U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-18-2011, 12:11 PM
 
4,982 posts, read 4,774,513 times
Reputation: 1652

Advertisements

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??


Quote:
But Jost said the underlying causes of many of these factors could also be traced to differences in prevailing political ideologies between Republican and Democrat states.

"More liberal states probably have better food stamp, public assistance, housing and education programs," Jost said, adding that these factors tend to improve children's health.

And Petit believes the discrepancies between red and blue states are too significant to ignore.

"When Ö all 10 of the bottom states are red, all 20 of the bottom states are red, and 24 of the 25 bottom states are red, there's clearly some convergence going on there," he said.

Health of Children in Red States Suffers - ABC News


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?

Ezra Klein - The red state ripoff
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2011, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
24,822 posts, read 28,734,621 times
Reputation: 11737
Just off the top of my head... but maybe it's because welfare still keeps you at poverty level, depending on the state? I know here in CA the welfare benefits are measly, when compared to our per capita incomes & so forth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,993 posts, read 13,177,560 times
Reputation: 11009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
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??
That is a wrong assumption. Safety nets are created not to eliminate poverty but to provide what they offer... safety nets. For example, medicaid is a safety net. How can one, logically, assume it to help towards eliminating poverty? Medicare is a safety net. It won't address poverty issues.

Red states tend to be poorer because of economic policies. They tend to implement regressive policies, which do more to increase income divide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 12:32 PM
 
4,982 posts, read 4,774,513 times
Reputation: 1652
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
That is a wrong assumption. Safety nets are created not to eliminate poverty but to provide what they offer... safety nets. For example, medicaid is a safety net. How can one, logically, assume it to help towards eliminating poverty? Medicare is a safety net. It won't address poverty issues.
Ok but don't they both reduce poverty by reducing the amount of money their users have to spend on medical expenses which frees them up to spend towards other things?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,993 posts, read 13,177,560 times
Reputation: 11009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
Ok but don't they both reduce poverty by reducing the amount of money their users have to spend on medical expenses which frees them up to spend towards other things?
No, they don't reduce poverty, much less help eliminate it. If someone qualifies for Medicaid, they are already below poverty level and they can't do worse than that without it (except resort to crime and promote a more chaotic society out of desperation).

Medicare, however, does prevent more people from falling into poverty, by covering those who would definitely be going bankrupt from having to pay massive medical bills. But that would be quite different from reducing poverty and Medicare can't do that. It isn't designed to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 12:41 PM
 
1,680 posts, read 531,326 times
Reputation: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
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?

Ezra Klein - The red state ripoff
Those maps and figures have made the rounds for a couple of years now, but are quite misleading. They don't address federal welfare, they illustrate federal spending per state. Federal welfare is a tiny part of that, which includes funding for national parks, Interstate highways, military bases, etc.

For example, say that maintaining federal highways in Wyoming and New Jersey both cost $100 million/yr. Wyoming contributes far less taxes to the government than NJ, but the highway costs the same.

Add the fact that most of the wealth and the highest wages in this country are concentrated in blue states, naturally they are going to pitch in a higher share than those in sparsely populated rural states. Rich celebrities, wall street millionaires and CEOs don't live in rural red states, they live in urban blue states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 12:47 PM
 
4,982 posts, read 4,774,513 times
Reputation: 1652
EinstiensGhost,


But haven't both medicaid and medicare been portrayed as anti-poverty programs?

This talks about medicaid increasing.


Record number in government anti-poverty programs - USATODAY.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 01:06 PM
 
4,982 posts, read 4,774,513 times
Reputation: 1652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu View Post
Those maps and figures have made the rounds for a couple of years now, but are quite misleading. They don't address federal welfare, they illustrate federal spending per state. Federal welfare is a tiny part of that, which includes funding for national parks, Interstate highways, military bases, etc.
According to people like this even when you talk about welfare such as food stamps that is even higher in red states.


David Macaray: The War Over Food Stamps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,993 posts, read 13,177,560 times
Reputation: 11009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
EinstiensGhost,


But haven't both medicaid and medicare been portrayed as anti-poverty programs?

This talks about medicaid increasing.


Record number in government anti-poverty programs - USATODAY.com
Perhaps the term "anti-poverty" is being used differently, and not to imply as one that helps eliminate poverty. Perhaps it means, there, an instrument to fight against poverty, by allowing access to something the people would not be able to otherwise.

Personally, I would not call it anti-poverty measure but someone else may choose to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 01:13 PM
 
10,115 posts, read 3,370,885 times
Reputation: 3392
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
That is a wrong assumption. Safety nets are created not to eliminate poverty but to provide what they offer... safety nets. For example, medicaid is a safety net. How can one, logically, assume it to help towards eliminating poverty? Medicare is a safety net. It won't address poverty issues.

Red states tend to be poorer because of economic policies. They tend to implement regressive policies, which do more to increase income divide.
Also--poorer public education and less college grads, plus less well paying jobs. People who are living in poverty have a harder time getting out of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:03 PM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top