For conservatives, it must sound like “better red than dead” all over again. A new study in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health suggests that liberals live longer than conservatives in the United States. The researchers looked at more than 32,000 adults and tracked them over 15 years. The result was surprising: conservatives seemed to be expiring faster than their counterparts on the left. However, conservatives claimed to be happier than their counterparts in life.
It has been reported that Hillary Clinton has been working on a new campaign theme. Perhaps they should consider a “Vote Hillary Or Die” campaign.
Roman Pabayo, a community health researcher at the University of Nevada said that the group relied on more concrete data like actual death records than did prior studies. They also eliminated other factors by comparing conservatives and liberals of similar age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Notably, when divided simply between parties, Democratic and Republican party members died at the same rate, but when compared on ideological grounds, conservatives bit the dust first on average.
Subu V. Subramanian, a professor of population health and geography at Harvard was critical of the findings. His study relied on self-reporting and found that Republicans reported better health and they were 15% less likely to smoke. He also found that Republicans and conservatives were benefitted by being more religious and “more tied into social networks and organizations.”
It may still be too early for some conservatives to embrace wage equity and global warming. The difference in death rates is described by Subramanian as “slight” in the new study.
Source: USA Today
It’s amusing to see commenters who have just repeatedly insulted other commenters then try to engage them in discussion. Why should Elaine give you a minute more of her time Chip?
Inga – I am wondering why anyone should engage with you after you have spent the best part of the morning and evening insulting every commenter who is not part of your especial group from Flowers for Socrates?
I don’t expect them to, as a matter of fact Paul, I’m happy when they don’t.
Thank you Chip S. for making my arguments in a much shorter and clearer manner.
🙂
OK, Elaine. The essential point is that any “red state” v. “blue state” argument commits the ecological fallacy. The second point is that not all “govt spending” affects people in the same way.
As one example, consider Mississippi: a “red state” w/ a lot of poor people who don’t tend to vote Republican. Those citizens have been granted by law certain entitlements to spending, and they get them independently of where they live. And they also pay very little in income taxes. What’s your complaint about any of that?
As another example, consider the Sun Belt in general. It attracts a disproportionate share of SS recipients, many of whom paid their SS taxes when they lived in the north. What is this supposed to be evidence of, regarding “handouts” to “red states”? (Short answer: It means nothing.)
Finally, there’s the geographic location of military bases. That spending is largely a payment to troops, who earn it. It’s not a handout.
What’s left seems largely to be the Robert Byrd Effect in WV. Of course, Byrd was a Dem (and a Klansman), not a Repub.
It is pretty much a given that some states contribute more than others and typically those that don’t contribute as much as others are more likely to receive more than they contribute.
This is true in some senses. The high income earners who contribute more in Federal income taxes do cluster in certain areas. California’s silicon valley for example. The incidents of Federal dollars going back into those areas on a PER CAPTA basis will be low due to several factors…….some of which being a lower per population incidence of welfare, seniors who cannot afford to live there or who have retired elsewhere, smaller per capita minor school age population (smaller families and can’t afford to live there.) There are many many factors that go into the statistical mix.
The problem with those who spout the mantra……red states take more than they give in Federal dollars ……is that they fail to define their terms and misunderstand what Federal Dollars actually are.
If your county or State has a high proportion of retirees, collecting the Social Security that they have paid into and using Medicare benefits, then those figures will skew to a higher per capita figure.
Many of the “Federal Dollars” that are used in the State, or county, are not controlled by the State nor asked for by the State. You often HAVE to take what the Federal Government insists you must take. This was a big issue in Obamacare and the expansion of Medicaid. Some States said….no thanks….we don’t WANT that extra expansion and the Supreme Court sided with them. http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-that-states-have-choice-whether-to-join-medicaid-expansion/ The Department of Education is one example where you are mandated to participate or be punished for opting out. Michelle Obama’s lunches.
The areas where the Government controls the lands, Parks, Federal Highways, Forests, Military bases,……those receive Federal Dollars that are not asked for and in many cases do not benefit the population as a whole in the State.
So…..while some aspects of the argument…..red states get more than blue states…..are true, the underlying causes and statistics are generally ignored by the liberal parrots who only want to make a conclusion that fits their preconceived biases.
Analysis of the data shows something entirely different that what some people think it is showing.
Let’s look at the comments that I was responding to:
Gerald Dolan
Liberals outlive Conservatives because Conservatives work themselves to death trying to support themselves, their families and all the freeloaders in the country.
*
Chip S.
I respect Elaine for her candid admission that she rejects serious analysis in writing her comments.
*
Nick Spinelli
Chip, That is her specialty, along w/ many liberal links. Predictable as the sunset, Chip.
*
Nick Spinelli
You can always tell when she’s not getting many comments on vapid posts elsewhere. Comes over here cranky.
*
Nick Spinelli
Chip, The only person on the left w/ any substance currently on this thread is Isaac. But, he can go off the rails @ any moment. As long as he doesn’t start ranting about Bush, he is usually reasonable. Otherwise, I would humbly suggest you avoid engaging. And, you see we have a parrot this morning as well. LOL!
*
Nick Spinelli
LOL! Criticizing opinions is what a blog is supposed to be. The echo chamber is in your other blog. This is amazing. We have many liberals here, not just the old nasty ones who ran this blog previously and come back once in awhile like alumni, trying to relive the past.
*
Nick Spinelli
You guys have Bron, and you beat him like a rented mule. It’s pathological.
Isaac, You are stereotyping and vilifying the Tea Party. That is a left mantra. I do not belong, because I do not join any groups. But, from what I read and see, the Tea Party is much more fiscal than it is cultural. They want to shrink the govt. Now, that may not be your cup o’ tea, as it were. But, it is a legitimate political stance. Not yours obviously, but legit.
I like when you bring in Canadian culture. I got just a taste of the conservative nature of folks from Calgary when I visited that beautiful province. But, it was a guy from Calgary who moved to my hometown that gave me a real taste. I would often buy used conversion vans for surveillance and this guy was a salesman of used vans. I bought a couple from him. He was fairly careful w/ his politics, smart for a salesman. Particularly in the Wi. county where I live. But, this guy joined my wives fairly middle of the road church. He would rant about the bible, fire and brimstone stuff. He really let his conservative freak flag fly. I was told he railed the reason he left Canada was he was tired of supporting the other provinces. Consistent w/ your analysis. My take on Canadian provinces is, in many ways, Habitants are pariahs. I would be interested in your take.
I am also curious if you will continue to make that statement, that Romney is wrong, in defiance of the facts you’ve ignored here. And how does the refusal to address the facts undermine your argument? Will you just continue to repeat it on various venues, knowing full well that it is incorrect?
Elaine – still not comment on DBQ’s explanation on federal spending, I notice . . .
Is your response that it’s not a good argument, and you won’t say why? Because you don’t like the conclusion?
It is pretty much a given that some states contribute more than others and typically those that don’t contribute as much as others are more likely to receive more than they contribute. This is not unique to the US. In Canada Alberta, BC complain that they support the Maritime Provinces. Ontario and the Western Provinces complain about how Quebec gets all sorts of breaks. This is necessary to keep the country together.
However, having established that, there seems to be a preponderance of Davy Crockett types in red states. The Davy Crockett syndrome is typically found where people feel the least significant due to earning power, education, or general awareness. Identifying with ancient heroes of bygone days, often seen on Saturday morning TV shows, helps offset the feelings of helplessness and insignificance. If you listen carefully to the political mumbo jumbo of the Tea Party types and other extreme right wingers you will understand to whom this call of the wild is directed. ‘Take America Back’ probably says it more clearly than anything.
It’s not that easy to go forward and develop in the world of the future when you are constantly referred to the past and have few resources, experientially, academically, or financially. This may help explain the preponderance of receivers among the red states.
Troglodyte man angry with Homo sapien woman, she bring the fire, he very scared, it hot, it burns! He grunts with emphasis “Ugh ugh, ooola, booga!”
One is to note that the above survey targeted food stamps. When one discusses “federal entitlement programs” that includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, unemployment, and food stamps. That introduces the elderly, who get SS and Medicare no matter what, and those on unemployment briefly, as well as longer term. That’s a whole other set of variables.
When one quotes studies that claim that 52% of Republicans have received federal benefits, like in the survey below, that includes those that have qualified for the SS and Medicare that their lifetime of taxes contributed to, based on their age alone.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/
Chip S.,
No one is stopping you from making your argument. Go to it!
“Elaine, yes it will never change, because the blog has been thoroughly infected now.”
Please note that, again, there is no comment on the analysis that DBQ presented. Elaine remarked that Republican States receive the most federal dollars, thus dispelling the “Moocher” argument. DBQ explained that those federal spending dollars include military, etc, and that it is dependent on a state’s size. Rural states with small populations will show higher per capita spending.
And the answer is . . . silence, peppered with a couple of personal comments.
I wouldn’t use the word “Moocher”, but it is statistically proven that those who receive Welfare vote Democrat. Obviously, wouldn’t they vote for the party that promises more “free stuff” without explaining how it gets paid for? The party that always taxes the rich? The word “moocher” is derogatory, but the facts are the facts. People on Welfare tend to vote Democrat. Like it. Don’t like it. There it is.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/
Elaine said…They have no good arguments to make… after I said…If you wish, I’ll explain Slate’s fallacy to you.
Self-awareness is a good thing, Elaine. You ought to cultivate some.
Fear of blacks and reparations…
Dude, where’d you get this?
I don’t fear reparations–I deserve them, being doomed to a shorter life and all that just b/c of my political views which are the result of my incomplete evolutionary status.
You seem quite dense.
Elaine, yes it will never change, because the blog has been thoroughly infected now.
Elaine – I’m curious. How is DBQ defining the range that federal spending can encompass, clarifying that it is not limited to welfare spending, not a good argument?
This is a phenomena I have encountered numerous times myself. If one rebuts a Liberal study with facts and a cogent analysis, the response on the Left is to ignore the facts and make personal comments.
Do you know why this happens?
DBQ – that’s weird. Why wouldn’t they use a panel design?
Karen – it should be a panel study but that is expensive and people die. 🙂 They could be liberals.
Troglodytes get hilariously grumpy when the Homo sapiens invade the cave.
Inga – you are full of ad hominems today. Hot flashes?
Inga,
They have no good arguments to make–so they criticize and ridicule the individuals with different opinions who provide information to back up their positions. I see some things have not changed. A certain someone still uses the same modus operandi. It does get boring after a time.