States Hit Hardest by Recession Get Least Stimulus Money: POX News

[Cirque du So-What]

States Hit Hardest by Recession Get Least Stimulus Money
FOXNews.com analyzed data tracking how the stimulus money is being given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and it has found a perverse pattern: the states hardest hit by the recession received the least money.
By John Lott

FOXNews.com

Sunday, July 19, 2009

The stimulus bill "includes help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis," President Obama promised when he signed the bill into law on Feb. 17. "As a whole, this plan will help poor and working Americans."

But FOXNews.com has analyzed data tracking how the stimulus money is being given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and it has found a perverse pattern: the states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure and unemployment rates got less money. And higher income states received more.

The transfers to the states having the least problems are large. Even after accounting for other factors, each $1,000 in a state's per capita income means that the state got $21 more per capita in stimulus funds. With a spread of almost $38,000 in per-person income between the top and bottom states, this has a sizable impact. High-income states get considerably more stimulus money.

States with higher bankruptcy rates got a lot less, not more, money -- roughly $86 less per person for each percentage point increase in the state's bankruptcy rate. States with higher foreclosure rates were treated very similarly, losing $82 per person for each one percentage point more of the people suffering foreclosures.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/19/analysis-states-hit-hardest-recession-stimulus-money/

You can count on this ludicrous assertion being trumpeted across the wingnutosphere tomorrow, so it would be a good thing to get out front with a thorough debunking beforehand.

[givemebackmycountry]

1. Is South Carolina one of those states?

But FOXNews.com has analyzed data tracking how the stimulus money is being given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and it has found a perverse pattern: the states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure and unemployment rates got less money. And higher income states received more.

What is amazing is that FOXNews.com is capable of analyzing "data" or anything else for that matter.

"A Perverse Pattern" was found.

I just spit coffee out of my nose.

[Jake Stillow]

2. I would believe this analysis if it wasn't written by a Republican cable channel n/t

[GoesTo11]

3. Any statisticians here?

Look at the graph in the article. What's that one state that got twice as much per capita as any other state? Would that one state make a big difference in the findings? How strong is the correlation and how does it compare to other programs? Is there any other possible explanation than Obama trying to hurt those who are already hurting?

[Frustratedlady]

4. Maybe that's because those states can handle the money better?

I wouldn't believe much of anything coming out of FOX, but if it were true, why give good money after bad? Those states that might have been slighted may have been in trouble because of real estate flipping, bank corruption, politicians who looked the other way.

You be bad, you not get dessert. Understand?

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. To the victor go the spoils

Frankly, this doesn't surprise me. The states of the chairs of the various committees will benefit disproportionately.

Do I think it's right? No, but that's our system.

[madrchsod]

8. look at the wall street journal map and you`ll notice....

that the distribution is pretty even for the needs and population of the states.

[Bandit]

6. I believe Fox News completely....

They would NEVER mislead...:crazy:

[madrchsod]

7. fox news for rubes...

take two sets of figures and anyone can prove their point. the question is just what is their point.

[Cirque du So-What]

9. Found a less biased article on this subject at the WSJ

I realize it's another Murdoch publication, but it caters to a more-educated audience than the nimrods who turn first to POX News.

My response to a wingnut on my local Gannett fishwrap's website:

Just HAD to find the most biased source you could find, didn't you? I looked into this and found that the WSJ - also published by Rupert Murdoch - ran a similar story earlier this month, but it wasn't fizzing with rabies like the screed you chose to quote as gospel. BTW, where are the sources in your FAUX News hit piece? Running fast & loose with the facts sends your credibility swirling around the bowl.

I found this quote very interesting in that it undercuts the FAUX News codswollop you so willingly lap up:

"The allocations appear to undercut charges from some critics of the stimulus plan that it was crafted to help Democrats politically in elections next fall. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who pushed the plan through, is from Nevada and faces a tough re-election bid there."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640397606976419.html

Boo YAH!!!