Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
But if you look at red states (as a group) compared to blue states (as a group), and compare every measurable economic statistic (unemployment, debt per capita, where the popluations are increasing/decreasing, cost of living, ease of doing business) you'll see results that couldn't be any more conclusive if Sean Hannity made them up himself. How does that not convince you that conservative economices is superior toi liberal economics?
|
Maybe he knows that there are things called variables and it is very difficult to draw conclusions when there are many, many, variables. Here is one you might consider:
"Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC."
PolitiFact | 'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars
here it is explained slightly differently:
"Red states were more likely to get a bigger cut of federal spending. Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes.
Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid;
Democratic states, on average, received $1.16"
Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones
A principal components analysis would almost certainly show that the fact that they take in more tax dollars than they pay out is at least as relevant to the quality of life indicators you addressed than political association. So if you really wanted to test the theory of "conservative economics," you couldn't have those states take in 46% more than they pay out. Just in case you really wondered why Spence may not be convinced.
Threaded Mode