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.
Mississippi is the poorest state....where I am from. Blue states are the most rich. So the federal funding for you comes from our taxes
The poor areas of MS have a ton of poor Democratic voters.
And should be noted, the heavily populated blue states have more poor people in number. Having more rich people doesn't erase the fact they have a bigger poverty problem.
I hear this "blue states fund red states" or "blue counties fund red counties" argument all the time in Chicago due to the city vs downstate rivalry. On paper it appears to be true, but if you dig down deeper, it's somewhat deceiving.
Using Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia as an examples, it appears that the poorest parts of the state vote blue. I'd imagine that the poor parts of a state have a higher percentage of people making use of government assistance programs.
Any thoughts on this?
Also. Metro Atlanta looks NOTHING like much of the rest of Georgia.
I hear this "blue states fund red states" or "blue counties fund red counties" argument all the time in Chicago due to the city vs downstate rivalry. On paper it appears to be true, but if you dig down deeper, it's somewhat deceiving.
Using Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia as an examples, it appears that the poorest parts of the state vote blue. I'd imagine that the poor parts of a state have a higher percentage of people making use of government assistance programs.
Any thoughts on this?
Here's a simple fix for you. Let's have the federal government only take care of, and tax for, the things the Constitution enumerates and have the states tax and pay for things like welfare programs, its own infrastructure, etc.
That way blue states pay for blue states and red states pay for red states.
Yet, because California has such high COL, they still manage to send more to the Federal Goverment than they get back, even with state tax deductions.
Would you be OK with reducing federal taxes to almost nothing and leaving the states to provide almost all services? That seems like something consistent with the Republican Party philosphy and the math works out in favor of typically blue states. In the end it won’t happen because it would require politicians to willing take away most of their power.
California also has the highest household debt to income ratio and benefits from artificially low interest rates. I think like 19 of the 20 states with the lowest debt to income ratios are red. 9 of the highest 10 are blue. Artificially low interest rates are clearly propping up blue state economies. So when the bubble busts again who will be on the hook? Savers are taking the hit in this economy. Seniors on fixed income are also losing because inflation is the nastiest tax of all.
I hear this "blue states fund red states" or "blue counties fund red counties" argument all the time in Chicago due to the city vs downstate rivalry. On paper it appears to be true, but if you dig down deeper, it's somewhat deceiving.
Using Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia as an examples, it appears that the poorest parts of the state vote blue. I'd imagine that the poor parts of a state have a higher percentage of people making use of government assistance programs.
Any thoughts on this?
We all pay taxes, but when government funds construction projects, erects state buildings and infrastructure, they almost exclusively spend this money in the big cities, which are mostly democrat controlled. No one thinks of a little town like Neillsville, WI, when they think of a multi-million dollar federal highway construction project.
We all pay taxes, but when government funds construction projects, erects state buildings and infrastructure, they almost exclusively spend this money in the big cities, which are mostly democrat controlled. No one thinks of a little town like Neillsville, WI, when they think of a multi-million dollar federal highway construction project.
You mean like the Big Dig which cost $25 billion in a city of 675,000?
I hear this "blue states fund red states" or "blue counties fund red counties" argument all the time in Chicago due to the city vs downstate rivalry. On paper it appears to be true, but if you dig down deeper, it's somewhat deceiving.
Using Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia as an examples, it appears that the poorest parts of the state vote blue. I'd imagine that the poor parts of a state have a higher percentage of people making use of government assistance programs.
Any thoughts on this?
Let me be the first deplorable from a red state to offer my thanks to all of the blue states for their generosity.
Now , I feel better.
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.
