Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (Quinnipiac 12/1-6)


Quinnipiac
12/1-6/09; 2,313 registered voters, 2% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Quinnipiac release)

National

Obama Job Approval
46% Approbe, 44% Disapprove (chart)
Reps: 17 / 75 (chart)
Dems: 80 / 11 (chart)
inds: 37 / 51 (chart)
Economy: 41 / 54 (chart)
Health Care: 38 / 56 (chart)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Dems in Congress: 33 / 56
Reps in Congress: 30 / 58

State of the Counrty
29% Satisfied, 71% Dissatisfied (chart)

Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care - President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?
44% Obama, 37% Reps in Congress

From what you've heard or read, do you mostly approve or mostly disapprove of the proposed changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress?
38% Approve, 52% Disapprove (chart)

Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?
56% Support, 38% Oppose

President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?
19% Keep promise, 74% Add to deficit

Do you think that extending health insurance to all Americans would increase your health care costs or not?
63% Yes, 30% No

Do you think that extending health insurance to all Americans is worth increasing your health care costs or not?
47% Yes, 46% No

Do you think that extending health insurance to all Americans would decrease your quality of health care or not?
48% Yes, 46% No

Do you think that extending health insurance to all Americans is worth decreasing your quality of health care or not?
21% Yes, 71% No

 

Comments
Roman:

This poll is so typical of all healthcare polls.

Do you support the healthcare reform being discussed in Washington?

NO!

Do you support the public option?

NO!

....But then once you start explaining to people what each of these proposals are and start asking them questions like:

Do you support a government run insurance option to compete with private insurance?

Yes.

Do you support not allowing insurers to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions

Yes.

Etc,etc,etc.

So, what this tells me is what I have thought all along. The Democrats have done a poor job of explaining this bill. When you hear conservatives on TV, you hear them all hit the same few lies (aka talking points).

When you hear Democrats on TV, they wax philosophically about God knows what instead of hitting a few effective points.

Whoever said Obama was a good speaker? I am a liberal. I voted for him. But I don't really think he is a great speaker.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Roman,

Most people have no idea whats in the bill. The public option question has such volatility depending on how you ask it. In addition, they should anytime they ask about the public option if someone would rather use the public option or private insurance. Opinion Dynamics is the only one to ask that and 70% of respondents said private.

With pre-existing conditions. People favor removing them until you tell them that it will raise premiums for everyone, then they do not favor it.

Obama is a great speaker when he is reading from a prepared speech. However, without prepared remarks, he sounds just like GWB. But too many people equate great oratory skills with great leadership and intelligence.

____________________

obamalover:

@Field Marshall

"The public option question has such volatility depending on how you ask it."

There have been two basic ways pollsters have asked that question, which has shown some difference. One way is to use the "choice" wording. That tends to be more favorable towards the public option. The other ways is the "compete" wording, which tends to be less favorable towards the public option. They use the "compete" wording in this poll, so your point is not a valid one.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

In the Bloomberg poll, they use 'alternative', the same as choice and the difference is 1%.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Even though Marist is supposed to be scientific, I smell a slight bias here. Maybe they are accurate about Obama on those two days people were polled. He dropped on Gallup as well. I think Marist is clearly giving way higher approval of Republicans in Congress than any of the other polls are. Perhaps there is a shift in voters considering Republican candidates in the Senate to run against incumbents, but these challengers are clearly isolating themselves from the Bush Administration, Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Mitch Mcconnell, Jim Demint and others who will not help their candidacy in states in NH and CT.

____________________

Field Marshal:

In regards to the public option, i think people simply want more competition. But they don't want to use it.

I favor the public option but only if its run by the individual states. That way they cannot use it as a backdoor to a single payer system since states cant run deficits. Of course, if its a level playing field, no one would use the government option without subsidies because of the inefficiencies.

____________________

Mayor Quimby:

I think the answer to your question Roman is that people want a fix to the health care system but they don't want THIS fix to the health care system.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I am still more worried as a liberal voter about midterms than I am presidential Elections. I think after what Obama was able to do in 2008, the likely voter scenario went out the window. The turnout is far greater in presidential years most of the time. 2004 was an exceptionally weak year for Dems turnout, and it cost the party chairman of their job, which was deserved. It took another 2 years and Howard Dean's ingenius mobilization to bring the party together. After 6 years of Bush Policies America had had enough.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Farleft,

Correct. Without a black candidate on the ballot, the Dems will be unable to get their base out to vote. After all, all the matters for many dems is the color of the candidates skin. LOL!

____________________

Stillow:

The healthcare numbers i nthis poll are boring and the same thing we've been seeing. People do not like the HCR legislation in congress now.

The big thing in this poll is the approval among Indy's. 37?????????? That is horrible. If Obama and the Dems can't turn around the anger fro mthe Indy's that is focused at them....they are in deep deep trouble. Obama is rapidly marginalizing his support to only left wing democrats.

37 is a nasty nasty number.

____________________

Xenobion:

Funny enough it matters to Republicans as well, only when they are in office though. The South shall rise again Hee Hawwwww!

____________________

Stillow:

X - cracking jokes won't help you htis time. 37 percent support among Indy's is a death warrant in any election.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Funny enough it matters to Republicans as well, only when they are in office though. The South shall rise again Hee Hawwwww!"

With all the damage liberals are doing to the Northeast, Midwest and West coast the amount of people fleeing those states for red southern states will make the south much more relevent in coming years.

____________________

Stillow:

FM - Good point. If libs make life so great, why do so many of them flee those blue states and head stragiht over to red states....NV, AZ, VA, TX to name a few.

____________________

LordMike:

"The big thing in this poll is the approval among Indy's. 37?????????? That is horrible."

Considering that 1/3 of republicans now identify themselves as indy's, why is that shocking number... especially when most of them are teabaggers.

"FM - Good point. If libs make life so great, why do so many of them flee those blue states and head stragiht over to red states....NV, AZ, VA, TX to name a few."

Mainly 'cos they've been stealing tax dollars from the blue states. Life is easy when you can live on someone else's money... funy how conservative states do it best!

____________________

Xenobion:

You guys really forget that both parties are unpopular yet Democrats CONTINUE to outpreform Republicans on all general ballot measures. The Republican party already committed suicide, yeah I agree Democrats are as well, but they do so only at the whim of a weakened Republican party and fulfilling a campaign promise of health care reform. Anyways, I know what's going on. As most presidents do their unpopular politically contentious things during the first 2 years and quiet down the last 2. You know what happened 2 years ago? Immigration Bill debate? Yeah, noone remembers anything about that other than John McCain failed.

As for the liberals "fleeing" argument. Its quite natural for urbanized areas undergoing rapid growth to turn states blue (see North Carolina, Virginia). People go to NV & AZ because they are old and those states remain mostly red and only blue because of Hispanic populations that now vote Democrat rather than Republican... same for Texas as well regarding Hispanics but tech sector has moved in alot of liberals in that state.

We're coming for your red states conservatives and turning them purple. All your base belong to us. >:)

____________________

Xenobion:

Lord Mike makes a good point. The Indy number which used to be around 25% in the past is now flooded with Republicans that are no longer fixated on the party. Independents vote less than Republicans which is statistically bad for Republicans. Democrat registration has surged and not diminished at all. Democrats now make more in campaign contributions than Republicans wheras the opposite was true for about 2 decades.

Call em' Indy's Call em Republicans its still the same piece of rhubarb pie!

____________________

Stillow:

A liberal just accused me of living off someone elses dime I think.........

Excuse me for just a minute.....

hahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahaah

Ok, back. All I do is give money to g'ment for libs to live off of. Its people like me paying for all the liberal pet projects.

Facts are facts, blue folks hate living in blue states so they run to red states. TX one of the deeper red states doesn't get much bang for its buck.....

____________________

LordMike:

Blue states are donor states... they pay out more in taxes than they receive back from the federal government. Contrast that to red states, who are welfare states... they get way more back from the federal government than they pay out.

I'm guessing that's 'cos of the republicans controlling everything for so many years.... although there seems to be no sign of that changing. Michigan has the worst unemployment rate in the country, and yet they still pay more in taxes than they receive. Meanwhile Alabama is just soaking it in with all the free money from Michigan. No wonder they have it easy... free money is easy!

____________________

Stillow:

X - You remind me of the family guy episode where peter's old freind from school ran a cult and tried to get him to come drink the poison kool aid.

____________________

Stillow:

LordMike

Cherry or grape today?

What you lcaim is misleading. Heritage did a study on which parts of these red states receive the most g'ment aid, guess what? It was skewed heavily to blue districts where liberals live. Ask TX which has a very high number of conservatives if they gget back what they put out.............

I'd like to invite you hwere so you can pay my tax bill next year and then I would like you to tell me again I live off liberal dimes.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Correct Stillow. In addition, taxation is not similar because GDP on a purchasing power parity is not the same. $1 in California is worth a lot less than in Mississippi.

In other words, people earn more in California, NY, NJ, MA and MD and thus pay more taxes. That's why the numbers are skewed like this. If you adjust for PPP (purchasing power parity to the non-economist) these red states actually pay in a lot more than they take out.

Liberals just like to spout out the same nonsense without researching why as long as it conforms to their warped ideology.

____________________

Xenobion:

Hmm both parties have kool-aide. Republicans would be cherry and Dems would be Blue Rasberry (yum!).

Anyways, I worked on the 2010 Census I know why people are moving to certain states. Most red states are incredibly cheap to live in. Many people from California make 3x what a person in TX does so its pretty easy after 20 years of working in Cali to come to poor states like TX and live like a millionare. NE states are losing pop due to manufacturing moving (See Buffalo, Syracuse, Pittsburgh).

2010 Census shows TX becoming more blue. Hispanic population and influx of Californians is its current state. I'd give it another 10 years to become a possible blue state.

Studies also show TX is starting to like Grape Kool-aide more than Cherry... a sign of the times I guess...

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

What is your point? That the polling is not affected by the wording? You are only hurting your own point. LOL.

____________________

Stillow:

X - My dad used to have a saying he would tell me whenever I really wanted soemthing.

"Wish in one hand and sh*t in the other and see which fills up faster"

____________________

Bigmike:

Those "Red states are living off Blue states" arguments are worthless.

If you are talking about aid programs, they were written and passed by lib congresses and administrations. "Out of the goodness of their hearts" they were offering aid to people that never asked for it. Don't blame that on the red states.

There are also a lot more military bases in warmer climate areas. Its called year round training. How much of that plays into your arguments?

And maybe it just means our representatives are smarter than yours. Who should be ashamed of that, me or you? I won't be hanging my head in shame.

____________________

Xenobion:

"Wish in one hand and sh*t in the other and see which fills up faster"

I know what someone's getting for their birthday!!!

____________________

Xenobion:

Census Changes: Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania -1

Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Utah +1

Texas +3

I could probably explain every single case except why Iowa lost 1 electoral vote. There I have no idea.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

My point was that the public option polling was very volatile. One shows it favored by 20+% while another has it basically even. See?? Its all in the way its worded.

Doesn't matter anyway. The Senate just killed it from their bill. No reason to waste more time on it.

____________________

Xenobion:

They are still at the public option trigger, medicate buy in for older folks, and non-profit run. I'm interested to see polls for this type of plan now. Seems like they'd have the votes including Olympia Snowe on this one if it went through.

____________________

Stillow:

Probably, but it may not pass the House if that is what gets thru. With Nelsons ammendment being shot down, stupek's pals may ovte against a final bill without the otugh abortion language in it....this thing is far from over and its getting messy.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

I have seen very very few polls that show it even.

But yes the Senate did kill it. And in its place they expanded Medicare. Which is better IMO. We just need to gradually expand medicare until we have single payer.

____________________

Xenobion:

House is easy. House got +2 votes only to protect a couple reps. They'll come to the plate if they need to though for the vote in.

____________________

Stillow:

OL - is that the same medicare that is already 20+ trillion debt???????

heheeh, libs, no concept of money. No wonder you have no problems coming to me, stealing it and then spending it. But I do not have 20+ trillion to pay for your fantasies.

____________________

Xenobion:

You're living in a fantasy if you think liberals came up with the deficit by themselves. I suggest you knock on the doors of your neocon bretheren and look at how their fantasies contributed. Apparently you had no problem with their agenda.

____________________

Stillow:

X - hehehe, I guess you have short term memory loss. I have been one of the biggest critics of Bush and GOP spending over the past 10 years on this site. A fiscal liberal in red clothes, is the same as a fiscal lib in blue clothing....I slam them both.

Where ya gonna find the 20+ trillion to pay for the current medicare system? Let alone pay for an expansion? Oh and don't forget the hole SS is in too..........................thanks libs!

____________________

obamalover:

@ Stillow

You seem to be unaware that Medicare covers the elderly, so it's costs are naturally going to be higher. And is that 20 trillion number a projection or is that how much debt the federal government is currently holding in regards to medicare? Because last time I checked the federal government is only 1.4 trillion dollars in debt.

Furthermore, if you look at Medicare's expenditures only 2% of it goes towards overhead, whereas 11% of the average private insurer's expenditures goes towards overhead. Private insurers are incredibly more wasteful than Medicare.

If one could get rid of private insurance one would increase the cost efficiency of the health care system by leaps and bounds.

____________________

Xenobion:

I'm not just including Bush, Stillow. Try H.W. Bush, try Regan. Military dreams on a deficit. Cause if its one thing we've learned. Conservatives are willing to be hypocritical over fiscal conservatism when it comes to military spending and contracts. "Star Wars: The Deficit Strikes Back" I think was one of the potential movie titles back in the 80's.

____________________

Stillow:

OL - No, the annual deficit for this year is 1.4 trillion. The debt is over 12 trillion. The 20+ trillion deficit for medicare is its intenral projection carried out o the future. Where's the money coming from? Do you have it? Do I have it? Uncle Sam is broke? Where do you plan to get the cash to pay for your handouts? Print it? Borrow the 20 trillion from china?

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

Exactly. It is a projection. Whose projection is it anyhow?


Secondly, If you add young healthy people to medicare, it would actually end up decreasing medicare's debt since the cost of covering young people is much lower than the cost covering the elderly, which is how private insurers turn a profit because they don't have to cover the elderly to a certain extent.

____________________

Stillow:

Where do you get this stuff? So without private carriers paying the difference between wha tmedicare pays and actaully owes....where do you make up all that money? Medicare cotninually pays a lower and lower percentage of wha tit actually owes to the doctor for services. That is why private carriers raise prices, cus the doctors have to charge more cus g'ment plans are not able to pay what they owe?

____________________

Stillow:

Where do you get this stuff? So without private carriers paying the difference between wha tmedicare pays and actaully owes....where do you make up all that money? Medicare cotninually pays a lower and lower percentage of wha tit actually owes to the doctor for services. That is why private carriers raise prices, cus the doctors have to charge more cus g'ment plans are not able to pay what they owe?

____________________

obamalover:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis says medicare's administrative costs are more than 5 times lower than private insurers.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7697/12-08-Medicare.pdf

Now could you please tell me where you are getting this 20+ trillion dollar figure from?

Medicare's reimbursements are somewhat lower because the government is responsible for covering the elderly who are a very costly population. And if everyone was on a government plan then you wouldn't have that problem, would you? Damn logic.

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis says medicare's administrative costs are more than 5 times lower than private insurers.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7697/12-08-Medicare.pdf

Now could you please tell me where you are getting this 20+ trillion dollar figure from?

Medicare's reimbursements are somewhat lower because the government is responsible for covering the elderly who are a very costly population. And if everyone was on a government plan then you wouldn't have that problem, would you? Damn logic.

____________________

Stillow:

Your logic is damned, we agree....sinc eit makes no sense. Its pure fantasy to put everyone on one system and expect costs to go down...gues what, Germany did that and they are now desperately tryign to figure out how to transition to a private carrier system....since single payer carried to its long term is unsustainable.

The 20+ trillion a c ommon figure, its n internal projection, I beleive the cbo has projected that long term along with independent groups such as heritage, etc.

Seriously, don't you ever get tired of living off other people? If you like big programs then offer up more of your salary in theform of taxes.....why do you have to live off my dime? Are you incapable of functioning without my money?

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL is completely wrong.

First, the expansion of medicare is exactly the wrong thing (surprise, surprise!). What you will see happen is a two tier health care system emerge. A public system with government health care for about 70% of the people and a private system for 30%. It will be similar to Britain. The private system of course will be significantly better.

Second, Medicare is much more INEFFICIENT than private insurance when you compare apples to apples. Medicare's overhead is actually higher than private insurance.

What you need to do to say Medicare is 2% if dividing overhead per patient to the total bill. Well the total bill for a medicare patient is usually much higher than private insurance. If you look at it the correct way, dividing overhead (cost to process a claim) by the premiums collected. Read below.

READ: http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

and

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2505.cfm

Stillow, you are correct. Medicare is the problem with healthcare in this country. PBS recently stated that 70% of all medicare dollars paid to providers are below COST. The means providers need to raise prices for private insurance to make up the difference.

In addition, adding younger people to medicare will do nothing to lower the debt. The debt is PBO (present value of benefit obligations). It has nothing to do with running a deficit or surplus. These younger healthy people are already paying into the system. In addition, their unfunded mandate is also still in the system. Adding them will just INCREASE the shortfall, not decrease it.

Dems really have zero understanding of economics.

Lastly, single payer is highly unpopular in this country and will lead to rationed care and much lower quality for all. I would love to see the Dems try this (wont happen) because they would become a minority party very fast!

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Medicare's reimbursements are somewhat lower because the government is responsible for covering the elderly who are a very costly population. And if everyone was on a government plan then you wouldn't have that problem, would you? Damn logic."

This is completely WRONG. You're logic is ridiculously bad. Adding MORE people to medicare wont change a thing. The young and healthy are ALREADY paying into Medicare through their payroll taxes. See?

Lastly, if providers only received medicare rates, one third to half of all hospitals would close and you would quickly see a huge shortage of supply. It would be a complete disaster.

____________________

CharlieS:

Let's see if I have this correct. Congress is going to cut medicare by about 500b and reduce payments to medical providers by 20% while adding millions more to the plan that are 55+. Oh, and medicare is already zillions of dollars in the hole. Even today, depending on where you live, it is difficult to find a doctor that will take new medicare patients.

Sounds like a winner to me.

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

Could you please link me to this mythical CBO projection. And the heritage foundation is a right wing think tank. Not exactly the most trustworthy source.

Furthermore, I live off my own income, thank you very much. Anyhow, it is the red states that live off my dime.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

And it seems reality smacks you again in the face Stillow...

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

Oh by the way. Germany has a multi-payer system, not single payer. Damn the facts.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Obamalover,

Look at your map. See how the richest states have the lowest ratios and poorest have the highest? That's because those rich states pay a lot more in income taxes since federal tax brackets are the same for all people. If you adjust the federal tax brackets to account for cost of living, those ratios would level out a lot. Understand?

But the poorer states would still receive more federal dollars mostly because of medicaid, food stamps, and welfare checks. (medicaid being partially true since most of the funds are state dollars).

____________________

Xenobion:

All the think-tanks have effectively come out with different numbers spanning the board. I'm not educated enough to discriminate between a Heritage Foundation report from a CATO institute one.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

The council for affordable health insurance (CAHI) is a tradegroup that primarily consists of private health insurers. It is very interesting that is where you are getting your information from.

Secondly, If younger people were put on medicare they would presumably be paying more into the system. Duh. Although not as much as they pay currently for their private health insurance. And as a result of increase funding, Medicare would be able to increase their reimbursement rates. See? See? LOL.

____________________

Stillow:

OL - FM just checkmated you.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Why is it that red states tend to be poorer than blue states? I thought it was the conservative ideology was conducive to prosperity?

Fact of the matter is you red staters are ungratefully spending my money. Fact. But damn me for being a caring person.

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

I'm still waiting for that mythical CBO report. BWHAHAHAHAHA.

____________________

ChicagoKid:

DO not try and say your a caring person because your a lib. Those policies have entrapped minorities for years from never being able to break the cycle of poverty. You all need to stop making that argument, because it isn't true. The policies have had a huge negative affect on breaking poverty. Education, increased welfare, public housing, and other government sponsored programs just keep people in the same status throughout their lives. Its a joke, spending more money on awful entrapping programs do not solve anything.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Why would they pay more? So you are just saying that younger people are going to have to pay higher payroll taxes? Don't understand why that deserves a 'duh' since you never stated that they would have to pay more.

However, you could tax them twice as much and you would still have a $50 trillion unfunded liability. Makes no difference. Medicare is broken and needs to be eliminated for REAL health care reform to take place.

@X,

When i was getting my masters of public policy and masters of economics, all we would do is read white papers like these from heritage and CATO and brookings. Yes, some are right wing think tanks while others are left wing. Still doesn't mean they are wrong. They are just choosing to argue things that make their particular sides look good. The heritage link i posted early is particularly damning for your Medicare has lower overhead mantra. I have analyzed that data through and through and emailed the author a dozen times attempting to recreate the results for my health care policy class. Its rock solid, even according to my teacher who is the former democratic colorado governor.

____________________

obamalover:

@ChicagoKid

"Education... just keep people in the same status throughout their lives."

Such is the conservative mindset. I guess that explains their hate for science. LOL!

____________________

Xenobion:

I would say its pretty inconclusive on whether or not red states are "poorer" than blue states. They intermingle pretty well.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31765934

____________________

CharlieS:

Field-
Why do you bother arguing with Obamalover? He is obviously an ignorant liberal moron that has no business with a US citizenship, let alone the right to vote. Look at his last post and you will see exactly what i mean. Pure ignorance.

____________________

obamalover:

@X

Not sure a CNBC is the best source for that sort of thing. Anyway, wealth is normally judged by per capita income. And the blue states dominate the top half:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_of_America_by_income#States_ranked_by_per_capita_income

____________________

Field Marshal:

X,

Compare the list of net recipients of federal tax dollars, the one's with low ratios to this list of GDP per capita by state and you will see where i'm coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

____________________

Xenobion:

I don't dispute that Medicare is failing FM. It is. I do realize that using the Medicare change in the debate isn't really saving any new money. Its just creating a politically less contenious bureaucracy in a pre-existing one. If your goal was universal care its probably a good idea. But most of the debate is in the "socalist government-takeover" propaganda going on. Not whether its fiscally sound or not. Which is probably isn't. I'm not going to try to dittohead Obama and the CBC report, but its a good move for taxpayers that want to be taxed for universal care. Simply put.

____________________

ChicagoKid:

Obama,
Walk into 95% of public schools in Chicago, and then come out and tell me that is an education. Teachers don't care, all the money given(which is enough) is wasted on useless equipment, and people could care less. Its not an education is a travesty. Obama has never seen something like that, his kids went a 20,000 dollar a year private school, he could care less. His wife as well as I were lucky enough to go to one of the 4 or 5 good public schools in Chicago, which were all test in schools or charters.

I love science.... Some of the religious nuts don't and that is awful. I just know that public education as set up in this country is a joke and just screws over poor people, usually minorities.

____________________

obamalover:

@ChicagoKid

The reason why public education is so much better in socialist countries like Sweden is because their funding is more centralized. In our country if you have the misfortune of being born into a poor district then your school will be underfunded, whereas if you live in a rich area your public education will be well funded. I had the good fortune of living in a good school district and received a great public education. This is why funding for education needs to be distributed equally amongst all school districts.

____________________

Xenobion:

Obamalover & Field Marshall I don't think percapita is a good measure when you factor in standard of living/cost of living. If this were the case then we'd use the Quality of Life tab on my chart.

I honestly want to say that its inconclusive. There are some really great conservative states that run tight budgets and attract business and then there are liberal huge amenity based states that attract tourism and industry specific dominance. Both systems seem to work and both have their faults. I seriously doubt both of your claims over this issue to make a political connection to a state as if its governance and economy was based so much on the people they put in power. It simply doesn't hold water.

____________________

ChicagoKid:

Obama,
That is not true, many public schools in major cities are funded as well as the suburbs. The reason they are better in Sweeden is because there is a far smaller population and there hasn't been a class/racial problems like there have been in this country and the people dont get seperated. Why not charter schools that work better? Vouchers that work better? We just keep pumping more money into education through mandates that don't work.

Its a both side issue, No Child Let Behind had the good idea of accountability for teachers but ruined it by national mandates and more funding. Education needs to be local, and parents need to able to choose where their children are educated. Not forced into schools that have no choice. Ever since the Department of Ed was formed test scores have continued to drop with more money being pumped into the system.

____________________

Field Marshal:

X,

No its not but its close enough for government work. I was simply explaining the claim that red states are net recipients of federal tax dollars when its really the poorer states that are the bigger recipients. This is why WV and NM are high on that list. While the biggest net donors are the wealthy states. As i said, this is because our tax code does not adjust for per capita income in the individual states. Someone earning $150k is middle class in manhattan while rich in Mississippi. Yet, they are both taxed at the same rate at the federal level.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR