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.
They are the poorest states because they voted in Republicans who advance pro-poverty legislation. Would be great if they went blue. Busting the voter suppression should help.
I'm sorry, but do you know anything about American history? These states were 100% Democratic in government from the late 1870s onward until the late 1980s. Even then, Republicans did not have majorities in state legislatures until the past few years. So the endemic poverty that is the subject of the article is the result of more than a century of Democratic management. Only when Republicans began winning state office in the 1980s and beyond did the trend line for these states start to move upwards. Now states such as South Carolina and Alabama are in the middle tiers for per capita income, a startling development.
They are the poorest states because they voted in Republicans who advance pro-poverty legislation. Would be great if they went blue. Busting the voter suppression should help.
Republicans are pro-poverty? Why would they want more poverty when the poor vote overwhelmingly for Democrats? Entitlement programs and social assistance programs put in place and favored by Democrats and Liberal keep people in poverty and dependent upon government aid. When Republicans try to reform these programs to encourage people to better themselves, it's presented as an attack on the poor.
Well, to me the reason is simple: If you are a poor Republican in the Southeast, Republicans know they can take advantage of you, and that you will let them. They know you will work for peanuts and will vote in favor of slashing any programs that benefit the poor.
So it, obviously, is a cycle that repeats and keeps poor Republicans trapped in poverty, and they probably believe that this is a good thing.
This is complete nonsense. These states were essentially plantations for the Democratic Party, which enjoyed uncontested rule for well over a century. Poverty, inadequate education, racism, cronyism, and corruption were just a few of the reasons the region stayed down, courtesy of the Democrats.
So it stands to reason that the sensible populations of these now are ardent Republicans, chiefly because they've suffered the Democratic Party for entirely too long.
Raising taxes solves nothing since the politicians who bribe the 47% will spend any new revenue and still run up the debt.
The problem isn't revenue.
The problem is spending.
Government solves nothing since it only seeks its own benefit in all it does.
and you just proved my point they both won't compromise on certain issues we have record lowest taxes, and that's part of the problem sorry, if you only got $400 a month you couldn't live on it, that's part of the problem of the Republicans I see as well as the libertarians they never ever want taxes touched, and in fact i know a lot of them that want their tax money to do more but won't give the state/feds more to do it with, that's as silly and unattainable as the dems. tax and spend. it's not a one way solution...and just as dems want to give welfare recipients no matter what you folks won't settle for anything but no taxes, which is the same thing as the money for nothing and chicks for free that the dems want, if there's no revenue then stuff doesn't get done...people liked Bush's spending and low taxes, that's why he did it because it made him popular at first the problem is money runs out...obama was just as bad he kept the taxes low, it has to be both more taxes and less spending or it won't work, it doesn't have to go back to clinton era but yes Romney needs to pay more than his secretary % wise or at least the same amount...Reagan said the same thing btw he said that bus drivers shouldn't be paying more than millionaires...i agree with him.
Excuse me. Do you actually bother to read American history? See if you can grasp these simple facts:
- The Democrats held uncontested power in the South from the end of Reconstruction (That would be the 1870s. Given your apparent lack of knowledge, I thought I would acquaint you with this fact) until quite recently.
- During that long, long period of time, the Democratic Party was responsible for policies that created moribund state economies, cronyism and corruption, lack of investment in education, lack of support for businesses, a regressive tax system, and a host of other problems.
- Ergo the poor economic performance in the South cannot be laid at the doorstep of the Republican Party. In fact, the surge in economic performance in the South over the past 25 years is more attributable to the reformation of state governments in the region as the Democratic hold on the South has been broken. It is not a coincidence that states such as Alabama and South Carolina have seen their per capita income ranking rise dramatically over the past two decades as the one-party rule of Democrats has been steadily dismantled.
I don't believe I will find your opinion in any history book. First, your opinion is that this all because of democrats...your opinion and not fact. Second, you say that eventhough Republicans have had control over some of the states for decades it is still the democrats fault. However, at the same time you hold Bush Blameless for the malaise that we are in now, although Obama has had only four years to fix the problem and less than two with a democratic congress. You guys crack me up.
I laugh at Republican accountability and personal responsibility. You are claiming that the Republican state legislatures are victims. Get out of your victim mode and take some personal responsibility.
I don't believe I will find your opinion in any history book. First, your opinion is that this all because of democrats...your opinion and not fact. Second, you say that eventhough Republicans have had control over some of the states for decades it is still the democrats fault. However, at the same time you hold Bush Blameless for the malaise that we are in now, although Obama has had only four years to fix the problem and less than two with a democratic congress. You guys crack me up.
I laugh at Republican accountability and personal responsibility. You are claiming that the Republican state legislatures are victims. Get out of your victim mode and take some personal responsibility.
Reading comprehension needs work, I see, which explains why you don't really have any knowledge of American history. Republicans did not even have a toehold in southern state government until the 1980s which, coincidentally, were when the economic fortunes of these states began to rise. This is not opinion. It's fact. I'm amazed that someone with so little knowledge of the region and its history chooses to hold forth on it.
Reading comprehension needs work, I see, which explains why you don't really have any knowledge of American history. Republicans did not even have a toehold in southern state government until the 1980s which, coincidentally, were when the economic fortunes of these states began to rise. This is not opinion. It's fact. I'm amazed that someone with so little knowledge of the region and its history chooses to hold forth on it.
I think it is you who lacks reading comprehension skills, and I have lived in the South most of my life. Even if you accept that your premise (your opinion), which is worthless to anyone but you, is true and Democrats were responsible for the mess up until 1980s - why have they not fixed it? Quit being victims. You have had 20 years to "fix it" at what point do you stop blaming someone else and start taking responsibility for your failed policies? Be a man and own up to the fact that the Republican govt's in the south are not working. The proof is in the OP.
Poorer states are more religious and more socially conservative. When people have wealth, they are more likely to think they don't need God. Without religion social liberalism makes the most logical sense. That's why the younger generation is so liberal. They were mostly raised in very wealthy, priveleged homes and only about 30% of them still believe in a deity in their twenties. Their liberalism is tied to social issues just like the conservatism in Mississippi is tied to those same issues just with the opposite viewpoint.
Red states consistenly rank as the poorest. They also have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, crime, divorce, etc. They also have some of the lowest rates of education. Why? I think the common denominator is ignorance. The same ignorance that drives folks to vote Republican (those who are in the top 5 percent of income should vote Republican, so they aren't ignorant for doing so... the other 95 percent are) also drives them to make other poor life decisions.
So what about the bluest of cities? Their problems make your accusations of red state's problems look like crumb cake.
Cities, states, whatever. Liberalism has it's share of hideous failures.
Funny thing is, red state's problems have more to do with deeply ingrained cultural phenomenon that goes back at least of couple of centuries, yes even when they were blue, while inner city problems seem to get worse with every "fix" liberals throw at them.
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.
