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.
American taxpayers already spend about 40bn/year in farm subsidies, so why not? We pay for it directly or indirectly anyway.
Um... NO. The only people who pay for it are the 49% who actually pay any federal income tax. End the subsidies and the other 51% also pays. Are liberals on board with that?
Same with any other corporate subsidy.
I say end all the corporate subsidies. It's about time the freeloaders start pulling their own weight.
Sure IL is rich. Look at the salaries and pensions they pay in Il. If they were poor there is no way the Democrats would allow such large salaries and pensions for public workers. Chicago teachers are pulling in about 76k per year. A poor state like MS can't pay that much salary.
And yet once again, Illinois doesn't even rank in the top 10 richest states and the only relevant part of the state to most people is Chicago. And Chicago by national standards (let alone world standards) is quite reasonable on cost of living despite its size and status. Your money goes a lot farther there than New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Washington, D.C.
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.
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.
Or maybe they are smarter than you. They know the "keep the poor dependent on the Nanny State" programs of the Dems are not good for them. They realize that the Dem programs perpetuate a cycle of poverty and maybe they don't like being dependent on crooked politicians.
I know of a lot in my family they vote Republican because of "family values" they may or may not agree with the Repubs. on money issues but they consider the moral issues more important, and if they just follow God the economy will take care of itself. Many of my friends also feel this way. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I think everyone has to vote their conscience and the facts are the 2 parties just don't cut it. I don't agree with democrats or for that matter liberals on everything. I think that's the first sign of not thinking for yourself when you agree with a group on everything. BTW I have family in VA, TN, KY, NC and some vote Repub. some don't vote, some vote Dem and consider themselves "Blue Dogs", some are swing voters. I'm more of a Dem. but I have voted Republican before.
Or maybe they are smarter than you. They know the "keep the poor dependent on the Nanny State" programs of the Dems are not good for them. They realize that the Dem programs perpetuate a cycle of poverty and maybe they don't like being dependent on crooked politicians.
I agree with you but I don't think Republicans have the answers either. Part of the problem is neither have come up with new ideas in decades. I mean really new ideas not just political comments that makes the fringes happy, like your tree huggers on the left or your "Jesus is coming tomorrow" crowd on the right. They have the right to believe that way (on both sides) but it's not practical for real life. For example, the tree huggers don't want to deal with the realities of theirs presently not enough "green" energy, and right wingers don't want to deal with you don't have to have 5 televisions on in the house at once with no one watching them just because you can, plus there are environmental issues, it's just we also need oil and gas right now, until we have more of several different kinds of energy. The best form of being more environmental is to use less electricity period. My point being they both have part of the answer, yes we do need to cut spending, but we also need to raise taxes to at least some degree on the rich. Neither side will compromise though which is the problem.
You may think so, but, no, the poor of the South certainly don't feel being advantage of by politicians. This is because the top issues closest to their hearts are the 3 Gs, meaning being for God, for Guns and being against Gays. It's certainly not about promoting better education, improved access to health care, or better working conditions. The poor simply feel Republicans will stand up best for advancing their three G's. A lot of middle class Southern people feel the same way.
Well, I never realized liberals had the solutions to the nation's problems.
Does no one here realize that the cost of living in these states is WAY lower than in many blue states and therefore median household income is not a truly a good indicator of "poorness" as a smaller wage in Mississippi buys much more than it would say in New York. If an employer in Alabama can pay someone $54,000 to live the same lifestyle as a person would have to make $150,000 to live in New York why would the employer pay more. It's very clear few people have any business sense in this thread
If these blue states are such great places, why do red states always find themselves consistently on the most happy list and blue states the most depressed? I'm sure y'all can make up some politically contrived answer saying they're too stupid to know better, but I wait with baited breath anyways.
Employers mostly like the southern states because they offered a source of cheap disposable labor compared to the north. This advantage is still true in some places today, but many of these industries have downsized severely or been outsourced to countries like China. The mill industries, the textile industries, etc have dropped total employment by huge percentages in the South. Have you been to places like Hickory, Spartanburg, etc? It is true that the South has lower cost of living, but it needs to invest more in higher education to be able to take full advantage of lower costs. It isn't always a red or blue state answer as the statistics are out from the census that shows total employement gains or losses on a state by state basis from 2000-2010.
Poor people want a fair shot, and that's what Republicans claim to peddle. The Democrats peddle handouts, but taking from others is what the middle class wants.
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.
