10) Arizona
9) South Dakota
8) West Virginia
7) Tennessee
6) Montana
5) Maine
4) Louisiana
3) Alabama
2) New Mexico
1) Mississippi

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/personal-finance/10-states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government.html/?a=viewall&ref=OB


Discuss...

I wonder where their public education scores compared to the other states. Reading, math, graduation, etc.

10 poorest states...

10. Oklahoma
9. South Carolina
8. Louisiana
7. Tennessee
6. New Mexico
5. Kentucky
4. Alabama
3. West Virginia
2. Arkansas
1. Mississippi

See a correlation? I don't think it has much to do with red vs blue, the original list has to do with poorest states getting the most help.

So the poorer states rely on the government...okay

SportsAndLady;1634157 wrote:So the poorer states rely on the government...okay

That's what I said, nothing new here, something anyone with a couple brain cells already knew.

You mean the states with the lowest per capita incomes rely more heavily on Federal assistance? Who knew?

It is funny those are the same people who absolutely detest the government, especially those poorer western states that are filled with extremists. Saw it first hand when some weird kid from out west moved into my apartment in the spring. The shit he would say was absolutely nuts, talked about how he thought the government wants to make us all socialists and that we didn't know true happiness in the industrialized Midwest because we were too worried about the dollar. Yet he was okay drawing welfare and disability checks and affirmed to me that his family has received assistance his whole life yet hates a government giving him $600 a month

Classyposter58;1634199 wrote:It is funny those are the same people who absolutely detest the government, especially those poorer western states that are filled with extremists. Saw it first hand when some weird kid from out west moved into my apartment in the spring. The shit he would say was absolutely nuts, talked about how he thought the government wants to make us all socialists and that we didn't know true happiness in the industrialized Midwest because we were too worried about the dollar. Yet he was okay drawing welfare and disability checks and affirmed to me that his family has received assistance his whole life yet hates a government giving him $600 a month

There are 3 types of people that rely on government assistance.

1. The type you describe. Hate the government but take every hand out they can.
2. The type that believes the country/government/other people OWE it to them to "take care of my kids".
3. The type that actually need help and are thankful for the helping hand until they get back on their feet.

#3 is the only type I believe should get any assistance and I for one am happy to give it to them.

#1 annoys the crap out of me. I sometimes don't know if they are delusional or what, but this definitely describes someone I know quite well. Extreme conservative (even a little racist), hates Obama and the government, but is in Section 8 housing and on welfare/food stamps.

#2 are actually worse than #1 in my opinion.

What is most likely driving this is the lack of rich people. The top 5% pay like 60% of taxes, so when you look at a net benefit analysis, they're giving a lot less to the government.

What we should really look at is per capita govt assistance. But that's flawed, as well, since it includes money for roads and other infrastructure. Most of those states are relatively less densely populated, with the exception of Arizona which has a high percentage of retirees.

I'd like to see actual taxpayer credits and subsidies rather than calculations based simply off federal transfers to state governments. Some of these states do show up in the top-10 of welfare per capita (DC is #1, California is #5...Alabama is #43 and South Dakota is #49)

Like I said, look at where rich people actually live and who actually pays taxes (which heavily skews their first measure). The second measure would penalize fiscally responsible states as it penalizes you for having a higher share of your budget from the federal govt (hey, not every state can bankrupt themselves with looming pension disasters like IL and CA).

jmog;1634155 wrote:10 poorest states...

10. Oklahoma
9. South Carolina
8. Louisiana
7. Tennessee
6. New Mexico
5. Kentucky
4. Alabama
3. West Virginia
2. Arkansas
1. Mississippi

See a correlation? I don't think it has much to do with red vs blue, the original list has to do with poorest states getting the most help.

SEC, SEC, SEC

Shouldn't Washington D.C. be #1? It is full of worthless bureaucrats that do nothing other than push paper and collect pensions. I'm really glad that the Department of Health and Human Services makes sure that i don't discriminate against [fill in the cause du jour) which has nothing to do with their origin.

Manhattan Buckeye;1634797 wrote:Shouldn't Washington D.C. be #1?

Washington DC isn't a state, it's a federal district

http://dc.about.com/od/government/qt/DCStatehood.htm

HelloAgain;1634803 wrote:Washington DC isn't a state, it's a federal district

http://dc.about.com/od/government/qt/DCStatehood.htm

wasting time. MB doesn't care about facts.

No, just pointing out that all the waste flushes through Washington. There is a reason why it is the only metropolitan area that grew in the great recession.

Oh, and Mohican, bugger off.

Manhattan Buckeye;1634816 wrote:No, just pointing out that all the waste flushes through Washington. There is a reason why it is the only metropolitan area that grew in the great recession.

Oh, and Mohican, bugger off.

Federal Government employment has been fairly stagnant since Reagan, it's the size of the state governments that have really taken off. I think Washington's bigger problem is that the interests have taken over just as Teddy Roosevelt feared over a hundred years ago and now the town is nothing but lobbyists. Just think there's about 12,000 registered lobbyists and that is without counting the grassroots movements and other shadow lobbies. All together nowadays it's probably closer to 25k and the money they spend is in the $7 Billion range altogether

Sure, lobbyists represent special interests but they also serve a valuable function influencing the bozos in Washington to avoid completely idiotic, uninformed policy. Of course, it isn't foolproof on either side of the coin.

Your numbers don't sound unreasonable or suprising...until you consider that's an average of 50 lobbyists per Congressperson. Although $7B is hard to fathom when even the biggest corporations spend less than $20M each (and falling quickly below $10M).