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're right. Instead of Republicans vs, Democrats let's talk about conservatives vs. liberals, and states they run.
Conservative run states have actually been gaining in people and jobs compared to liberal run states for a handful of decades now.
FACTS:
Democrats are more likely to be on government handouts.
Blue voting counties are more likely to have higher government handout rates than Red voting counties on average.
Take a state like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc...so called "red states" and look at the counties with the highest government handout rates...they are all blue counties.
Conservative run states have actually been gaining in people and jobs compared to liberal run states for a handful of decades now.
They're gaining and gaining and still remain poorer than red states. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
FACTS:
Democrats are more likely to be on government handouts.
Blue voting counties are more likely to have higher government handout rates than Red voting counties on average.
Take a state like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc...so called "red states" and look at the counties with the highest government handout rates...they are all blue counties.
That's not true as well. This is a very good analysis here by a professional (statistician) :
The southern states are being subsidized by the northern states no matter what party runs the Capitol or the White House.
As I pointed out, your link is ignoring facts and is not that intellectually in depth. In regards to the part you are referencing...it just looks at states that vote red vs states that vote blue along with federal tax dollars and federal expenditures....and then asks if the new president will swing this around. For example, you are very simple minded if you assume that Mississippi is 100% red, when 44% of the state voted blue in 2012.
It ignores that red states have more military bases, more NASA bases, more National Parks, etc...so they naturally get more funding for those.
It ignores that the Demographics Most Likely to be on Government assistance of every category (education, race, marital status, age, income) overwhelmingly vote blue. Most of the categories that are least likely to be on assistance have the majority voting red.
Blue counties overwhelmingly have their hands out more than red counties on average.
It's analysis ignores that politicians often don't create funding for entire states, but to groups of people...a program for Detroit Michigan...which doesn't really effect Chippewa County Michigan. A program for Corn Farmers...which doesn't really effect the IT guy working in Des Moines in an office. A program for black farmers...which doesn't really effect the white farmer down the road. A program (part of Obama's stimulus) to give Alaskan Airlines $500,000 to paint a single plane with an already fine paint job so that it can look like a Salmon, which clearly doesn't effect all people in Alaska. Etc...
All it does is say Federal Income Taxes sent to DC - DC money sent to states for any spending of any kind = net gain or loss... Are you smart enough to see how this does not answer the OP's question?
A fact you keep hiding from...Blue voters are far more likely to be on government assistance programs like welfare, food stamps, etc.
You say: "The southern states are being subsidized by the northern states no matter what party runs the Capitol or the White House."
Did you see your own link that shows some northern states as net takers and some southern states as net givers? Red Voters are subsidizing blue voters, as blue voters are far more likely to be on government assistance.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 05-13-2014 at 08:17 PM..
That whole line was based on waaaay overly-broad generalizations in the first place. Look at the 2012 election results in Mississippi. The poorest counties all voted for Hussein, some by as much as 88%.
As I pointed out, your link is ignoring facts and is not that intellectually in depth. In regards to the part you are referencing...it just looks at states that vote red vs states that vote blue along with federal tax dollars and federal expenditures....and then asks if the new president will swing this around. For example, you are very simple minded if you assume that Mississippi is 100% red, when 44% of the state voted blue in 2012.
It ignores that red states have more military bases, more NASA bases, more National Parks, etc...so they naturally get more funding for those.
Military bases are also a form go government support, just like states fight to get another Volkswagen factory, they also fight to get a military vase as it provides employment for citizens of that state.
I think the bottom line is realization that the top two richest states are blue, while top two poorest states are red. It's very easy to figure out who's supporting whom in this scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
You say: "The southern states are being subsidized by the northern states no matter what party runs the Capitol or the White House."
Did you see your own link that shows some northern states as net takers and some southern states as net givers? Red Voters are subsidizing blue voters, as blue voters are far more likely to be on government assistance.
Yes. Only some blue states are takers while all the red states, with the exception of Texas, are takes not contributors. Do you still dispute who's supporting whom? Lol
Conservative run states have actually been gaining in people and jobs compared to liberal run states for a handful of decades now.
FACTS:
Democrats are more likely to be on government handouts.
Blue voting counties are more likely to have higher government handout rates than Red voting counties on average.
Take a state like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc...so called "red states" and look at the counties with the highest government handout rates...they are all blue counties.
It's interesting how you represent your opinions as facts. You can do an analysis of the blue states and find that the wealthiest counties with least welfare handouts are blue counties.
What you're missing, however, is that this is not a republican vs blue thing. Southern republicans are horrible at running their states... so much that a large percentage of their infrastructure, people, and businesses rely on government welfare to function. You don't see this with norther republicans. Mitt Romney, for example, did not run a crap hole like you see in the South.
Military bases are also a form go government support, just like states fight to get another Volkswagen factory, they also fight to get a military vase as it provides employment for citizens of that state.
I think the bottom line is realization that the top two richest states are blue, while top two poorest states are red. It's very easy to figure out who's supporting whom in this scenario.
Yes. Only some blue states are takers while all the red states, with the exception of Texas, are takes not contributors. Do you still dispute who's supporting whom? Lol
Hey buddy, I just showed you that the poorest counties in the "red" states are peopled mostly by Democrats. Are you just going to ignore that then and keep on with your dogma?
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.
