Will this end the "red state welfare" argument? (solution, myth)

[southbel]

Originally Posted by bobtn

In general, they are, yet in Tn, the corps that relocated while we had Democratic Governor Bredesen (ex HCA exec, who was pro business, and not ideologically in sync with typical Dems) were, by and large, higher quality corps offering higher salaries than what we have seen arrive under GOP governor Haslam.

So, in general, the South economic improvement has happened with GOP govs, but in Tn, IMO we fared better under Haslam. During his 16 years as Nashville mayor/Tn gov, 31 F500 hqs or regional hqs arrived, and the net result was over 200,000 new jobs simply via relo efforts. In the post Bredesen era, our biggest coup was the 1,000 employee UBS office, and Aramark's accounting US "hq" relocation. But much of the rest has been similar to Amazon DC McJobs.

To be honest, I'm just happy to see the South move away from the textile and lumber mills that was just one step up from sharecropping. If a Democrat has done better with attracting business to our fine region, kudos to him/her. Thus far, in my state, we've seen better results from the Republicans at this effort. Of course, the Democrats are hugely unorganized and dismal in my state as well (remember Al Green for Congress??) At the end of the day, it just makes me happy to see the South prosper. I do get a bit defensive and tired of the meme that the South is some terrible place where we're all uneducated, poor, and backwards. I find that to be the furthest from the truth.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by southbel

To be honest, I'm just happy to see the South move away from the textile and lumber mills that was just one step up from sharecropping. If a Democrat has done better with attracting business to our fine region, kudos to him/her. Thus far, in my state, we've seen better results from the Republicans at this effort. Of course, the Democrats are hugely unorganized and dismal in my state as well (remember Al Green for Congress??) At the end of the day, it just makes me happy to see the South prosper. I do get a bit defensive and tired of the meme that the South is some terrible place where we're all uneducated, poor, and backwards. I find that to be the furthest from the truth.

I agree, and so far, I've been disappointed with our performance under Haslam. We should be doing as well as 5 years ago. Under Bredesen, Nashville was named by Relocation America the #1 city 3 times in about 12 years, and came in 2nd twice.

[Rapaport]

Originally Posted by southbel

Yet the person I responded to said it was "Republicans" who are to blame for the South's poverty issues. I was pointing out that Republicans as leaders in government in the South are a fairly new thing.

Not republicans, conservatives. First democrats and then republicans.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Vejadu

For several years a meme has been circulating among Liberals pointing out that blue states contribute more to the Federal government than red states do, with most red states taking in more Federal money than they give back. This of course is misleading, since most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in highly populated cities in blue states. It's also misleading because it's not an examination of what individuals take out of the system, but what the Government spends within various states across the board.

I don't think it will end the claims by liberals since unfortunately many red states do wind up taking out more than they put in, dollar for dollar. At least that is my understanding.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Of course, this doesn't negate the fact that blue states contribute more to the Federal government than red states do. It just says that per capita, blue states use the more services, per capita -- but they also pay more, per capita, than red states into the federal government to get those services. The net is still that red states get more services, for what they pay in, than blue states do.

Source?

[caribny]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Stop trying to change the subject.



So, precisely how, then, do you categorize the STATE as being a consumer of benefits?

Social Security is not optional, Defense is not chosen by state, and debt service is wholly irrelevant. So, why are you lumping THESE into "federal spending" and using it as a yardstick about federal dependency?



Show me the budget for farm support programs. First, in whole dollars, and then, as a percentage of federal revenue. If farm support is is the major mechanism by which the states benefit, then indeed, it is a microscopic part of federal spending, and your point is blatantly dishonest.



So, I guess that means they're not greedy.

How am I changing the topic. This is about an assertion that red states do not benefit more from federal expenditures than do blue. In fact blue states contribute more to the feds than they benefit and the reverse is true for reds. Now we can pick a state or two which doesn't fit the profile but as a whole this is what is the case.

Blue states tend to be in the north east with older populations on average, so should benefit more from programs aimed at senior citizens. DESPITE this they still send more revenues to the Feds than they receive back.

Please don't tell me that defense isn't chosen by the states when the location of military bases is something that is much fought over, especially by the GOP.


So if the federal gov't is starved of revenues blue states will keep more income for themselves and red states will receive less support.

It is ironical that it is the GOP which advocates starving the beast. Except of course when it comes to defense and farm support programs!

It is indeed a fact that if red states have a higher than average level of poverty then they will receive a disproportionate % of federal expenditures aimed to help the poor.

In addition it is obvious that the right wing ideology of how to deal with poverty isn't working when it is clear that the states controlled by the GOP have MORE poverty, LOWER levels of educational attainment, and MORE people who lack access to healthcare. You will concede that your average Mississippi resident is much poorer than your average resident of Massachusetts, despite the fact that the former is a very red state and the latter is extremely blue.

[Newbe10]

Originally Posted by Vejadu

For several years a meme has been circulating among Liberals pointing out that blue states contribute more to the Federal government than red states do, with most red states taking in more Federal money than they give back. This of course is misleading, since most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in highly populated cities in blue states. It's also misleading because it's not an examination of what individuals take out of the system, but what the Government spends within various states across the board.

This article from USA Today compiled data showing which states had the highest per capita expenditures for every type of government-provided benefit and blue states top the list and red states made up most of the bottom 10.
New Yorkers lead pack in government benefits - USATODAY.com

Top 10 - Most dependent on government aid
1 New York
2 West Virginia
3 Rhode Island
4 Maine
5 Pennsylvania
6 Massachusetts
7 Vermont
8 Kentucky
9 Michigan
10 Connecticut

Bottom 10 - Least dependent on government aid
41 South Dakota
42 Nebraska
43 Wyoming
44 Idaho
45 Georgia
46 Texas
47 Nevada
48 Virginia
49 Colorado
50 Utah

For the most part, the difference between the states in the middle (11-40) isn't a huge margin, but it does illustrate that on a per-capita basis, people who live in blue states are just as likely to depend on the government than those in red states.

Uh, NO. It just further proves that the red states take more in government assistance than the blue states. It also proves how some of those who can be classified as "red-necks" ask for gov't. assistance, no matter who is president.

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by Newbe10

Uh, NO. It just further proves that the red states take more in government assistance than the blue states. It also proves how some of those who can be classified as "red-necks" ask for gov't. assistance, no matter who is president.

Even though blacks are just 17% of the populous, they account for half of the welfare load... so even if the red states were to take more, it's more likely from the Democrats within the state. Simple fix, reset welfare to be what it was originally. It is nonsensical to make welfare easier, and then complain which people (states) take advantage of it.

Originally Posted by caribny

In addition it is obvious that the right wing ideology of how to deal with poverty isn't working when it is clear that the states controlled by the GOP have MORE poverty, LOWER levels of educational attainment, and MORE people who lack access to healthcare. You will concede that your average Mississippi resident is much poorer than your average resident of Massachusetts, despite the fact that the former is a very red state and the latter is extremely blue.

The south has always been poor. Consider the Southern Democrats preferred the populous to be subservient up until the mid 70s.

I posted a link showing that Cali, NV and NY are in the top 5 worst state economies. Most of the southern states have jumped to the middle with NC and KY in the top 5 now.

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by Vejadu

For several years a meme has been circulating among Liberals pointing out that blue states contribute more to the Federal government than red states do, with most red states taking in more Federal money than they give back.

Yes, because liberals are liars.

They also like to point to the wage gap in the report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that found men making more money than women, ignoring that the same report they draw that stat from concluded that the disparity wasn't due to gender.

Urban areas tend to be Democrat. Rural areas tend to be conservative. Businesses locate where they have customers and employees. Those areas are going to be urban areas. It hasn't got a thing to do with liberal vs conservatives policies. It has to do with the blindly obvious fact that if you open a new business in the middle of nowhere it is going to be far harder to be profitable than if you open that business in an already urban and industrialized location. So what the liberals are doing is comparing a heavily built up concentration of commerce and industry on the Eastern seaboard to some sleepy little town in Mississippi and then chortling with glee over how that proves their philosophy is so superior. Just like the gender wage gap, it's lies and misrepresentation.

And then where it goes beyond just misrepresentation and into the area of brain burning stupidity is they will then turn around and bash conservatives for being the party of the rich and big business. Right after boasting that their blue states are the wealthy states with big business that produce so much more than they need. It's dumb as a box of rocks level cognitive dissonance.

[arjay57]

The best way for red states to cure this image problem is to get off the government dole. Don't complain about it, just fix it.

That would also be an easy way to shrink the size of government.