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.
The loudest screams of socialism are always coming from the right-wing in red states.
shows how much you know about how the country works: Think about it, red states are often rural states and wherever there are a lot of rural living there will be more dependence on government because of poverty. An example is right here in AR: much of AR depends on almost no government assistance except for maybe the farm bill help and SS if you consider it an assistance program. We have some good schools, excellent medical facilities and enjoy a relatedly high standard of living, but we do have a few pockets (the delta for one) where the poverty is so bad it brings down the entire state. The same can be said about WV for instance. large states have a better balance and yes, some of the very small NE states particularly enjoy a standard of living that isn't the norm. Studies, do not tell the whole story. There are so many holes to this report it isn't even funny. I think too many depend on stats to tell us everything. Government dependency, if you are talking welfare and food stamps are more inclined to be used by minorities regardless of what state they live in.
Ha, ha! informeconsent writes: "Los Angeles, alone, has been quite notorious for having more welfare recipients than 48 states." Yeah, numerically, probably so. The article gives a lot of stats, but not the stat about what percent of people in LA are on welfare, b/c that would ruin their premise. I've read many articles screwing around with statistics that way.
Ha, ha! informeconsent writes: "Los Angeles, alone, has been quite notorious for having more welfare recipients than 48 states." Yeah, numerically, probably so. The article gives a lot of stats, but not the stat about what percent of people in LA are on welfare, b/c that would ruin their premise. I've read many articles screwing around with statistics that way.
What difference do percentages make when the number is already greater? Erik's contention is that most welfare recipients live in red states, and that simply isn't true. The number of welfare recipients in L.A. alone is already greater than the number of welfare recipients in 48 states other than CA.
Okay, but as someone who has lived ALL over the south I can say with absolute certainty that the vast majority of welfare recipients in those red states vote Democratic if at all. No doubt in my mind whatsoever. I've known a few of them personally and am even related to some.
Most in red states would welcome the reduction in federal aid, except for perhaps the politicians who made them that way.
DO NOT forget that these red states are considered red because of one thing: presidential elections. Otherwise, many of them have democratic congressman bringing in the federal dough. Although republicans don't exactly turn the money down, they are by no means the only culprit.
Then there is the generational poverty that has existed in those places longer before the modern day liberal-conservative rhetoric, and long before they (those states as a whole) ever voted Republican. There is a whole lot more going on there than what political silliness and child's play could ever hope to fix.
You'd have hard time saying that KY, SC, AR, TN, are Democratic strongholds outside of Presidential elections.
It's "white people welfare" aka, disability. But they don't consider it welfare because they deserve it. It's ridiculous to create a liberal/conservative dichotomy when it comes to the welfare state as ALL states are recipients in some form or the other. But it's also equally ridiculous when a bunch of conservatives clamour for cutting welfare while ignoring that their states are some of the biggest recipients of government spending either for SSI, military facilities, road projects, etc... Heck, Eastern KY would be an even worse poverty ridden backwater if it wasn't for the billions in government money funneled through the ARC.
What difference do percentages make when the number is already greater? Erik's contention is that most welfare recipients live in red states, and that simply isn't true. The number of welfare recipients in L.A. alone is already greater than the number of welfare recipients in 48 states other than CA.
You don't understand percents? Perhaps you should take a remedial math course. There are 38 million people in California. There are more people in every category you could come up with in California. California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
You'd have hard time saying that KY, SC, AR, TN, are Democratic strongholds outside of Presidential elections.
It's "white people welfare" aka, disability. But they don't consider it welfare because they deserve it. It's ridiculous to create a liberal/conservative dichotomy when it comes to the welfare state as ALL states are recipients in some form or the other. But it's also equally ridiculous when a bunch of conservatives clamour for cutting welfare while ignoring that their states are some of the biggest recipients of government spending either for SSI, military facilities, road projects, etc... Heck, Eastern KY would be an even worse poverty ridden backwater if it wasn't for the billions in government money funneled through the ARC.
I've lived in two of those states. I firmly stand by what I said.
It isn't just white people and disability, though that is a percentage of it. Those states have enormous minority populations that suffer the same social ills that their counterparts up north and on the coasts deal with. And they vote Democratic when they vote. No. Doubt. About it.
Like elsewhere, welfare has only kept them downtrodden.
Civil rights was a good thing. Unfettered welfare, not so much.
I do. Percentages are not the issue; numbers of occurrences are. Again, Erik's claim is that more welfare recipients live in red states. That just simply isn't true.
Quote:
There are 38 million people in California. There are more people in every category you could come up with in California.
Exactly. Add Chicago and NYC, and it's quite easy to tell that more welfare recipients live in blue states than in red states.
More info:
the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) surveyed state and Washington, D.C. governments. Using the most current information, NCSL then compared the total number of recipients of TANF to the overall state and D.C. populations. The ranking of the 15 highest:
1. California
2. Maine
3. Tennessee
4. Massachusetts
5. Vermont
6. District of Columbia
7. New York
8. Minnesota
9. Washington
Tie-10. New Mexico
Tie-10. Indiana
12. Rhode Island
13. Michigan
14. Pennsylvania
15. Oregon
Heres another more recent article showing that the red states have their hands deep into the pockets of Uncle Sam. I dont think you can be a Tea Partier without taking at least one government benefit or tax free disablity.
and of course you continue to get most of your information or at least what you post from the very liberal blogs, not reliable newspapers, magazines or anywhere else that often keep some balance. As for being a tea partier or conservative, etc. the majority take no more from the government than many liberals. Most probably take nothing except maybe SS which is not a government handout. To say you can not be a tea partier without taking a government benefit is about the craziest statement I have seen in a long time. I didn't realize there were requirements for being a Tea Partier.
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.
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.
There are so many holes to this report it isn't even funny. I think too many depend on stats to tell us everything. Government dependency, if you are talking welfare and food stamps are more inclined to be used by minorities regardless of what state they live in.
