Poorest States: Seeing Red and Poor All Over. (Pelosi, statistics, Reid)
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.
As some have said, the difference isn't quite as large when you consider the cost of living etc. As for the rest of it, some of you need to read some history books if you think it has anything to do with current political parties.
Maybe because they are smart enough to realize that ultimately those programs don't benefit them.
Having said that as I already pointed out using just median income is not a good comparison.
But they do, coalman, they do. Look at the Tennessee Valley Authority project and how that dragged central Appalachia into the 20th century and provided a huge economic benefit.
A good deal of these states are agricultural, and they get tonnes of subsidies.
In fact, most, if not all, of these states, take more from the federal government than they pay back.
But they do, coalman, they do. Look at the Tennessee Valley Authority project and how that dragged central Appalachia into the 20th century and provided a huge economic benefit.
A good deal of these states are agricultural, and they get tonnes of subsidies.
In fact, most, if not all, of these states, take more from the federal government than they pay back.
The vast majority of agricultural subsidies end up in the hands of the biggest ag companies and the biggest farms. Average farmers want an end to subsidies, which give the bigger farms an unfair advantage over the little guys.
These states, not individuals, take in more federal money than they contribute. Is it surprising that east/west coast states that harbor the wealthiest Americans and are home to the biggest and most powerful corporations are skewing how much tax those states contribute to the Federal pot?
So... food producers are subsidized. And if they weren't, would the rest of the country be happy with paying higher prices for food?
The counter argument is that our artificially low food prices keeps foreign producers from competing in the US market.
So really, our food prices might not go up as much as you would think.
Nonetheless, it is quite ironic that these conservative ag states are the first to think they represent rugged individualism and anti-coastal socialism, when in reality, they are some of the biggest users and abusers of government corporate welfare around.
Everyone hates "big gubmint" til the droughts come, then it's hands out looking for USDA aid.
The counter argument is that our artificially low food prices keeps foreign producers from competing in the US market.
So really, our food prices might not go up as much as you would think.
The result would be higher food prices regardless of whether the food is domestic or foreign. Are liberals on board with higher, unsubsidized food prices?
Illinois is rich? It's not even top 10. And for being the 3rd largest city in the country, Chicago has a relatively low cost of living for such a big name city.
Sure IL is rich. Look at the salaries and pensions they pay in Il. If they were poor there is no way the Democrats would allow such large salaries and pensions for public workers. Chicago teachers are pulling in about 76k per year. A poor state like MS can't pay that much salary.
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.
