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.
Yes, but the OP has erroneously made the assertion that states mooch off other states when it is citizens of those states that do the mooching.
Blacks are more than twice as likely as whites to receive benefits from various welfare programs and swell the ranks of federal non-filers and zero tax filers.
Mississippi is often attacked by the left for having a large portion of their citizens on welfare programs, but it's only because they have the highest concentration of blacks of any state that this is the case.
Except welfare has been going down every year and is being replaced by Disability. West Virginia is the number one state in the country on Disability at almost 10%. Do a lot of blacks live in West Virginia?
In Hale County, Alabama, nearly 1 in 4 working-age adults is on disability.[2] On the day government checks come in every month, banks stay open late, Main Street fills up with cars, and anybody looking to unload an old TV or armchair has a yard sale.
Sonny Ryan, a retired judge in town, didn't hear disability cases in his courtroom. But the subject came up often. He described one exchange he had with a man who was on disability but looked healthy.
"Just out of curiosity, what is your disability?" the judge asked from the bench.
"I have high blood pressure," the man said.
"So do I," the judge said. "What else?"
"I have diabetes."
"So do I."
This article shows how welfare has decreased year over year yet Disability has increased in direct proportion year after year. The top five are all red states in the South, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky and Mississippi. http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Let these Red states pay for themselves. Letting Blue states keep their money within their own state is a good thing.
Mason3000 is on my very short ignore list for a reason.
CA and NY are #5 and #2 for African American population, respectively.
But back to the actual thread. That argument is a bit too simplistic. It assumes that the benefit of lower taxes will not be outweighed by the economic and social calamity that Trump is planning.
Not by percentage of the population. Which is the area of concern here.
Actually the lower COL of red states is also a factor.
Just remember a Republican controlled everything can designate to some degree where revenue is spent if ya wanna get nasty.
Of course I expect tax cuts but few spending cuts.
A businessman gonna have a hard time resisting borrowing at today's low rates.
This is an interesting perspective that is making me - a liberal in a blue state - see one positive aspect of Trump. If he reduces our taxes, the greatest beneficiary will be blue states, which currently subsidize red states.
The time has come for liberals to recognize that the Republican agenda -- which they have little control over anyway -- can work to their advantage. Who gets the least return on the money they send to Washington? The economically successful blue states. Which states most depend on federal spending? The poorer red ones.
What's more, they are right that states like California, Washington and Oregon would be most likely to enable health care coverage. We just need to make sure we enact a lengthy five or ten year qualification period so we don't get red state refugees coming when they get sick.
No more universal health coverage? Not necessarily. Massachusetts has Romneycare, a wildly popular state-run system that served as a model for the Affordable Care Act.
California's state-run insurance exchange is in good shape, notes Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School... Connecticut, New York, Oregon and Washington are in especially good positions to do likewise, Bagley says.
And rather than sending blue state tax dollars to benefit other states, we could keep our money in our own states.
For the richer blue states, a reduced federal tax burden would leave them with the added means to address these challenges. And the nicest part: They can spend the money at home.
Like I told you before in another thread - blue states have the largest housing bubbles.
With the fed promising to raise rates three more times......it just begins to deflate the housing bubble. If the housing bubble pops in the blue states - you end up with a chain reaction crash throughout the entire state's economy. If I was living in a blue state - I'd hope like hell the fed was just bluffing.
Like I told you before in another thread - blue states have the largest housing bubbles.
With the fed promising to raise rates three more times......it just begins to deflate the housing bubble. If the housing bubble pops in the blue states - you end up with a chain reaction crash throughout the entire state's economy. If I was living in a blue state - I'd hope like hell the fed was just bluffing.
If there is a housing crash, everyone will be affected. Where I live, there are more people trying to buy houses than houses available to buy. This has little to do with the OP, which is that Trump's tax cuts will most benefit wealthy Blue states, allowing them to keep their money within their own state rather than sending it to federal funds, ultimately benefitting red states.
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.
