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.
I saw, I agree with many of the holes in it, but perhaps the solution would be to address the ratio of Federal funds for non federal sites like nuclear waste sites, versus federal income tax paid. The big problem we face is the same states get far more than they pay, and they also have enough political clout to keep it that way. These states, IMO, will be 100% responsible for the nation's eventual terminal insolvency.
The problem here is that you are trusting a partisan analysis that is trying to paint the "red states" as leeches....which is about as honest as the ones painting the blue states as the problem.
I've covered in other threads just how busted the methodology is.
Basically, you have no acknowledgment of the fundamental economic concept of "public goods".
They don't actually match some of the biggest payments to the recipient but rather to where the land is located.
On top of all that, it ignores the statistical concept of correlation. Which would be like blaming Louisiana's high murder rate on being a "red state" when the murder rate is concentrated in the "blue areas".
Imagine a 300lb man 5'8......dancing ballet. Silly looking right? Well that's what the "statistical analysis" looks like in this thread to anyone with an education. This whole thread wallows in ignorance, it's really sad.
You guys sound like birthers. Yes, it's THAT ignorant of a thread.
It cites U.S. Census birth rate data. Take a look at it. Those who receive public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't. Furthermore, that 3 times higher birth rate among those who receive public assistance remained consistent throughout all of the U.S. Census fertility reports in which that factor was analyzed.
And look what the second link actually says:
One-in-four mothers with a recent birth were in poverty in 2008. However, only 6 percent of new mothers received public assistance. So we're getting all hopped up over 6% of the population?
The problem here is that you are trusting a partisan analysis that is trying to paint the "red states" as leeches....which is about as honest as the ones painting the blue states as the problem.
.
Hardly. The IRS tax rates are not indexed for COL, so the Southeast would automatically pay less per capita. Perhaps we need a system where everyone pays a flat $ amount first, followed by a percentage of income, and I'd make it a zero sum game, where total tax collected did not change.
After all, if we simply ignore low income region's disproportinate leeeching of services, we could fairly say we all, without that stuff, use the same roads, police, firemen, EPA, etc, so it would seem perfectly fair for much of our tax responsibility to be obtained via the flat rate per capita.
OK, so CA does have the highest % as well as the highest raw number. But, I count more than two red states when looking at which party is in power in the state governments, which is where the welfare decisions get made:
Maine; Tennessee; New Mexico; Indiana; Michigan; Pennsylvania. Leaving out DC as it is not a state, 6 of the 14 highest welfare states are "red", 42%. I will add that MI and PA are rather populous states, as well.
Tennessee had Dems in charge of the legislature from 1971 until 2008. There have been a lot more Dem. governors than Republicans throughout the history of the state, and since 1971, the governor's office has changed back and forth between the parties equally.
Plus to the person who earlier said that all the welfare in TN was going to white people on disability, I would suggest a quick visit to Memphis. Actually, I would suggest a long one because it's a great city, and it will give you plenty of time to search for all those white people on disability there.
Do you have any maps that show real poverty rates? One where families making $21k per year in areas where houses cost $70k aren't classified the same as families making $21k per year in areas where houses cost $500k?
Taxes don't bother me as long as the money is used in a beneficial manner, and the QOL and education of the populace is high. Which is something you don't find in many conservative states.
So why are people leaving these high quality of life states like New Jersey, Illinois, California, and New York for low quality of life red states like Texas, Arizona, and South Carolina? Someone needs to tell them this information.
And look what the second link actually says:
One-in-four mothers with a recent birth were in poverty in 2008. However, only 6 percent of new mothers received public assistance. So we're getting all hopped up over 6% of the population?
Well, that's an easy one, teacher! Low income people, many of whom are working. Recall that your previous link referred to people on public assistance, not people on Medicaid. And that link did NOT say that women on PA have a birth rate 3X the rate of others. It said they were 3X more likely to have given birth in the past YEAR! It did not refer to a lifetime birth rate. Of course women on PA are more likely to have young children, since in most cases you can only be on it for two years!
Prepare for the inevitable wave of excuses from the right-wing about how all the funding is going to minorities in big cities on welfare and it isn't the fault of their ideology.
Conservatism is a complete failure. It has a track record of zero.
You are wrong. It's a complete success for those it's designed to help. The almighty 1%.
Note to moderators: all images appearing in this post have been linked via HTML text command in a legally permissible manner per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, and as such do not constitute copyright violation.
actually if you heard of electoral college you would know that states do indeed vote.
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.
