highly misleading leftist propaganda. Discretionary and military spending are not social welfare. Also some states are actually highly democratic but tend to vote republican on pres. a la West Virginia
That BS is one of the main reasons I hate statistics. Lets completely leave out the lack of big business in states like MS. A real comparison would be total taxes from business vs individuals per state then compared to federal money spent in those states for social programs.
I'm not sure how your description is different from the chart as given. And yes, states like MS have an utter lack of big business. Alabama had to bribe Toyota to the tune of hundreds of millions just to open a plant there. So it's pretty apparent that whatever philosophies govern in those states are probably not effective.
BD, you might be right about the ability of government in those states. But the chart isn't for and does not mention the ability to govern. Certainly the ability to govern will influence the chart though. The point I meant to make is that the chart does not provide all the facts and uses two numbers and voter tendency to make a statement about the population of each state. You know that the information used to make the statement is not sufficient to determine why a state takes in more that it gives out in taxes.
Not just the ability to govern, but the philosophy behind it (if any). For example, the subsidized southern states have a low-tax regimen which results in poorer social services and thus higher poverty. For example, infant mortality is typically much higher in southern states due to poor prenatal care. I agree, if we were just talking about one state. But there seems to be a pattern here.
I can't argue with that. I would be interested in finding out the growth rate of industry and small to medium business in southern states vs the rest of the country.
NJ has SEVERAL military installations and its ranked last. If the chart is so wrong and misleading, why don' t you create one that is a better representation.