So I crunched some numbers: Blue States....Red StatesSAT.......................1559.037.......1625.583 ACT.......................22.14.............20.65 Graduation Rate ..81.78.............80.33 College Enrollment 367,556......195,914 All of these are averages. I attached my numbers and sources. This is not a sophisticated analysis. You can't make any meaningful insights from these numbers. EDIT: how the hell are you suppose to do a table here?!?!?!?
This isn't a question on who is smarter. This is a question on the amount of money that is allocated in the states. If your party publicly states, WE ARE FOR EDUCATION, that would mean they would go ALL IN and be the top budgeted schools. But the majority are the lowest.
Do you have any evidence this is true? (Other than your hilarious non-evidence in Post #1 that begat this highly intelligent thread.)
Yes it's in the other thread. Denny and I posted links and graphs. Oregon and California are the lower funded states. Check for yourself, which are linked to the actual budget from the state
that could be possible. Still doesn't take away that the democrats aren't spending as much as the GOP
Big cities are usually Democratic. Big cities spend more on police than rural areas. Therefore, Democrats spend more on police than Republicans. What hypocrites the Republicans are, being pro-police but spending less than Democrats on police.
Christians are louder per person on the national scene than Jews. Jews are rich, so they spend more per capita on their synagogues. What loud hypocrites the Christians are, inside their cheap churches. Check the graphs and maps and pictures of churches in my other thread. I'm not giving a link because Google is your friend.
That would be a good argument if we are talking totals. This is an observation of percentage. And since the percentages of the republican states still allocate close to the same percentage for police, your argument isn't valid.
Actually that would be extremely hypocritical of a Christian church to spend a ton of money on their church, since Christ would teach humility.
For you jlpk.... http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/microchip-anyone.282319/page-3 This is the conversation of the spending per state. The majority of the lower budgeted states are democrat states. There are a few GOP states that spend less on education, but nothing compared to states that lean heavily on the blue
Im not sure this is accurate. I haven't found anything that supports that red states spend more per child. I did find this list and it seems to be a pretty good mix with mostly blue states at the top. http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2663...most-least-per-pupil-on-public-education.html with the top 10 states being 1. New York 2. DC 3. Alaska 4. New Jersey 5. Connecticut 6. Vermont 7. Wyoming 8. Massachusetts 9. Rhode Island 10. Delaware 31. Oregon 36. California
Thank you for the link! It's very informative and it paints a pretty good picture. They break down the federal, state and private revenue; which you can use in conjunction with the state's annual revenue. And crunching the numbers further, the top Democrat states receive more private and federal funding than the state's budget funding. For example.... http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-tax-revenue-data.html California's annual tax revenue for 2012 was 112 billion. Although the site you linked shows 2014's revenue, I will try and guess that they are somewhat similar. I will try to find a current revenue site later. Your link shows they give $36,413,273 towards schools K-12. That would mean they allocate 0.325% of their total revenue to the school systems. Now I grabbed a State that was very close to California in "per student fund". Georgia, which is a GOP heavy state. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-tax-revenue-data.html $16,576,903,000 revenue, $7,455,147 state allocated revenue to each student. That's .42% of total state revenue allocated to each student. Now I grabbed a top Democrat state and their fund per student and the top GOP state per student. NY vs. Alaska Alaska's state revenue is 7 billion, New York's revenue is 71.5 billion. Alaska gives 1.7 million of their state money to the students, New York gives 23 million of their revenue to the students. New York gives 0.03% of their state revenue to the students, Alaska gives 0.024% of their state revenue to education. So I do agree with your statement that it's very misleading. The top GOP giving states, actually give less of their revenue to students, while the lower GOP funded states give more, While the top DEM states equal the amount of their revenue % as the lower ones.
Welll...first time I've looked at the thread...I only looked at 3-4 posts before I saw it was BS...I click on the link in the post below, scroll down to the graph, set it to Question #5, roll my cursor over each state's bar, and see that Democratic states spend more on education per student than Republican states. http://www.sportstwo.com/posts/3594389/ go to link in that post http://edsource.org/data/states-in-motion#.VSWEPtotHX4 Denny cites a link, and it disproves Denny. That happens a lot, but people here don't check his links, so he gets away with calling ME crazy. So what were you saying again? (now that I demolished your point)
We aren't talking about Denny's posts. I have a post citing the budget of the State. DUDE!!!!! I know you want to jump on Denny, but I am responding to you and I used actual budgets.
I jump on Denny because he's the big fish here, citing many inscrutable links. His arguments add up to more than the rest of you Republicans combined. You premised this thread on your silly opening post's graph, which I called out as meaningless. So you said, this thread is about that thread, go to that thread. So I did, immediately found a piece of evidence (cited by Denny to prove one thing, but actually proving the opposite) which disproves the premise of this thread. So even if that piece of evidence is from a Denny post in the thread to which you referred me, it still disproves your premise upon which this whole thread is founded, which is what the current exchange between you and me is about. In other words, it doesn't matter whether my evidence was posted by you or Denny.
No, that thread was hijacked, and if you read the title and start of that thread, you would be already aware of that. And since I figured the topic was something very interesting, I decided to give it its own thread. As for this thread... The evidence I just posted, the last link supports my argument as well. The first picture shows which party is the decision maker for that state. So how about you come back and actually provide an argument other than "meaningless" as the argument? I know you are better than that
I have read articles on this phenomenon since the 1970s, explaining that rural states have only their elite (A) students take the SAT/ACT, while bigger, more socialized, states have a higher percentage (A and B students) take them. So the hick states get higher average scores. Your ranking is pretty close to what I saw when I rolled my cursor over the graph in Denny's link, as I explained a few posts above.
Let's see: Wrong Crazy and Babbling All in the same post. The usual. Anyhow, I don't buy mags' thesis here. % of budget isn't all that meaningful. $$$/student is where it's at. The lotto proceeds are supposed to go for education. I don't know if that shows up in the budget. What is obvious is that it's something of a symbolic gesture vs. teaching kids to read and write and fabricate assumptions for their "scientific " models.
Go to http://edsource.org/data/states-in-motion#.VSWEPtotHX4 Scroll to under the graph. Change it to Question #5. Roll your cursor over the bars in the graph. You now see the Southern states spending the least per student on education, and Democratic states clustered in the top half. 3rd time I've explained your own link to you. While you babble that I babbled.
