Skip to main content

Report shows Republican states are most dependent on the federal government

Remember how, preceding the 2012 elections, the Republican Party decided to divide Americans up into two classes - the makers and the takers - and seemed to insinuate that Republicans were the makers and Democrats were the takers? Well, ironically enough, due to a new report that was released, it appears as if these Congressional Republicans and talking heads were suffering from a case of denial and/or projection.

According to the consumer finance site Wallet Hub, it showed that if we were to divide the two parties by the labels of "makers" and "takers," Democratic states would be the "makers" and Republican states would be the "takers."

The very blue state of Delaware had the best maker/taker ratio, as for every $1 in taxes it pays, it receives only 50 cents back from the federal government.

The very red state of Mississippi and the battleground state of New Mexico tied for the worst maker/taker ratio, as for every $1 they pay in taxes, they receive approximately $3 from the federal government.

Here are how the other red states (states Romney won in the 2012 election) fared on the maker/taker scale:

6. Kansas
14. (tie) Nebraska
14. (tie) Utah
21. Alaska
22. Arkansas
24. North Carolina
25. Indiana
27. Oklahoma
29. North Dakota
31. Idaho
32. Texas
33. Georgia
36. Missouri
38. Wyoming
40. South Carolina
41. Kentucky
42. Arizona
43. (tie) South Dakota
43. (tie) West Virginia
45. Tennessee
46. Montana
48. Louisiana
49. Alabama
(50. (tie) Mississippi - as earlier stated)

Only one state Romney won in 2012 finished in the top ten, while nine finished in the bottom ten. Overall, in the 24 states Romney won, they averaged to possess a ranking of 33.29.

Who are the "makers" and "takers" again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-dependent-government_n_5035877.html
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more