Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Monday, November 12, 2012

Who really gets the "free stuff?"

Countless rightwing bloggers have been hawking the excuse that President Obama won re-election because he promised moochers "free stuff."  This salves the trauma most true believers experienced on November 6 and allows them to ignore the real reasons President Obama and the Democrats won.  Facing that reality is too harsh, so the fallback is to blame the forty-seven percenters for wanting the government to give them goodies.

But reality is quite the opposite.  This map published online in the NYTimes shows us exactly what part of the US receives the most government "goodies," and it's not, for the most part, the liberal northeast or other so-called liberal enclaves of moochers and ne'er-do-wells that extremist GOPers love to blame for their defeat.

Here's the map.

I don't expect the truth illustrated by this map to sink into the cemented ideology that they have used as the basis of their complaints--people who wanted "free stuff" elected President Obama.  The "moochers," for the most part, are living in the states that bought into that false idea and rejected Mr. Obama.







And here.

And the 47 percenters Romeny wrote off?  Where do they live?

58 comments:

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, your source from the American Conservative is quite telling... a conservative organization saying what conservatives have been denying and labeling as liberals ginning up false facts.

Part of the issue, as I understand it, is that a significant number of older Americans live in the south, thereby making that region numero uno for social security and medicare payments.

Of course, the GOP partisans would never include those fine people, many of whom pay no taxes, as takers.

skudrunner said...

Shaw,

Your illustration shows the percentage of people living in poverty. This is not an accurate portrayal of people receiving free stuff just people living below a certain level.

I find it heartless for you to describe the poor as moochers and am surprised by you lack of compassion just because they live in the South and not the snooty NE.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner your inability to understand what's before your eyes is astounding but also consistent.

Nowhere do I mock the poor.

This post merely points out who those folks are who claim that Obama won the presidency because he promosed people "free stuff." They are the same people who receive the greater part of federal assistance.

This post shows that the people who receive a great deal of "free stuff" are the very people who voted agains Mr. Obama and who voted for the man who REALLY DID MOCK THEM AND WANTED TO WRITE THEM OFF. Romney called them lazy slackers who take no responsibility for their lives.

Romeny's the heartless one, not I.


Your inability to understand this simple fact places you within that group of people who consistently votes against its own best self-interests.

I believe government has a role to play in helping the poor, the unemployed, the uninsured, the veteran, and the disabled.

I don't believe that's government giving them "free stuff."


You've totally misrepresented my post.

Again.

peppylady (Dora) said...

I believe this is my first time here and I found what you post is right on. These states has some of the lower wages...I'm sharing on my facebook page and hopeful it will give me something later on to blog about.

Coffee is on.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, Skud is not alone nor much different from many GOP partisans.

Frank Rich had a great article summing up the problem, which I am sure many in the pissed off extreme community will not read, because he presents views they would rather ignore.

Here's the link... http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/

Perhaps no other comment summed up what I believe to be the GOP problem more than this...

At the end of a long line of comments on a right wing blog discounting the "liberal medias" analysis of the election debacle for the GOP, and after one commenter said he voted, as did RN for Gary Johnson because Romney did not represent him, he was told "I just don't understand [your] thinking...and don't really want to."

I don't want to. I don't want to learn, because I already know all I need to know. I don't want to know because I may have to question my beliefs.

That is the mind set of many that are refusing to consider that maybe, just perhaps, they were wrong and it wasn't a bunch of military ballots that were stolen or a bunch of Somali pirates voting in Ohio that stole the election for Obama.

Dave Miller said...

And Skud, it is mostly the conservative right wing that uses the term moochers, and takers, to describe people who are receiving government aid and not paying taxes, be they seniors, vets, unemployed, disabled, poor, or students on scholarship.

Silverfiddle said...

You guys tried this over at Western Hero and We Debunked You.

Per Capita Welfare Recipients by State per 100 population


1 District of Columbia: 7.835
2 Guam: 6.397
3 Rhode Island: 3.319
4 Tennessee: 3.026
5 California: 3.005
6 Maine: 2.842
7 Alaska: 2.4
8 West Virginia: 2.283
9 Indiana: 2.241
10 Washington: 2.238

11 New Mexico: 2.23

12 Vermont: 2.044

I was gonna list the top 10 but after seeing D.C and Guam, decided to go with 12 to get 10 states.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec_percap-caseloads-total-recipients-per-capita

So, now tell us who the moochers are.

I've explained this to you Shaw, but you enjoy cheap tricks, which is what the liberal agenda is build out of.

States receive money because they have federal property like national parks or military installations, people receiving Social Security. That's not mooching.


As a bonus, according to Huffington Post, 9 of the 10 brokest states are blue

So liberal, democrat-voting states sponge more welfare and run up the biggest deficits.

Liberal, heal thyself!

skudrunner said...

Shaw,
Your statement "President Obama won re-election because he promised moochers "free stuff." Then you point to a chart that shows the South is where your "Moochers" are from.

Dave, you treat SS and medicare the same as welfare and medicaid. Most pay for medicare and SS so to say it is an entitlement is not factual. Your lack of knowledge about SS and medicare is not surprising. Most do pay taxes on SS and continue to pay for medicare as long as you use it. If you are eligible for medicare and are considered "highly compensated" you pay 2-4 times more in premiums for the same benefits. I guess that is considered fair.

Silverfiddle said...

Let me help you and your friends out some more, Shaw.

Go to the AmCon article and read the comments.

Next, go read this article on Ecological Fallacy

You are making illogical and mathematically untenable assumptions about groups of people. Isn't that a no no?

Silverfiddle said...

Another interesting exercise.

Go to the NY Times map (an excellent resource, btw. Thank you for sharing your find with us!)

You can disaggregate the data by clicking on each category. Click each one in turn and look a the map. It gives you a much clearer picture.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud, you obviously didn't read my post carefully.

This is what I wrote:

Countless rightwing bloggers have been hawking the excuse that President Obama won re-election because he promised moochers "free stuff." This salves the trauma most true believers experienced on November 6.

Almost everything I've read from rightwingers says that Mr. Obama won because he promised people "free stuff."

I can't be any clearer than that.

Apparently rightwingers believe a safety net is "free stuff" and are resentful that their tax dollars help their fellow Americans in dire circumstances.

Rightwingers are also eager to point out that there are a lot of Americans on food stamps, conveniently ignoring why that is.



Dave Miller said...

Skud, in no way do i consider Medicare or Social Security to be entitlements.

However the GOP has consistently lumped Medicare into the Entitlement Reform vocabulary. If that were not so, why else would we see a memo dedicated to telling GOP candidates not to say medicare was an entitlement?

The fact remains Skud and Silver, that Mitt Romney lumped everyone who does not pay federal income taxes into the category of takers.

That includes many low income people in the groups I cited.

I know senior couples who have chosen to remain single and live together, against their own personal moral code, to avoid paying income taxes on the social security.

Are they takers? According to Mitt, and the GOP, yes they are.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Silverfiddle, the poorest states in America are mostly the southern states and other "red" states that have consistently voted Republican and have Republican governors and legislatures. Here is the ranking, starting with the poorest:

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

SOURCE

And those states take more from the federal government than they give in federal tax dollars, national parks and your blizzard of stats notwithstanding.

Can you answer why these states do so poorly when the GOP and its policies is the dominant polictical party?

Blue States Subsidize Red States

show that states that elect Democrats contribute the most in federal taxes relative to what they consume in government services. Conversely, many states that elect Republicans contribute the least in taxes relative to the services they consume. This is true even though many Democratic states contain large, poor, urban populations of color.


Shaw Kenawe said...

Here's the evidence: The 10 "Tax Producing States" listed below, left, contribute the most in tax revenues relative to the services they consume. They usually vote Democratic.

The ten "Tax Dependent States" listed below consume the most in government services relative to the taxes they pay. And they usually vote Republican. (Each state's name is shown in blue if voters there lean toward Obama, and red if they lean toward Romney, as per Nate Silver's 538 blog.)

SEE CHART HERE.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The same imbalance prevails within states, at the county level. The Blue counties contribute the most state taxes relative to the services they consume. The Red counties consume the most services relative to the taxes they pay. For example, a recent study documented the pattern in Washington state. King County, the solidly-Democratic county that surrounds Seattle, provides "nearly 42% of the state's tax revenues, yet receives only 25% of the money spend from Washington's general fund." Conversely, five counties that require the most in services relative to the taxes they pay are largely Republican.

Why Red States Need Blue State's Tax Dollars

Why do people in Red states and counties resent government spending so passionately even as they need so much of it? The central problem is poverty. Many of the residents of these counties are poor. They are ill-prepared to make a decent living no matter how hard they tug on their own bootstraps. For example, in California's conservative Modoc county only 12 percent of adults over 25 have a bachelor's degree. Nearly 20 percent live below the poverty line. Many Modoc residents can't afford to send their children to college. They need government programs to survive, let alone improve their financial outlook.

Steve said...

Part of the power of majority in the House, is deciding where funds are spent.
This makes Republicans especially hypocritical. Talking spending cuts, then ear marking funds for their districts.
The "Bridge to Nowhere" was a useless project pushed through by a powerful Republican, Sen. Stevens of Alaska.
When Democrats are in office, they do the same, except they usually raise taxes, so not to build a large debt.
By every measure, the South is poorer than the North, thus pays less taxes and does receives more back percentage wise, back, than the North.
McCain (other Republicans) run on the fact that they did their job, and got way more money back from the government for their State, than their State paid in.
Money is not spent by priority, but political power. One of the big causes of waste in the government.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: I can see I've wasted my breath.

A state will social security recipients and military retirees is not a moocher state, nor is a state with military bases and national parks.

You mentioned moochers, which most would take to mean people on public assistance, and I showed you that that list is topped by blue states.

All federal money is not equal. Some is earned and some is mooched.

Also, I hope you learned what an ecological fallacy is. Your reasoning is riddled with it.

The sad fact is, our bipartisanly stupid and bloated government has turned us all into takes of one sort or another.

Over 50% of the federal government is entitlement spending.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Let's get this straight once and for all.

It was not I who called people who accepted government assistance "moochers." The GOP and its nominee labeled people in need who accepted assistance as "moochers."

And it is the folks on the conservative blogs who believe Mr. Obama was re-elected only because people want "free stuff." That's just dumb!

I believe government should be there for those who are needy. Period.

I stand by the above information that the poorest states in the union are the states that are solidly Republican, and the states that receive the most in federal tax dollars.

Blue states have their fiscal problems, to be sure, but they don't denigrate people in need and think of them as "moochers."






Silverfiddle said...

@ Shaw: It was not I who called people who accepted government assistance "moochers.

Ahem... From your post:

The "moochers," for the most part, are living in the states that bought into that false idea and rejected Mr. Obama.

Now, I will agree with your "poorest states" statement, which could also be called "lower cost of living."

Based upon locations alone, I would bet the farm that your house is worth more than mine.

Still, it does not change the fact that Obama won the welfare state vote overwhelmingly, if you insist on persisting in the logical fallacy of believing in the homogeneity of these states.

Rational Nation USA said...

I for one do not like the term entitlement. For those who have paid into SS, or more accurately stated have been forced to pay into SS, that money is more appropriately called an investment. Therefor, it is not unreadable for them to expect some return on their social investment when the time comes to collect. These people are not moochers. The only real moocher is the one that never makes the investment and then expects something in return for nothing. Most, or a majority of Americans are as of yet not moochers.

Steve, I think you have made some valid observations. Ones that rEpublicans really ought to seriously consider. As should dEmocrats Silver's.

Until that occurs the bickering and partisanship will continue. Insuring mutually self assured fiscal ruin. Plainly put, the choice is ours. It really is as simple as that.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF: "The "moochers," for the most part, are living in the states that bought into that false idea and rejected Mr. Obama."


SF, I'd hoped you'd be able to tell when I was using sarcasm to make a point. As I set out in the beginning of my post, it is the conservatives who label people who accept government assistance as "moochers." I was echoing their use of the term. And I even used quotation marks.

And you and skudrunner didn't get it?

I give up.

When you're determined to be outraged no matter what is presented, guess what? You'll be outraged and misinterpret what I've said.

AS for Obama overwhelmingly winning the "welfare state?" You say that as if that were a bad thing.

Your Savior would have won the "welfare state" as well.

IIRC, He was a real champion of the poor:

22 And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

There's no shame in having the poor on your side.

Your Savior did.

BB-Idaho said...

Two local fellas on disablility are quite active and work hard as
leaders in our Tea Party.
...go figure.

Anonymous said...

BB's comment says it all. "Keep the government out of my Social Security"

Silverfiddle said...

I am not outraged, just setting the facts straight.

Receiving Social Security that you paid in to is not getting "free stuff" nor is receiving a paycheck from the government because you are military or civil service.

When the federal government spends money on its national parks, military bases and other federal projects in one of the states, that state is not receiving "free stuff."

Conversely, when someone receives an Obamaphone, food stamps, welfare, etc, that is getting "free stuff," and the data plainly shows that the states that get the most of it voted for Obama.

Silverfiddle said...

@ BB: Two local fellas on disablility are quite active and work hard as leaders in our Tea Party.

So? Social Security (and disability, which is a part of SS) are mandatory federal programs, you can't opt out.

So they should deny themselves benefits they paid into? That's crazy.

By your logic, you and Shaw have the blood of Iraqis and Afghans on your hands because your tax dollars have funded the US War Machine.

This is the problem with progressive statism. The feral government suborns us all.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Your agenda is obvious when you typed this:

"...when someone receives an Obamaphone..."


The so-called "Obama phones" is a program that started in 1984. Snopes shoots down the "Obama phone" lie as more "free stuff" for "moochers."

When Obama won the election last week, a chorus from the right, using the same words, blamed his victory on the fact that Mr. Obama was going to give people "free stuff" or "I Want Candy!"

My post points out that a very big percentage of Americans who receive government assistance, in addition to veterans' benefits, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, are from the very regions that rejected Mr. Obama and blamed their loss on his promise of "free stuff." Those people wouldn't be able to survive if government wasn't there to help them in one form or another, and yet they cling to this skewed idea that handed them their bitter defeat.

And you reinforced that idea.

Mr. Obama did not win because he promised more "free stuff," as the idiots on FAUX NOOZ squawked, he won because more Americans believe in his way forward than believe in the GOP's way backward.

Shaw Kenawe said...

From Bloomberg:


"The Moocher Myth is this: People who vote Republican are successful, responsible strivers who pay taxes and keep the U.S. government afloat, while people who vote for Democrats are irresponsible moochers living off government programs. In Romney’s phrase, they are the 47 percent “who are dependent on government, who believe they are victims.” Reporter Mike Barnicle was criticized for saying something similar after the 2000 presidential election, claiming that the blue states on the map that voted for Al Gore were the “sense of entitlement” states.

But research then and now has pointed out that the states that got the most per capita in federal dollars were more likely to vote for Republicans. What explains this paradox?

Let’s start with the numbers.

The U.S. Census Bureau keeps track of where every federal dollar is spent, by state and county. The Internal Revenue Service records where federal-tax dollars come from, including income, payroll and excise taxes. Dividing total federal spending by the taxes paid provides a federal spending ratio for a state or county.

Federal budget deficits complicate the calculation because during deficit years all states, counties and people may pay less in taxes than they receive in spending. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization, excludes budget shortfalls when calculating a state’s federal spending ratio."


cont.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Biggest Beneficiaries

Every year, about 30 states receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes, while the other 20 states bankroll the federal government. "New Mexico and Mississippi are usually the greatest net beneficiaries of spending, receiving roughly $2 in spending for every dollar paid in taxes. New Jersey and Illinois are the greatest net contributors to the federal government, receiving about 60 cents in spending for every dollar paid in taxes. States in the Northeast, Great Lakes and Pacific Coast generally lose money to the federal government, while Southern and Great Plains states benefit.'

If we think of states as voters -- and they are in presidential elections due to the Electoral College -- then the Moocher Myth is backward. Starting with the 2000 election, the states that have benefited the most from federal spending have voted Republican. Those that pay the most in taxes per dollar received in spending vote Democrat. This paradox occurs even controlling for a state’s per-capita income, total population, racial composition, education level and defense spending."


THE REST IS HERE.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"At the county level, the Moocher Myth is more intriguing. The Census Bureau counts federal dollars in five broad categories: retirement and disability payments, salaries and wages, procurement contracts, grants, and other direct payments. In 2004 -- the last year the Tax Foundation calculated the tax burden per county -- the counties that received the most per person in retirement or grants had higher vote margins for Democrat John Kerry.

But the counties that received the highest per-capita spending in the category “other direct payments” voted for George W. Bush. “Other direct payments” includes Medicaid, food stamps, crop subsidies, housing assistance and many other programs that people generally think of as “welfare.”

It remains a mystery why places that receive the most per person in federal spending, particularly on welfare programs, vote in presidential elections for the party that wants to cut those programs."

Silverfiddle said...

Yes, the Obamaphone is a bipartisan program, and everything you've typed after that does not challenge the veracity of what I have posted here.

You're the one who mentioned "moochers" and "free stuff" in this post.

As I said, I'm just setting the facts straight. The states with the most welfare recipients voted for Obama.

News Flash said...

"Chick-Fil-A named Americas favorite chicken chain."

And all they had to do was come out against gays, with the support of all those anti-gays who supported them.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Yes, I mentioned "moochers" and "free stuff" by quoting conservative pundits and bloggers.

What is the connection between state welfare recipients and voting for Obama, since it is the state that determines eligibility for its citizens?

I stand by what my research shows:

"Starting with the 2000 election, the states that have benefited the most from federal spending have voted Republican. Those that pay the most in taxes per dollar received in spending vote Democrat. This paradox occurs even controlling for a state’s per-capita income, total population, racial composition, education level and defense spending."



Silverfiddle said...

Of course you're going to stand by it.

To admit that I am right would leave you with egg on your face.

So states with military bases, national parks and higher populations of pensioners vote Republican. Wow.

The fact still remains that the states with the most welfare recipients vote democrat.

Jerry Critter said...

Here is an interesting post on how the most educated and least educated states voted. It speaks volumes.

Jerry Critter said...

Perhaps those states have more welfare recipients because Democrats are more welling to help people who are having problems than are republicans.

Democrats say let me give up a helping hand up. Republicans say tough shit.

skudrunner said...

"And Skud, it is mostly the conservative right wing that uses the term moochers"

Actually Dave, it was Shaw that referred to them as moochers and now she is walking it back.

Shaw,
You actually use NM as an example of states that receive federal money. Look at the US land in NM and the Indian population so it is no wonder they receive a disproportionate amount of money.



Silverfiddle said...

Jerry: You commit the error (common on the elitist left) that confuses a college degree with being smart.

Rational Nation USA said...

Interesting indeed Jerry.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Skudrunner, are you really that obtuse?

Here is the opening statement of my blogpost:

"Countless rightwing bloggers have been hawking the excuse that President Obama won re-election because he promised moochers "free stuff."

I was quoting what the rightwingers say. It is the rightwingers and Romney who call people who receive government assistance "moochers."

You and SF are not correct when you claim I pin that label on people who receive government assistance.

Here is what the Republican Party's nominee for president actually said:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what ... These are people who pay no income tax."


Perhaps he didn't actually use the word "moocher" but in anyone's definition, that is how one describes people like the people Mitt Romney is talking about: They take stuff they don't deserve and who believe they are entitled to that "stuff."

You and SF are pretending that Romney and the conservatives don't look upon people who take government assistance as "moochers." They do. Go re-read what the guy the GOP wanted to be president of the US thinks about people on government assistance.

As for SF's nitpicking on welfare states:

This post wasn't about which welfare states voted for Mr. Obama, even if SF tried to steer it in that direction.

This post is about how the poorest states--the states that overwhelmingly voted for Romney--are also the states that receive the greatest amount of federal tax dollars.

Read the above from Bloomberg.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"You commit the error (common on the elitist left) that confuses a college degree with being smart."

While it's true that everyone with a college degree isn't necessarily smart [see Sarah Palin], it's also true that the best and brightest who succeed in all aspects of endeavor usually have more than a high school diploma.

For example, I can't think of a Nobel Laureate in science, economics, or literature who did NOT have a college degree or more.

It is also true that two of our best presidents, Lincoln and Truman, did not graduate from university.

But since Truman, do you seriously believe someone with a high school diploma or less could seriously run for the presidency?

And Jerry is correct. The southern states perform the worst in education.

Jerry Critter said...

SF,
I would be interested in seeing any data you have that shows that non-college educated people are generally smarter than college-educated people. I don't think you have any.

Craig said...

Blogger Rational Nation USA said...

I for one do not like the term entitlement.


I don't either but let's be clear, Repubs have said they won't budge on "entitlement reform". They aren't talking about TANF (welfare), they are talking about SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. BTW, SS isn't an 'investment', it's insurance and 1/3 of Medicaid goes to nursing homes.

SF, You can spin the numbers both ways but the fact is, states play a big role in determining who is eligible and how much public assistance someone gets. Someone in Minneapolis is going to get public assistance and wouldn't qualify (% of poverty level) in Houston. 1% of Bostons population will not have health ins. while 20% won't in Dallas. So, yeah, we would have a higher ratio of people on assistance per capita.

The % of people on public assistance in the U.S. is about 17% so Mittens 47% comment clearly included retirees, students, military and anyone who doesn't earn enough to pay fed. income taxes. He said they won't take personal responsibility. He wrote them off.

One more thing, don't play dumb. I read the righty blogs. Moocher, gimme, freeloader, takers, etc., have all been used to describe the 47%. Shaw was riffing on that and you know it.

I've got a Liberal Agenda meeting to get to. We're planning how to take your guns and put you in FEMA camps.

Anonymous said...

Honestly, just ban SF, Skudrunner, and put Les on probation. The first two add absolutely nothing to the discourse here. Les usually plays nice unless he is egged on by what you let the other two get away with. They are trolls and should just go away, never to return here. Just stop publishing their comments for two weeks and they will find some other person to incessantly troll.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anon,

My policy is that as long as my commenters don't start flame wars with each other they are welcome to leave their opinion here.

One way or another, the best arguments will carry the day.

President Obama just proved that on November 6. ;-)

skudrunner said...

JC said

" Here is an interesting post on how the most educated and least educated states voted. It speaks volumes."

Greece has one of the highest per capita number of college graduates. Look how well that is working for them.

SF Hit it on the mark, just because you are educated doesn't mean your smart.

Lets get back to the crisis of the day, the fiscal cliff. I support returning to the Clinton era tax rates or just throw out the tax codes and go to a fair tax system.

Since Obama ran as Clinton against Bush, he should support going with Clinton's tax rates.

After all it is only fair we raise rates for everyone so we we can give our elected crooks more money to waste. BTW that was a bipartisan comment.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner, it doesn't take a genius to understand that a college degree doesn't ALWAYS confer intelligence.

But I guarantee you'd want the man or woman doing brain surgery on you to not only have an MD degree, but to have graduated at the top of his/her class.

And Nate Silver absolutely proved his bona fides in the poll prediction area. His mathematical model correctly predicted ALL 50 states--in 2008 his missed one--Indiana, which he thought would go for McCain, but instead went for Obama.

Silver didn't miss any states this time.

I put my trust in him, and not, say someone like Peggy Noonan, who thought Romeny was going to win because she "felt" it in her guy.

Science wins over "gut feeling" in 99.99999999999999% of the time.

BTW, Nate Silver graduated with Honors with an A.B. degree in economics from the University of Chicago. He spent his third year at the London School of Economics.

Silverfiddle said...

"While it's true that everyone with a college degree isn't necessarily smart [see Sarah Palin], it's also true that the best and brightest who succeed in all aspects of endeavor usually have more than a high school diploma.

For example, I can't think of a Nobel Laureate in science, economics, or literature who did NOT have a college degree or more."


You commit a category error. Someone could be a brilliant physicist but still be very dumb at choosing the right candidate.

Expertise in one area does not transfer to another.

@Jerry:

"I would be interested in seeing any data you have that shows that non-college educated people are generally smarter than college-educated people. I don't think you have any."

Wrong-o, but nice try.

You guys are the ones positing that a college degree is the determining factor for who is smart and who is not, so the burden of proof is on you.

But, if you've been to college, you know that already.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"You guys are the ones positing that a college degree is the determining factor for who is smart and who is not, so the burden of proof is on you."

I don't think neither Jerry nor I say a college degree is the "determining" factor for who is smart and who isn't.

I know smart people who never received a college degree and I know degreed people--even a physicist or two--who are clueless when it comes to specific areas outside their expertise.

I understand that atrocities, such as in Nazi Germany, were committed by people who were intellectually above the average German.

But it was also the undereducated Germans who went along with what the Nazis led them into as well. The common folk.

Do you not see a correlation between poverty and poor education, which can lead, in turn, to poor choices and outcomes?


Silverfiddle said...

Many times, poverty is the result of poor decisions.

But, as I've previously stated, having a degree does not make one smart, and had you read up on what an ecological fallacy is, you would see that without further analysis, state by state comparisons are worthless.

Jerry Critter said...

SF,
I never said "college degree is the determining factor for who is smart and who is not". In fact I never connected a college degree with being smart at all. You are the one who related a college degree with being smart when you said "Jerry: You commit the error (common on the elitist left) that confuses a college degree with being smart"..

What I actually did was give a link to a post that showed that the most educated states (as measured by the % of people over 25 with college degrees) voted Democratic while the least educated states voted republican.

The key here is that it is about EDUCATED states, not the SMARTEST states.

You are the one who equated educated with smart, not me.

Do I detect a bit of projection?

Rational Nation USA said...

Jerry, you made a nonjudgmental statement with a factual link to a source.

It is difficult to dismiss empirical data and it's correlation to relevant facts.

When it comes to smarts there are numerous smart people without degrees. There are also a lot of self educated people who are smart in the ways it matters most.

As Plato said of the two most important questions for society with respect to education... "Who teaches the young and what do we teach them?"

Jerry Critter said...

I agree, RN.

Malcolm Bondon said...

There you go again Shaw, using facts and logic in your blog posts! :-)

This post made me think of a segment Bill Maher did on his show recently in which Alexandra Pelosi visited Mississippi to interview various conservatives:

http://americablog.com/2012/03/video-nancy-pelosis-daughter-visits-mississippi.html

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jerry: What I actually did was give a link to a post that showed that the most educated states (as measured by the % of people over 25 with college degrees) voted Democratic while the least educated states voted republican.

What weasely twaddle.

Why else would you mention "most educated" then, if you implication were not that smart people vote Democrat?

If I grant you your weasel words of your last comment, then your link to the voting habits of educated people is meaningless.

Why not break it down by dog owners? For pete's sake, at least own up to what you say.



Jerry Critter said...

I did own up to exactly what I said. You are the one trying to imply things I did not say. You are the one trying to equate educated with smart, not me.

Silverfiddle said...

Then what was your point in making the statement then?

As I said, why not correlate it with dog ownership?

Jerry Critter said...

Gee, SF. Maybe if you had more education, you could figure it out.

Anonymous said...

It's going to be ending of mine day, except before end I am reading this wonderful article to improve my know-how.

Also visit my web-site home cellulite treatment