Well this blows a hole in the left’s assertion that Red states are the moochers. Often states like Alabama (toothless rednecks like me) are blamed as being welfare queens (and Kings).
My rub I have with this is the amount of illegals that will skew the numbers. Maine does not have the illegal problem that say Texas or other more southern states have that add to this index. You remove the illegals and their citizen anchor family the numbers would be a lot different in some states.
Had a vendor from Massachusetts treat me to lunch a couple of months ago. If you think mooching in your state is bad, he told me about a lady there who broke down a machine which returned cash for aluminum cans. Seems she was too lazy to even drink the contents of the cans first. At least our slackards in Pennsylvania will do that much.
‘What really stands out, though, is that the people of California win the prize for self reliance, at least with regard to food stamps. Only 55 percent of eligible people from the Golden State have signed up for the program. Doesn’t make sense when you look at some of the crazy things that are approved by California voters, but I assume the numbers are accurate.”
Actually you have to read all the foot notes on all pages. Then you learn that Calif gives out state food funds to 1.3 million and those people were not included in the numbers since they receive state food stamps and not USDA food stamps.
I was happy and surprised to see Texas ranked so low. I can tell you, from an observational point people are starving here.
But I am guessing 0dumbo, who HATES Texas will spend money advertising here to get more people/ votes signed up
I get what this guy is trying to do, but, quite frankly, his methodology for the “Moocher Index” is rubbish. All he did was subtract the percentage of a state’s population that is below the poverty line from the percentage of the state’s population that receives public benefits. The obvious problem with this approach is that, while the official “poverty line” is uniform accross the country, the eligibility rules for public benefits are often adjusted to account for cost-of-living differences between certain areas. The failure of the “Moocher Index” calculation to adjust for this effect renders the number essentially meaningless.
What’s the state Motto,,”Live for Free or die”?
I’m thinking, to explain California’s relatively fewer moochers, that maybe the rural poor don’t do food stamps as much because it is not as easy to get over to wherever you sign up?
Also, good produce and staples are not that expensive, compared to some place like Maine that is nowhere near where it is actually grown.
We’d have a lot less poverty in California if the farmers were allowed some water again. The last time I drove on I-5 in the central valley, there were acres and acres of dead orchards.
All of them do...outside any city.
Is that why they keep electing Reid?
Read an article about a dead beat dad who resides in TN. He has 22 children by 14 women ... costing TN over $7,000 a month.
I was just wondering if union membership is factored into charts like this? Unions mooch in other ways than EBT cards. There’s a great article on Am Thinker about Detroit that is very different than many of the articles I’ve read about why it’s going under. Worth the read - How Detroit Almost Killed My Business - if you haven’t done so.
I don't know if either New Mexico or Tennessee might be in the high 40's (45-48) for education.
Having an educational system that is considered one of the worst in the country (Louisiana and Mississippi) is never a good sign.
Louisiana has suffered for political corruption for decades... So it will take time to overcame that as well.
With gladness, I note that Indiana is WAY down the list!
With sadness, I note that NO state is LESS THAN 50%.
Well; it was fun while it lasted; but pull the lever a second time so this thing will finally flush.
One word: Memphis!