are you attempting to pretend those links show the food stamp party is more educated? I did not think so. you are presenting snap shots of an election and an incomplete one snap shot ... which also includes independents.
There has been a significant reshuffling of the parties. Traditionally the democrats were seen as the party of the working class, and republicans as more the moneyed elites. Todays democrat party is an odd amalgam of the educated, typically in government, education and paper shuffling professions such as law; the ultra wealthy, eg the hollywood and hedge fund crowd ; radical activists of various persuasions and the parasite class, eg union bosses, welfare recipients, illegal aliens. Republicans are in even greater flux. As they have lost with the upper income professionls, they have gained with middle class and working people, who are either disgusted with the democrats' embrace of radicalism or alarmed by their fiscal irresponsibility. They have retained their national security, low tax and social conservative/religious supporters. The Tea Party is a wild card, as its members are inclined to vote republican but reject the republican establishment. Boehner is squarely in the middle of this, as he is very much a creature of the estalbishment but dependent on Tea Party members' support. The republican dilemma is that they are a minority party without the Tea Party, yet the Tea Party has serious objections to the agenda of the republican establishment. I see this being resolved in the future by some version of the Tea Party becomng a true third party and gradually supplanting the republican party. As for Michele Bachmann, I make no apologies for finding her the most consistent conservative in the presidential race and the one with the biggest stones. The only candidate who came close was Ron Paul. The idea of her going wobbly under pressure and selling out her supporters was so unthinkable as to be ridiculous. Other than Paul, you couldn't say that about any of the others.
you are purposely confusing larger food stamp populations with education. In CA only 35% of the population even pays the state income tax. Once again do you seriously believe the food stamp party has a higher education level than Republicans?
First of all you need to learn who is the food stamp party.Notice that the states who use the most food stamps are southern republican states . http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/01/some-15-of-u-s-uses-food-stamps/ Some 15% of U.S. Uses Food Stamps By Phil Izzo Nearly 15% of the U.S. population relied on food stamps in August, as the number of recipients hit 45.8 million. Food stamp rolls have risen 8.1% in the past year, the Department of Agriculture reported, though the pace of growth has slowed from the depths of the recession. The number of recipients in the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), may continue to rise in coming months as families continue to struggle with high unemployment and Septemberâs data will likely include disaster assistance tied to the destruction and flooding caused by Hurricane Irene. Mississippi reported the largest share of its population relying on food stamps, more than 21%. One in five residents in New Mexico, Tennessee, Oregon and Louisiana also were food stamp recipients. Food stamp rolls exploded during the downturn, which began in late 2007. Even after the recession came to its official end in June 2009, families continued to tap into food assistance as unemployment remained high and those lucky enough to find jobs were often met with lower wages. States also made changes to make it easier for residents to tap into the program, such as waiving requirements that limited the value of assets food stamp recipients could own.
The republicans are the welfare party http://articles.businessinsider.com...039546_1_blue-states-federal-taxes-red-states Red States Are Welfare Queens lip to any news channel in the past three years, and you can almost be certain to see any number of Republican governors, blustering about how Washington spends too much money and how they'd never spend that much money if they were President. It's a lot of tough talk, really. But is there any truth to it? Well, all of this tough budget talk from Republicans got me thinking about the central: who really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers. The truth? Not so fast, Michele Bachmann. As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States â the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut â are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill. Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen. Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty. New Mexico: $2.03 Mississippi: $2.02 Alaska: $1.84 Louisiana: $1.78 West Virginia: $1.76 North Dakota: $1.68 Alabama: $1.66 South Dakota: $1.53 Kentucky: $1.51 Virginia: $1.51 Montana: $1.47 Hawaii: $1.44 Maine: $1.41 Arkansas: $1.41 Oklahoma: $1.36 South Carolina: $1.35 Missouri: $1.32 Maryland: $1.30 Tennessee: $1.27 Idaho: $1.21 Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something. Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC. Go ahead and bookmark this article. The next time some smarmy teabagger tries to tell you it's liberals who are ruining the country and spending us into oblivion, kindly point them to the evidence that shows it is GOP states, not Democrat states, who are Welfare Queens. It is GOP states who spend more than they collect in taxes. It is GOP states who are out of balance, nationally. See if they still want to cut off funding when it means no more socialism for slave states. Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...states-federal-taxes-red-states#ixzz1qdM8jFks
I don't know about all those states but southern states have very high percentages of african americans, who are big users of welfare. This kind of data can be very misleading.