Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Workers

[itfitzme]

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:



- 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 ?

They should, then they pay taxes on it. What is it that you don't understand?

 

[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]

So, lets see what we can do with the food and nutrition.

This is a source for federal monies received by state.

Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2010

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

Page 16 has a set of columns called "Food and Nutrition Service"

Population data can be found here; U.S. Population by State, 1790 to 2011 | FactMonster.com

And, political party lean by state is as before.

I take the total for food and nutrition program for all red states and divide that by the total population for all red states. I do the same with the blue. I also calculated the food and nutrition dollars per capita by state.

Sorted by this column, the results are

State......................Total FAnd N...........Pop...........Dem Food...........Rep Food...........Dem Pop...........Rep Pop...........FAndN/Pop...........Dem-Rep 2010
New Hampshire..... $55,459 ...........1,316,470...........55,459......................1,316,470...................... $0.04 ...........1
Virginia................ $432,260 ...........8,001,024......................432,260......................8,001,024........... $0.05 ...........0
Connecticut...........$196,985 ...........3,574,097...........196,985......................3,574,097...................... $0.06 ...........1
Nevada................ $155,874 ...........2,700,551...........155,874......................2,700,551...................... $0.06 ...........1
Colorado.............. $300,602 ...........5,029,196......................300,602......................5,029,196........... $0.06 ...........0
Massachusetts......$394,842 ...........6,547,629...........394,842......................6,547,629...................... $0.06 ...........1
Maryland..............$365,716 ...........5,773,552...........365,716......................5,773,552...................... $0.06 ...........1
New Jersey........... $578,255 ...........8,791,894...........578,255......................8,791,894...................... $0.07 ...........1
Washington.......... $462,244 ...........6,724,540...........462,244......................6,724,540...................... $0.07 ...........1
Wisconsin........... $391,078 ...........5,686,986...........391,078......................5,686,986...................... $0.07 ...........1
Pennsylvania.......$884,955 ...........12,702,379...........884,955......................12,702,379...................... $0.07 ...........1
Rhode Island....... $73,457 ...........1,052,567...........73,457......................1,052,567...................... $0.07 ...........1
Maine................ $92,953 ...........1,328,361...........92,953......................1,328,361...................... $0.07 ...........1
Hawaii................ $97,832 ...........1,360,301...........97,832......................1,360,301...................... $0.07 ...........1
Iowa.................. $223,945 ...........3,046,355......................223,945......................3,046,355........... $0.07 ...........0
Utah................. $205,647 ...........2,763,885......................205,647......................2,763,885........... $0.07 ...........0
Ohio.................. $860,262 ...........11,536,504......................860,262......................11,536,504........... $0.07 ...........0
Idaho................ $117,411 ...........1,567,582......................117,411......................1,567,582........... $0.07 ...........0
Wyoming...........42784...........563,626......................42,784......................563,626........... $0.08 ...........0
Missouri........... $458,807 ...........5,988,927......................458,807......................5,988,927........... $0.08 ...........0
Florida........... $1,442,294 ...........18,801,310...........1,442,294......................18,801,310...................... $0.08 ...........1
Illinois........... $989,843 ...........12,830,632...........989,843......................12,830,632...................... $0.08 ...........1
Indiana........... $501,492 ...........6,483,802......................501,492......................6,483,802........... $0.08 ...........0
Kansas........... $221,221 ...........2,853,118......................221,221......................2,853,118........... $0.08 ...........0
Michigan........... $781,648 ...........9,883,640...........781,648......................9,883,640...................... $0.08 ...........1
Minnesota........... $428,832 ...........5,303,925...........428,832......................5,303,925...................... $0.08 ...........1
Montana........... $80,019 ...........989,415......................80,019......................989,415........... $0.08 ...........0
Nebraska........... $153,203 ...........1,826,341......................153,203......................1,826,341........... $0.08 ...........0
North Carolina........... $806,576 ...........9,535,483...........806,576......................9,535,483...................... $0.08 ...........1
Tennessee........... $538,143 ...........6,346,105......................538,143......................6,346,105........... $0.08 ...........0
South Carolina........... $392,719 ...........4,625,364......................392,719......................4,625,364........... $0.08 ...........0
West Virginia........... $157,756 ...........1,852,994...........157,756......................1,852,994...................... $0.09 ...........1
Delaware........... $76,458 ...........897,934...........76,458......................897,934...................... $0.09 ...........1
Arizona........... $563,952 ...........6,392,017......................563,952......................6,392,017........... $0.09 ...........0
North Dakota........... $60,743 ...........672,591......................60,743......................672,591........... $0.09 ...........0
New York........... $1,795,597 ...........19,378,102...........1,795,597......................19,378,102...................... $0.09 ...........1
Oregon........... $356,883 ...........3,831,074...........356,883......................3,831,074...................... $0.09 ...........1
Alabama........... $447,904 ...........4,779,736......................447,904......................4,779,736........... $0.09 ...........0
Kentucky........... $425,776 ...........4,339,367...........425,776......................4,339,367...................... $0.10 ...........1
South Dakota........... $81,393 ...........814,180......................81,393......................814,180........... $0.10 ...........0
California........... $3,761,640 ...........37,253,956...........3,761,640......................37,253,956...................... $0.10 ...........1
Texas........... $2,662,739 ...........25,145,561......................2,662,739......................25,145,561........... $0.11 ...........0
Georgia........... $1,038,875 ...........9,687,653......................1,038,875......................9,687,653........... $0.11 ...........0
Vermont........... $67,878 ...........625,741...........67,878......................625,741...................... $0.11 ...........1
Arkansas........... $317,442 ...........2,915,918...........317,442......................2,915,918...................... $0.11 ...........1
Oklahoma........... $423,755 ...........3,751,351...........423,755......................3,751,351...................... $0.11 ...........1
New Mexico........... $236,104 ...........2,059,179...........236,104......................2,059,179...................... $0.11 ...........1
Alaska........... $84,172 ...........710,231......................84,172......................710,231........... $0.12 ...........0
Louisiana........... $555,104 ...........4,533,372...........555,104......................4,533,372...................... $0.12 ...........1
Mississippi........... $393,834 ...........2,967,297......................393,834......................2,967,297........... $0.13 ...........0


And in terms of the total per capita for all red and all blue states, the result is



Notice how the food $ per cap for the red states is more than for the blue.

You will also notice in the table that the food$per cap at a state level for Texas and Calif are

California........... $0.10 ...........1
Texas........... ..... $0.11 ...........0

Where Texas is just slightly higher on a per cap basis.

You are welcome to verify these. If you find that I've made some calculation error, by all means point it out.

If you are not willing to do the work, then don't be all "your lying" about it. Put up or shut up.

 

[itfitzme]

This data source from the US Census Bureau provides the total grant monies received by each state.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

The IRS provides total taxes collected at

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10db05co.xls

Population is as sourced before along with the state demographics.

The grant monies and taxes are identified by state demographic. The total for the repubs and dems are added up. Then the total grants is divided by total taxes paid for the entire group of repub and dem states.

The result is




And for those that want to check the data, the table is shown below, sorted by states grant to tax ratio.

The ten states receiving the least in grant money per taxes are 6 blue states compared to four red states. The top ten grant money per tax dollar recipients are 6 red states and four blue states.

State.............Grants...Collected...DemGrants...DemTax...RepGrant...RepTax...RatioGrantToCollect...DemRep...2010
NewJersey......$16,309,163.........$118,942,547.........$16,309,163.........$118,942,547...........................$0.14......1
Minnesota......$10,871,859.........$68,010,129.........$10,871,859.........$68,010,129...........................$0.16......1
Connecticut......$7,673,349.........$43,997,544.........$7,673,349.........$43,997,544...........................$0.17......1
Nebraska... ........$3,121,977.........$17,641,943...........................$3,121,977.........$17,641,943.........$0.18......0
Virginia.. .........$10,647,181.........$57,954,746...........................$10,647,181.........$57,954,746.........$0.18......0
Colorado..... ......$7,650,615.........$39,288,418...........................$7,650,615.........$39,288,418.........$0.19......0
Illinois... ..... ........$23,193,956.........$111,038,760.........$23,193,956.........$111,038,760...........................$0.21......1
Massachusetts......$15,120,981.........$71,418,253.........$15,120,981.........$71,418,253...........................$0.21......1
Ohio... ..... ........$23,072,473.........$106,483,026...........................$23,072,473.........$106,483,026.........$0.22......0
Delaware......$3,325,253.........$15,327,877.........$3,325,253.........$15,327,877...........................$0.22......1
Arkansas......$6,417,566.........$28,249,718.........$6,417,566.........$28,249,718...........................$0.23......1
Maryland......$10,832,455.........$47,672,215.........$10,832,455.........$47,672,215...........................$0.23......1
Texas......$43,732,317.........$189,142,112...........................$43,732,317.........$189,142,112.........$0.23......0
Indiana......$10,400,147.........$43,319,888...........................$10,400,147.........$43,319,888.........$0.24......0
California......$66,565,008.........$273,353,106.........$66,565,008.........$273,353,106...........................$0.24......1
Washington......$11,944,680.........$48,437,113.........$11,944,680.........$48,437,113...........................$0.25......1
Florida......$27,731,390.........$111,364,742.........$27,731,390.........$111,364,742...........................$0.25......1
Pennsylvania......$26,290,942.........$101,858,754.........$26,290,942.........$101,858,754...........................$0.26......1
Georgia......$15,879,057.........$60,505,759...........................$15,879,057.........$60,505,759.........$0.26......0
Kansas......$4,979,729.........$18,820,984...........................$4,979,729.........$18,820,984.........$0.26......0
NorthCarolina......$15,521,727.........$57,548,933.........$15,521,727.........$57,548,933...........................$0.27......1
Missouri......$12,716,668.........$46,099,972...........................$12,716,668.........$46,099,972.........$0.28......0
Rhode...Island......$2,943,662.........$10,510,440.........$2,943,662.........$10,510,440...........................$0.28......1
Nevada......$3,610,308.........$12,881,374.........$3,610,308.........$12,881,374...........................$0.28......1
Wisconsin......$10,710,023.........$38,212,743.........$10,710,023.........$38,212,743...........................$0.28......1
Tennessee......$12,513,949.........$44,557,310...........................$12,513,949.........$44,557,310.........$0.28......0
NewHampshire......$2,355,468.........$8,377,325.........$2,355,468.........$8,377,325...........................$0.28......1
NewYork......$61,341,252.........$200,209,720.........$61,341,252.........$200,209,720...........................$0.31......1
Utah......$4,211,998.........$13,528,119...........................$4,211,998.........$13,528,119.........$0.31......0
Iowa......$5,871,249.........$17,576,087...........................$5,871,249.........$17,576,087.........$0.33......0
Oklahoma......$8,022,194.........$23,398,453.........$8,022,194.........$23,398,453...........................$0.34......1
Michigan......$19,646,277.........$53,797,386.........$19,646,277.........$53,797,386...........................$0.37......1
Oregon......$7,849,235.........$21,138,851.........$7,849,235.........$21,138,851...........................$0.37......1
Louisiana......$13,436,716.........$34,562,547.........$13,436,716.........$34,562,547...........................$0.39......1
Hawaii......$2,519,624.........$6,280,828.........$2,519,624.........$6,280,828...........................$0.40......1
Kentucky......$9,756,383.........$23,383,446.........$9,756,383.........$23,383,446...........................$0.42......1
Arizona......$13,369,959.........$31,678,131...........................$13,369,959.........$31,678,131.........$0.42......0
Alabama......$8,608,682.........$19,895,499...........................$8,608,682.........$19,895,499.........$0.43......0
SouthCarolina......$8,295,544.........$17,360,842...........................$8,295,544.........$17,360,842.........$0.48......0
Idaho......$3,057,136.........$6,216,877...........................$3,057,136.........$6,216,877.........$0.49......0
SouthDakota......$2,145,070.........$4,304,997...........................$2,145,070.........$4,304,997.........$0.50......0
NorthDakota......$2,169,429.........$4,283,479...........................$2,169,429.........$4,283,479.........$0.51......0
Maine......$3,580,856.........$5,895,843.........$3,580,856.........$5,895,843...........................$0.61......1
Wyoming......$2,356,009.........$3,830,149...........................$2,356,009.........$3,830,149.........$0.62......0
Vermont......$2,044,160.........$3,208,532.........$2,044,160.........$3,208,532...........................$0.64......1
Montana......$2,809,550.........$4,000,333...........................$2,809,550.........$4,000,333.........$0.70......0
Alaska......$3,325,600.........$4,685,206...........................$3,325,600.........$4,685,206.........$0.71......0
WestVirginia......$4,830,214.........$6,000,615.........$4,830,214.........$6,000,615...........................$0.80......1
NewMexico......$6,810,761.........$7,613,384.........$6,810,761.........$7,613,384...........................$0.89......1
Mississippi......$8,610,832.........$9,093,125...........................$8,610,832.........$9,093,125.........$0.95......0

 

[itfitzme]

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"

Your source is bullshit. First, it is for 2003. I've got 2010 data.

The link to the supposed data fails

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/index.html

"Network Access Message: The website cannot be found"

So much for your "statistics".

So, who is lying? Seems to be you......

 

[itfitzme]

What I don't really like about these numbers is that the CPI varies from state to state. That is one of the reason that the democratic states pay more in taxes, because incomes are higher because the CPI is higher.

Another issue is that just because it is a grant, doesn't mean it was all used.

 

[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

So, just to be clear.

Your source is bullshit. First, it is for 2003. I've got 2010 data.

The link to the supposed data fails

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/index.html

"Network Access Message: The website cannot be found"

So much for your "statistics".

So, who is lying? Seems to be you...... You are lying because you said it is from "the Department of Children and Families" when, in fact, you never bothered to follow the link to see if it really was. You assumed it was.

That said, instead of going out and finding a biased source that contains broken links, I have been researching for more complete data. There was no disconnect. I provided an article from 2011 about welfare and poverty. I later provided the results of my specific calculations from 2010 on federal grants, taxes, and food & nutrition from the US CENSUS, a CENSUS, not a survey.

Texas is different than "All Red States". California is different than "All Blue States".

That you can't tell the difference between "Welfare" and Grants, food & nutrition and poverty, is your problem. The fact that you choose to look at one single stat, instead of a range of them (that might tell a different story), just makes you ignore-ant. You ignore what doesn't meet your biased expectations. But then, that seems to be a trait of right wing nuts.

The fact that I look at different measures that may actually result in some different interpretation demonstrates an unbiased outlook on my part. The data is what it is. I don't go looking for the data that proves some biased position.

And there are some odd things about it. There is a difference between comparing the total, top ten, top half, two largest states (CA, TX), average for all the states, 2005, 2010, 2012, per capita, per tax $, etc.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is the real TANF data.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/2010_tanf_data_with_states.xlsx

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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 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."

Leverage Definition | Investopedia

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.

I have already listed their debt quite clearly, including UNFUNDED pensions, retirements, county and city government expenses. Also, seeing that the source recognizing that the debt is a lot more than the governor would hope for, coming in itself from California public policy center NOT some news article like the LA Times or New York Times, I'd say they are more of a "reliable" source.

Try as you might, this surplus of yours .... really isn't. I'd trust the source I presented coming from the state of California when talking about ITS debt over yours, sorry. -- Better luck next time.

 

[Vox]

U
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

So, just to be clear.

Your source is bullshit. First, it is for 2003. I've got 2010 data.

The link to the supposed data fails

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/index.html

"Network Access Message: The website cannot be found"

So much for your "statistics".

So, who is lying? Seems to be you...... You are lying because you said it is from "the Department of Children and Families" when, in fact, you never bothered to follow the link to see if it really was. You assumed it was.

That said, instead of going out and finding a biased source that contains broken links, I have been researching for more complete data. There was no disconnect. I provided an article from 2011 about welfare and poverty. I later provided the results of my specific calculations from 2010 on federal grants, taxes, and food & nutrition from the US CENSUS, a CENSUS, not a survey.

Texas is different than "All Red States". California is different than "All Blue States".

That you can't tell the difference between "Welfare" and Grants, food & nutrition and poverty, is your problem. The fact that you choose to look at one single stat, instead of a range of them (that might tell a different story), just makes you ignore-ant. You ignore what doesn't meet your biased expectations. But then, that seems to be a trait of right wing nuts.

The fact that I look at different measures that may actually result in some different interpretation demonstrates an unbiased outlook on my part. The data is what it is. I don't go looking for the data that proves some biased position.

And there are some odd things about it. There is a difference between comparing the total, top ten, top half, two largest states (CA, TX), average for all the states, 2005, 2010, 2012, per capita, per tax $, etc.

Your source -meaning YOU - is a horseshit. It does not prove that the red states have more welfare reciepients ( and that is the statistical indices that matter) per capita than the blue states at all. Quite to the contrary.

So all you bullshit protracted blabbering is irrelevant - all what matters is - how many welfare(of any kind) reciepients per 1000 people living in the particular state are there -and by that exlusively relevant statistic unit blue states outnumber the red ones 2/3 to1/3.

 

[Vox]

And don't lie that the link does not work - I am opening it even on the phone

 

[Jughead]

Way to go Obama Administration. You've officially transformed the U.S. into a socialist state. I didn't specifically target Democrats in general here since most Democrats are sane folks who would not have taken this path.

Of course not to worry, it's just a matter of borrowing more money from foreign countries, increasing the national debt and all will be fine. Our higher taxes will also help.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

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."

Leverage Definition | Investopedia

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.

I have already listed their debt quite clearly, including UNFUNDED pensions, retirements, county and city government expenses. Also, seeing that the source recognizing that the debt is a lot more than the governor would hope for, coming in itself from California public policy center NOT some news article like the LA Times or New York Times, I'd say they are more of a "reliable" source.

Try as you might, this surplus of yours .... really isn't. I'd trust the source I presented coming from the state of California when talking about ITS debt over yours, sorry. -- Better luck next time.

The source I used for the deficit is the actual California budget. There is no other source. I even cut the page from the PDF document for you.

I gave you the link http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/Chart-A.pdf

And you obviously haven't ever owned property or run a business. And being unsuccessful at both then doesn't qualify you to have an opinon of how financing works.

So you are welcome to continue along, uneducated and unexperience, but the only ones that are going buy your bs are ignorant circle jerk buddies.

 

[itfitzme]

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.







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."

Leverage Definition | Investopedia

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.

I have already listed their debt quite clearly, including UNFUNDED pensions, retirements, county and city government expenses. Also, seeing that the source recognizing that the debt is a lot more than the governor would hope for, coming in itself from California public policy center NOT some news article like the LA Times or New York Times, I'd say they are more of a "reliable" source.

Try as you might, this surplus of yours .... really isn't. I'd trust the source I presented coming from the state of California when talking about ITS debt over yours, sorry. -- Better luck next time.

"In FY2012, Texas had a total state debt of approximately $286,999,196,000 when calculated by adding the total of outstanding official debt, pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liabilities, Unemployment Trust Fund loans, and the FY2013 budget gap.[7] The FY2013 state debt is slightly higher than the prior year's total of approximately $282,558,281,000[8]Texas's total state debt per capita was $11,178.30.[9]"

Texas state budget - Ballotpedia

Being ignore-ant doesn't change realtity. You just live in a fantasy land.

 

[itfitzme]

And don't lie that the link does not work - I am opening it even on the phone

It doesn't, I posted the correct link. That your phone opens some porn site that you like doesn't prove the data link from your source is correct. Your source doesn't link to the Department of Health and Human Service data. You haven't actually seen the data. And according to your source, it is from 2005 data.

Being intentionally ignorant just makes you... well... ignorant.

 

[Vox]

And don't lie that the link does not work - I am opening it even on the phone

It doesn't, I posted the correct link. That your phone opens some porn site that you like doesn't prove the data link from your source is correct. Your source doesn't link to the Department of Health and Human Service data. You haven't actually seen the data. And according to your source, it is from 2005 data.

Being intentionally ignorant just makes you... well... ignorant.

It does. You lie, because you were caught contradicting yourself by your own statements.

The main receipients of the taxpayers money per capita are the blue states and that is one of the reasons almost all of them are bankrupt

P.S. if my link does not work how do you know where it leads or does not lead or what year is the data for?

 

[itfitzme]

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"

Here, *I'll spell it out for you.

This is the link you posted

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec_percap-caseloads-total-recipients-per-capita

At the bottom ofthe page, it says the source of the data is;

SOURCE: Administration of Children and Families

The link is a dead link that tries to open

"http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/index.html"

If you go to the top of the table, is says clearly

"DEFINITION: Total recipients of welfare assistance in 2003. Per capita figures expressed per 100 population."

You don't know the difference between 2003 and 2010. You don't know the difference between actual data and someones chart. You don't know the difference between a set, like all red states, and one member of that set, Texas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Workers

I see this lie is still on the Board.

Anyone point out that may of the recipients are working?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ bump my question

 

[itfitzme]

And don't lie that the link does not work - I am opening it even on the phone

It doesn't, I posted the correct link. That your phone opens some porn site that you like doesn't prove the data link from your source is correct. Your source doesn't link to the Department of Health and Human Service data. You haven't actually seen the data. And according to your source, it is from 2005 data.

Being intentionally ignorant just makes you... well... ignorant.

It does. You lie, because you were caught contradicting yourself by your own statements.

The main receipients of the taxpayers money per capita are the blue states and that is one of the reasons almost all of them are bankrupt

P.S. if my link does not work how do you know where it leads or does not lead or what year is the data for?

You are a real moron. The link to the data source is a broken link. You didn't provide a link to the data. You provided a link to some bs webpage and keep saying it is data. It isn't. It presents a link to the "source" data. That link is broken. Your link is to a bs graph. The bs graph links to a broken link. How friggin hard is this to grasp?

No, you fin moron. The main recipients of tax payer money are the red states. The main providers of taxpayer monies are the blue states.

And I've proven it over and over and over. The blue states tend to be higher population density states have a higher total gross domestic product, higher average wages, higher cost of living and higher total federal tax revenue.

I skipped using someone elses determination amd went straight to the data. I used the IRS, BEA, and US Census data. By numerous measures, red states are have lower output with higher Federal input. They pay less in federal taxes while drawing more in Federal grants.



If it's good or bad, I can't say. You want to say it is bad. Problem is, you are simply wrong from the outset.

An underlying reason is simply population density that drives both economics and voting patterns.

The reality is that you want to stroke your own ego with being conservative voter and proving you are right. The fact is that the reason your a conservative voter is because of the population density, the environment in which you live and work makes you one. You didn't choose to be a conservative. You were made a conservative. And the shame of it is that being one, you then seek out info to stroke your own ego, ignoring glaring data that just screams "You're wrong". Conservatism is the philosophy of ignorance, IGNORING. And the most obvious characteristic is that when you don't like the info, you just claim it is a lie.

Isn't that just convenient. If you don't like the answer, you can just claim that the US Census Bureau, IRS, BEA, BLS, and the state comptrollers office is lying. But then, that doesn't help your case because then you just have no information.

So, no matter how you slice it, you are simply wrong. You are wrong because you pick the wrong data, you are wrong because you ignore data, or you are wrong because you have no data.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Oh god, you are still running with this old left piece
Really, the radical left needs to update their talking points

Yes Red states are "takers"
This is up there with the extreme left's other big lie
that the Soviet Union was not really communism.

Nice try but

Your "spending" or"taking" includes things like SS payments, military pay and payments for resources/services

Let's see....

Using your analysis, we should them tell
Seniors- that Earned Benefit you were forced to pay for by the gov't, your whole life- guess what- you are just a taker
Military-- that is not Pay for your work- but a handout
Resources/Services- that is really not a market exchange for product- but a handout.
Unlike welfare, these are exchanges for productive services.

Well, to be fair, welfare does buy Democrat votes



Considering that Seniors will retire, companies will open and military bases will stay open in states
due to being or any combination of low tax, friendly to the Military, right to work states,
it should be no surprise that these players move to these states.


The fact remains, the biggest Welfare states, the real takers, tend to be Democratic ones.

Really, if paid for retirement benefits concern the left so much, easy solution..
We can just return all the monies they paid in, with real interest, and they
can stop being such a "burden" to the federal gov't



Right wing CNBC

Biggest Welfare states

Oregon
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Rhode Island
Indiana
New Mexico
Washington
Minnesota
New York
District of Columbia
Vermont
Massachusetts
Tennessee
Maine
California


How many of these voted for Papa Obama and the rest of the radical left

Truth is hard for the left
In fact, it is their worst enemy