KK,
did you read my post or are you just to stupid to understand it. I don't care if the red states get more than the blue states. What I care about is where that money is being spent and on what and on who. You totally ignore that part of the equation. Many of the interior states are more sparsely populated. As a result, more federal money goes into those states to subsidize roads, the national parks, military installations, farm programs, and other amenities that help all Americans. In addition, some of the states are also highly agricultural states and recieve government money for that. How much money did Ted Turner make last year in Farm and conservation subsidies? If he is basing his business and home out of another state, but the govenment is paying the subsidies into Montanna, you could see how the numbers get flipped around. Under your analysis, explain Washington, DC.
Again, your numbers mean nothing. How much is spent on actual welfare in those states on liberals. How much is spent on liberals in the costal states. How much do conservatives spend on taxes compared to liberals.
Todd was stating he had facts, and he had none.... Nothing. He could be right, but I doubt it. There are studies that do show conservatives spend much more on charity than liberals do. So how does that fit into the equation. I could argue that it means liberals are all poor or miserly while conservatives are rich and generous. In reality, it probably means conservatives give more to their churches. Take that out and the numbers may be more equal. But..... we don't know. If you are going to argue, at least be intellectually honest.

The best data around probably would come from polls that relate income to voting.
Here is a CNN 2004 poll relating to income and voting.
VOTE BY INCOME BUSH
KERRY NADER
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 2004

Under $15,000 (8%) Bush 36% Kerry 63% Nader 0%

$15-30,000 (15%) Bush 42% n/a Kerry 57% Nader 0%

$30-50,000 (22%) Bush 49% n/a Kerry 50% Nader 0%

$50-75,000 (23%) Bush 56% n/a Kerry 43% Nader 0%

$75-100,000 (14%) Bush 55% n/a Kerry 45% Nader 0%

$100-150,000 (11%) Bush 57% n/a Kerry 42% Nader 1%

$150-200,000 (4%) Bush 58% n/a Kerry 42%

$200,000 or More (3%) Bush 63% n/a Kerry 35% Nader 1%



So wow, it seems that if we could just get all you stupid poor people from voting it would be a landslide. NOW THAT IS A FACT!



From a Gallop poll this year
I could not get the graph to print but here is a statement about it. You can see the actual numbers at http://www.gallup.com/poll/107689/Early-Gallup-Road-Map-McCainObama-Matchup.aspx

While Obama does not fare as well among the traditional Democratic group of lower-education voters, he does do well among the usually Democratic group of lower-income voters, beating McCain by double digits among this group. The two are competitive among middle- and upper-income voters, with McCain doing slightly better among wealthier voters.
Just for those who don't want to look it up, those with monthly incomes under 2k are voting 53% Obama and 36% McCain, while those at the top end are closer with over $7,500 a month voting 45% Obama and 49% percent McCain.

Clearly.. LOWER INCOME KNUCKLEDRAGGERS VOTE DEMOCRATIC AT AN OVER WHELMING MAJORITY.

So KK and Todd. SHUT UP unless you know what you are talking about.