What spin! The data compares a states politics TODAY with spending TODAY which is perfectly valid. VBall wants to compare spending today with politics over the past 30 years, which is quite invalid. Winston has certainly learned nothing.
the analysis could be done over a 1, 5, or 10yr period. I don't think people change parties enough to prevent meaningful conclusions. If so, i would be surprised.
This is the kind of story Huffington Post likes to run. About a bank robber who said the Virgin Mary told him to eat shit. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6949080?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
The original link provides data and you call it solid evidence. I provide data and you call it spin. Why am I not surprised? Politics TODAY cannot be defined over the course of one Presidential election. Even the source that the OP originally provided talked about how the financial situation developed over the course of decades. A single data point does not lead to accurate conclusions. A 30- year trend is much more reliable. And you have not addressed the fact that while CA ranked 6 in terms of "non-dependency", we are in fact, the most Federally dependent state in the country and it's not close.
Reliable for what? You can make the same study of data 30 years ago for comparison if it pleases you. But doing a study of todays politics and today's data is perfectly valid. You don't like averages, you don't like a contemporary study, and you don't like the conclusions. That is fine. But your efforts to suggest that the study is deeply flawed are unconvincing. 30 years ago the state legislatures and Congress were more democratic, but today they are Republican. Most states have republican governors. The trend has been increasing republican representatives and increasing republican policies. Trying to go back 30 years effectively cloaks the fact that todays republican representatives and their policies are today's reality. If you count only welfare and ignore the other categories of government spending. Your source tries to say that Louisiana is not a red state which is a joke. Louisiana has a Republican governor, a republican legislature, a republican budget, a republican Congressional delegation and Republican senators. Policies are overwhelmingly republican. Louisiana is most certainly a red state.
Again you answer a question with a question instead of trying to make a point. I am not getting caught up with you in this again. Make an argument if you have one.
