Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is mostly due to the fact that so called blue states tend to have the largest American cities. Texas is a huge exception.
The reality is that most red states seem to enact tax policies that favor the rich and actually hurt their poor citizens. The reality is that most red states spend very little on education, very little on childhood development when compared to other states, and red states have terrible labor laws that result in lower pay and increased poverty and increased lack of insurance, poorer school performance for students etc.
The reality is that the federal government picks up the slack for many red states by carrying/subsidizing the way they treat their poorer citizens.
I really wish that American conservatism would be less of an influence in American politics. There is simply no way to have a rational discussion with people whose main political goals are hurting and denying their fellow Americans government services because they hate their fellow Americans and think they are lazy, want handouts, blah, blah, blah.
When you get right down to it much of American conservative governance is anti- a lot of Americans and it is difficult to produce wealth and a successful state when you actively try to hurt your own citizens by the policies you enact.
conservatives favor many policies that are designed to hurt certain citizens, and hurting and punishing those citizen that is the stated purpose.
End farm subsidies, cut down on military spending, and scrap medicaid and then you would start seeing some parity. The irony is that most red states rely on a fair amount of government assistance. Sending your tax dollars to Washington is sending more money to help Bubba in Arkansas who hates the gubmint and thinks Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. Let's stop this wealth transfer and have each state responsible for their own economic growth and the welfare of their own citizens.
According to the group, 290 people in New York City received farm subsidies in 2010 and raked in a total of $880,887, 734 .........One of those New York City "farmers" is Mark Rockefeller, son of Nelson Rockefeller and heir to one of the most celebrated fortunes in American history.
Rockefeller, who lives in Manhattan, has received nearly $330,000 in taxpayer money over the past 10 years for his "farm" on the Snake River in Idaho
The "study" that you are whining about uses some really sketchy methodology and is largely garbage.
It would also help if you were to understand the concept of "public good" like a military base, interstate highway system etc.
Intellectual laziness would require that a poster has the education and ability to analyze the facts correctly.
This entire thread is more of an homage to uneducated partisan hacks no better than the "Arkansas redneck that thinks Obama is some sort of mooooslim" that someone was just trying to portray others as.
wow, then were is mine? I live in a blue state yet I am providing the feed. So you think that because a state is blue that everyone in that state is blue? Are you that lame?
Oh knowing democrats, they are a hoot, they are dumb as rocks.
That is one opinion, but I think what I wrote about conservative governance hurting certain citizens with policy on purpose is the truth.
When in the state of North Carolina and other conservative states you have the legislature enacting voting laws that they believe will hurt lazy black people, lazy college students and ultimately the Democratic party, this the exact proof I mean of the conservative party intentionally enacting policy to hurt some group of citizens.
When AZ passed their papers please immigration law, which would have clearly made life much more difficult for regular AZ citizens based on their ethnic identity, that is proof of the conservative party enacting public policy to intentionally hurt a group of citizens.
When the south has 41% of the nation's poor citizens, that is conservative governance failing to serve the needs of its citizens.
American conservatism as a governing ideology is spiteful, vicious, and dumb.
conservatism leads Governors to oppose the expansion of Medicaid that would help thousands of citizens supposedly on ideological grounds, but then those same conservative Governors and the legislatures aren't getting rid of this horrible Medicaid that they are supposedly so ideologically opposed to existing.
If you are in Texas, or Louisiana or Georgia or Mississippi or Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina why aren't those conservatives eliminating Medicaid if they hate it so much?
Instead those conservatives argued in the supreme court that Medicaid is so vital to their state that for the federal government to threaten to take away Medicaid funding if a state doesn't expand Medicaid is an unfair burden.
Think about the irrationality of that. conservatives don't want to get rid of Medicaid because it would hurt their states, but don't want to expand it because it would hurt their states, both of those things can't be true.
Some future Governor will have to do the right thing, but until then their citizens suffer needlessly.
Instead what you get is hatred of President Obama trumps helping Americans.
That kind of incoherence can only stand under conservative governance.
Great job supporting your partisan garbage with solid sources. As usual.
P.S. Most states don't tax the poor at all and have graduating income tax rates. Where the poor are hurt is by regressive taxes such as sales tax. (this information is of course intended for other posters)
This book looks at the way we tax the poor in the United States, particularly in the American South, where poor families are often subject to income taxes, and where regressive sales taxes apply even to food for home consumption. Katherine S. Newman and Rourke L. O’Brien argue that these policies contribute in unrecognized ways to poverty-related problems like obesity, early mortality, the high school dropout rates, teen pregnancy, and crime. They show how, decades before California’s passage of Proposition 13, many southern states implemented legislation that makes it almost impossible to raise property or corporate taxes, a pattern now growing in the western states. Taxing the Poor demonstrates how sales taxes intended to replace the missing revenue—taxes that at first glance appear fair—actually punish the poor and exacerbate the very conditions that drove them into poverty in the first place.
wow, then were is mine? I live in a blue state yet I am providing the feed. So you think that because a state is blue that everyone in that state is blue? Are you that lame?
Oh knowing democrats, they are a hoot, they are dumb as rocks.
Defiantly not here's what we see often in my red state.......
Red states feed at trough, blue states provide the feed
When there was the partial shutdown of the government, and also when the sequestration began ... I thought the President should have shut down all federal programs in the states and or districts where the anarchists were elected from and represent ... and let those crackers wallow in their own *hit for a while until they came back crawling to the federal government begging for restsoration of the huge amounts of funding which heads their way.
You know, speak for yourself. I live in New York which, according to wikipedia...
Not only that, but New York is a major wine producer. In my personal opinion, New York's white wines are far superior to California's.
The fact is, if anyone should complain about socialism, it should be the blue states. Our tax dollars are being spent in North Dakota and Alaska, which means our state taxes go up and people leave for red states (which our tax dollars built to begin with.) It's like a bad cycle.
This is a meme that won't die.
The fact is, North Dakota and Alaska are BIG, and it costs more money to build highways and provide services to BIGGER areas. New York's population tends to be concentrated in smaller areas, so it's cheaper to provide services. Blue states tend to be more urbanized, ie populations are concentrated in smaller areas. Red states tend to be more rural, ie populations that are spread out. And blue states WANT highways that run to red states, want telephone service throughout the nation, want internet service throughout the nation, want airports throughout the nation, want military bases in those red states, want an electric grid that covers the nation. Because blue states want goods. Ask any trucking company why rates going into the Northeast are high, and rates getting out are low. It's because blue states consume more than they produce. And the goods have to travel through red states, via the highway or via rail or via air, to get to the blue states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now who relies on big government and benefits from the nanny state?
As usual. 
