I read your article, and the major thrust of it was not WHICH states got more welfare, but simply argued about the designation of each welfare state-trying to convince someone that the welfare state of West Virginia was really blue, and that New Hamshire was red. Sorry Charlie, the definition was the presidental election, the one with the highest turnout, the one least likely to involve local issues and the one most likely to reflect the 'world view' and big picture thinking of the voters. I would think that in most big picture ways-education, healthcare, environment, role of government, etc. New Hampshire is Blue and West Virginia is red.

It is ironic that states that vote solid GOP are the same ones that suck up the Government ,largess in disproportionate,amounts.

A typical example is Owsley County,Kentucky. The population is 98 percent white and 81 percent GOP. They have the lowest household ,income in the country. Nearly half of these folks live below the poverty line. Yet their Congressman ,voted against raising the minimum wage to 10.00.

What is the matter with these people? They,like the morons in 213 of the 254 counties whose food stamp use doubled since the Bush/Cheney,economic debacle ,voted for Romney and the GOP in 2012.

Bizarre to say the least.

Obviously, you know little of economics. If you note, the House of Representatives writes the budgets. Since 1980, according the the table shown in the OP article, there has been a 50/50 split in the distribution of elected officials in both the bottom and top welfare states. The Senate approves the budget. The data shows that an average of 63% of Democratic Senators in the bottom of the list were in office and were potentially in favor of the budget as written. There were only 50% of the Republican Senators in the to 10 "welfare" states that potentially voted in favor of the budget. That leaves 50% of Democrat Senators as potentially voting in favor of the budgets as written.


If you look at this data another way, Democrats are not doing a very good job of getting Federal funding for their constituents. In the case of the Bottom 10, the Democrats in the Legislature had an overwhelming number of representation to vote for or against the budgets as written. There was also a roughly 50/50 split vote potential in the Top 10 Welfare States.

I have to ask how the spread works for the other 30 states not mentioned in the article. Is it possible that the split for Top 25 Welfare states is overwhelmingly Democrat? Republican?

Give it a rest-the comment was that the states who voted for the republician presidental candidate, have a red state, tea bagger world view, typically the former confederacy, are the biggest pigs at the federal trough. That comment stands-I don't buy that crap that West VA was really blue and NH was red. My ass. If the presidental candidates don't need to visit your state, if you are not innundated with campaign commercials, you are clearly in one colume or the other. If you are in the Red colume, Texas, SC, MS,Georgia, OK, WVA, you a tend to have poorer people, less education, less opportunity, just LESS of everything except government handouts. You red states all profess to hate government, but have you hand out for the benefits. What a bunch of hypocrites!

I say cut ya off-learn to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.

Blue states tend to pay more taxes, have richer and better educated people, more opportunity, and are an all around better place to live. Your former presidential candidate moved to San Diego, that bluest of the blues.