618,000,000 .........................0
Montana....................31,918.........................$0 ......................... $31,918,000,000 .........................0
Wyoming...................32,004.........................$0 ......................... $32,004,000,000 .........................0
South Dakota.............34,371.........................$0 ......................... $34,371,000,000 .........................0
Rhode Island..............43,153.........................$43,153,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Alaska........................43,472.........................$0 ......................... $43,472,000,000 .........................0
Maine.........................45,564.........................$45,564,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Idaho.........................50,734.........................$0 ......................... $50,734,000,000 .........................0
West Virginia..............53,575.........................$53,575,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
New Hampshire...........55,242.........................$55,242,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Delaware....................55,496.........................$55,496,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Hawaii........................59,673.........................$59,673,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
New Mexico.................70,785.........................$70,785,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Nebraska....................80,638.........................$0 ......................... $80,638,000,000 .........................0
Mississippi...................85,363.........................$0 ......................... $85,363,000,000 .........................0
Arkansas....................92,075.........................$92,075,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Utah.........................105,199.........................$0 ......................... $105,199,000,000 .........................0
Nevada.....................109,610.........................$109,610,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Kansas.....................113,324.........................$0 ......................... $113,324,000,000 .........................0
Iowa........................124,011.........................$0 ......................... $124,011,000,000 .........................0
Oklahoma..................132,917.........................$132,917,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Kentucky...................141,977.........................$141,977,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
South Carolina...........143,407.........................$0 ......................... $143,407,000,000 .........................0
Alabama....................153,839.........................$0 ......................... $153,839,000,000 .........................0
Oregon.....................174,165.........................$174,165,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Connecticut...............197,613.........................$197,613,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Louisiana...................200,944.........................$200,944,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Missouri....................216,681.........................$0 ......................... $216,681,000,000 .........................0
Wisconsin.................219,080.........................$219,080,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Arizona......................221,016.........................$0 ......................... $221,016,000,000 .........................0
Tennessee.................227,360.........................$0 ......................... $227,360,000,000 .........................0
Colorado...................230,976.........................$0 ......................... $230,976,000,000 .........................0
Minnesota.................240,418.........................$240,418,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Indiana.....................241,927.........................$0 ......................... $241,927,000,000 .........................0
Maryland..................264,321.........................$264,321,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Washington...............307,685.........................$307,685,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Michigan..................329,812.........................$329,812,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Massachusetts.........340,159.........................$340,159,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Georgia.................358,843.........................$0 ......................... $358,843,000,000 .........................0
Virginia...................377,466.........................$0 ......................... $377,466,000,000 .........................0
North Carolina.........380,693.........................$380,693,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Ohio........................413,991.........................$0 ......................... $413,991,000,000 .........................0
New Jersey..........431,409.........................$431,409,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Pennsylvania..........493,530.........................$493,530,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Illinois..................571,228.........................$571,228,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Florida.................650,291.........................$650,291,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
New York.............1,013,251.........................$1,013,251,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1
Texas..................1,116,268.........................$0 ......................... $1,116,268,000,000 .........................0
California............1,672,473.........................$1,672,473,000,000 ......................... $- .........................1

You will notice that, in terms of total real GDP, both California and Texas are the largest, with California being $1.8 to Texas $1.1.

Never the less, you will also notice that the top ten largest economies include 7 democrat states while the smallest ten economies include 6 republican states.

When the amounts of RGSPs are added up then divided by the number of states, the results are that the blue states crank out more stuff as measured by RGSP.

You are welcome to add up all that yourself.

 

[JohnA]

Shocked?

I'm not. Not really. It is, afterall, the goal of the democrat party

Census Bureau: Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Full-Time Workers…

Work harder everyone, millions of Obamabots are depending on you.

Via CNS News:

Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year-round full-time workers, according to data released this month by the Census Bureau.

They also out-numbered the total population of the Philippines.

There were 108,592,000 people in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 who were recipients of one or more means-tested government benefit programs, the Census Bureau said in data released this week. Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, there were 101,716,000 people who worked full-time year round in 2011. That included both private-sector and government workers.

That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.

- See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

Well now, so anyone working full time or part time, but at such low wages that they need help just to have a roof over their head is considered on welfare in your opinion? Perhaps the problem is the wages they recieve for their work, as opposed to the profits the 1% make off of that work. These figures in the video tell the story;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM]Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube[/ame]

im sure you make as much *profit* as you can in whatever udertaking you do ?/ why should not the business owner do the same ?