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.
You don't understand percents? Perhaps you should take a remedial math course. There are 38 million people in California. There are more people in every category you could come up with in California. California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
PERCENT is what matters!
Let me explain this in more simple terms so our sub-genius friend can get a grasp on this.
California has roughly 3 million people on welfare which is indeed the most in the country by far. (this he gets)
California's welfare recipients constitute 33% of the country's total number of welfare recipients. (this he gets also)
(This is what he does NOT get)
California has 35 million people who are NOT on welfare.
California ranks number 1 in the nation by far in the number of people who are NOT on welfare.
California has more people NOT on welfare than the entire population of any other state in the country.
The #2 state of Texas would have to increase it's population by roughly 1/3 (9 Million) to have a total population equivilent to the number of people in California who are NOT on welfare.
No, I didn't. You just want to reframe it in statistics which is meaningless because all that matters is the sheer volume of the number of those receiving welfare benefits. Welfare recipients overwhelmingly live in BLUE states. There is no disputing that fact.
It was reframed because blue states are generally more populous...
However, whats your excuse for the large intake of federal funds from rural red states?
How's that BLUE government and mentality working out for the poor? Hmmm...?!? Not so well. Think about that...
There won't be much income inequality in rural areas because there isn't much income there..... Look where the highest poverty is..... in rural areas..... The south is still overall poor after centuries of conservative rule.....
Quote:
Oh, and just so you know... trapping poor and inner-city kids in public schools because Democrats oppose vouchers isn't working out so well for the poor, either.
Oh, and just so you know... trapping poor and inner-city kids in public schools because Democrats oppose vouchers isn't working out so well for the poor, either.
Tell me you're not moving the goalposts NOW! Youtube? Your credibility (or lack thereof) is showing.
I lived in Rural Kentucky and worked at a University. I went to a town meeting filled with whites. The Governor stood up and said "we got on welfare and we never got off"
The whole room collectively agreed.
I'll never forget that day because it was the first time a room full of white people admitted to being on welfare.
My wife and I are black and we NEVER thought for one second to get on welfare because we were raised differently. Hell, growing up there were times I WISH my mother got over her pride because we had little to eat. Thank goodness for family and churches.
Theres a lot of truth in this.
How you are raised has a much greater influence on your work ethic than your race or political persuasion.
My grandparents raised 5 kids during the depression on little more than the wages my grandfather earned working in a shoe factory and the help of family.
They never considered taking any type of government assistance, to them it was simply a matter of pride.
Of course back then there was less sense of entitlement and people did not feel the need to spend money on frivilous things like the latest cell phone or whatever.
People were happy to have a roof over their heads and food on the table.
It was reframed because blue states are generally more populous...
And in addition to that, many more BLUE states have the higher percentages of welfare recipients. The list:
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) surveyed state and Washington, D.C. governments. Using the most current information, NCSL then compared the total number of recipients of TANF to the overall state and D.C. populations. The ranking of the 15 highest:
1. California
2. Maine
3. Tennessee
4. Massachusetts
5. Vermont
6. District of Columbia
7. New York
8. Minnesota
9. Washington
Tie-10. New Mexico
Tie-10. Indiana
12. Rhode Island
13. Michigan
14. Pennsylvania
15. Oregon
Too bad all the agricultural, mining, oil extraction and timber companies in the Red States never had the pride to refuse government subsidies and corporate welfare. Eliminating just these payment would probably pay for the kind of welfare that actually feeds and houses kids in the rest of the country.
FWIW - Food Stamps are not to just feed kids. they are also to provide a minimum marker for the corporate farmers to dump their excess crops.
It's either blatant ignorance, or flat out denial so they don't have to feel bad about voting for the Democrat policy of keeping as many people as dumb and as poor as possible to maximize votes for the Democrat party. Take your pick.
And in addition to that, many more BLUE states have the higher percentages of welfare recipients. The list:
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) surveyed state and Washington, D.C. governments. Using the most current information, NCSL then compared the total number of recipients of TANF to the overall state and D.C. populations. The ranking of the 15 highest:
1. California
2. Maine
3. Tennessee
4. Massachusetts
5. Vermont
6. District of Columbia
7. New York
8. Minnesota
9. Washington
Tie-10. New Mexico
Tie-10. Indiana
12. Rhode Island
13. Michigan
14. Pennsylvania
15. Oregon
But red state's are the largest recipient of federal dollars.......
But the south is still the poorest region of the country and it is majority conservative....
This is a complicated issue that goes beyond liberal vs conservative..... Why are you just looking at social welfare instead of the total amount of federal dollars?
Blue states are more urban and will have more wealth and more inequality due to the nature of urban areas. On the other hand, rural areas have little wealth and overall poor, therefore less inequality.
Again..... look at the south...... It is only recently that the south has become invested in, as it has become industrialized in certain areas such as manufacturing and trade. Yet the south is still overall poor and conservative as it has been for centuries....
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.
The ignorance is astounding.
