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.
I've noticed how some have pointed out how red states tend to have higher poverty numbers than blue states. From what I've read it seems to be suggested that this is because blue states have better welfare or safety net programs. But it's also been pointed out that red states actually recieve the most welfare. If having more welfare or better saftey nets are supposed to be reducing poverty in blue states then why isn't it doing the same in red sates that according to many are actually the ones recieving the most welfare??
But according to this the red sates are benefiting the most from governemnt aid yet their poverty is still worse. Maybe this should make us question the effectivness of gov't aid for actually reducing poverty if red states on one hand are recieving the most aid from gov't and on the other hand still remain the poorest?
I find it incredible that the ABC Expert looks at the programs, instead of looking at the demographics. And I'm so sick and tired of this red state/blue state hogwash. Red versus Blue is supposed to analyze voting trends, but to understand those trends you have to look at counties. Looking at the states is too broad a focus, with too many variables. And when you start looking at counties, the difference between red and blue becomes readily apparent. It's rural versus urban.
And if you consider rural versus urban in terms of social programs, it should be obvious to any "expert" worth his salt, that social programs are more expensive to operate in rural areas, where people are more spread out, less likely to come to you, and just disseminating the information about such programs costs more. Plus, you don't have the sort of facilities to administer social programs in rural areas. There are many rural communities who don't have hospitals, smaller communities may not even have a full-time doctor. They certainly don't have social workers living in the community. Just like a school district that has to bus students in (and that can take hours), rural areas don't have the infrastructures that social programs in urban areas rely upon.
It depends on if it's a Southern red state or a great plains/rocky mountain red state. The south has high rates of food stamp usage, but they also have a large Black population, which use food stamps at a much greater rate than the average. Blacks overwhelmingly support Democrats, while the rest of the South typically votes Republican. A quick glance shows that these states always vote Republican but use so much federal assistance that it creates a false hypocrisy.
It depends on if it's a Southern red state or a great plains/rocky mountain red state. The south has high rates of food stamp usage, but they also have a large Black population, which use food stamps at a much greater rate than the average. Blacks overwhelmingly support Democrats, while the rest of the South typically votes Republican. A quick glance shows that these states always vote Republican but use so much federal assistance that it creates a false hypocrisy.
I find it incredible that the ABC Expert looks at the programs, instead of looking at the demographics. And I'm so sick and tired of this red state/blue state hogwash. Red versus Blue is supposed to analyze voting trends, but to understand those trends you have to look at counties. Looking at the states is too broad a focus, with too many variables. And when you start looking at counties, the difference between red and blue becomes readily apparent. It's rural versus urban.
And if you consider rural versus urban in terms of social programs, it should be obvious to any "expert" worth his salt, that social programs are more expensive to operate in rural areas, where people are more spread out, less likely to come to you, and just disseminating the information about such programs costs more. Plus, you don't have the sort of facilities to administer social programs in rural areas. There are many rural communities who don't have hospitals, smaller communities may not even have a full-time doctor. They certainly don't have social workers living in the community. Just like a school district that has to bus students in (and that can take hours), rural areas don't have the infrastructures that social programs in urban areas rely upon.
Also very true. There aren't really red states and blue states. The "blue states" are the ones where the urban population outnumbers the rural, and vice versa. It doesn't mean the entire state is red or blue.
I find it incredible that the ABC Expert looks at the programs, instead of looking at the demographics. And I'm so sick and tired of this red state/blue state hogwash. Red versus Blue is supposed to analyze voting trends, but to understand those trends you have to look at counties. Looking at the states is too broad a focus, with too many variables. And when you start looking at counties, the difference between red and blue becomes readily apparent. It's rural versus urban.
And if you consider rural versus urban in terms of social programs, it should be obvious to any "expert" worth his salt, that social programs are more expensive to operate in rural areas, where people are more spread out, less likely to come to you, and just disseminating the information about such programs costs more. Plus, you don't have the sort of facilities to administer social programs in rural areas. There are many rural communities who don't have hospitals, smaller communities may not even have a full-time doctor. They certainly don't have social workers living in the community. Just like a school district that has to bus students in (and that can take hours), rural areas don't have the infrastructures that social programs in urban areas rely upon.
I think you hit it on the head with rural vs. urban. It also explains less availability of well paying jobs, lower education rates and poorer funding for education. It was what I was trying to say, and didn't. Good post.
Yes. When we get the new Census data I'll make a map for you.
All right, then, I'll just stand by while you make a fool outta yourself.
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.
