Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-22-2014, 09:11 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,843,804 times
Reputation: 17863

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
No. The highest rates of welfare are white people in Appalachia.. but no one wants to bring it up.
I don't know if that is true but it wouldn't surprise me for that small demographic. Nationwide by percentage there is a 1:1 ratio of blacks and whites on welfare. When you adjust that ratio for population it's 6:1.

In other words when adjusted for population for every one white person on welfare there is 6 blacks on welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2014, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,618,092 times
Reputation: 14818
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Has it been mentioned this map includes nearly every government program including SS, medicare and veterans benefits? A rural county with a huge amount of retirees collecting SS would be in red but that's hardly welfare.



The black lung benefit is paid with a tax on current mining operations, this is not welfare. Are any of them listed here welfare?

If you look further down the list you'll find welfare benefits but that is in addition to the others.
This exactly.

One can "live off of gov't" and not be receiving welfare as defined by EBT or SNAP.

I wonder why so many want to interpret it as such.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 09:57 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,395,966 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post

Your tax argument has some validity, but only 3 southern states have no income taxes. Even then, that doesn't mean your overall tax bill will be less overall than if you lived in a state with an income tax.

The States with no income tax, picked up the most seats in the US House.
The States with the highest theft(income tax), saw, people leave the thieves to their own demise, loosing the most representation in the US House.


I do see a lot of New England states and California car tags here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 10:04 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,395,966 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post

There is a difference. New England States are losing representation because the boomers are retiring from their corporate lives and moving to Florida (and to a lesser extent, Arizona).

That's what I said and it has been happening for decades.
The cost of living they once could afford, no longer exist on a fixed income, they get more bang for their buck Southward bound..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 10:28 AM
 
57,022 posts, read 35,042,159 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The States with no income tax, picked up the most seats in the US House.
The States with the highest theft(income tax), saw, people leave the thieves to their own demise, loosing the most representation in the US House.


I do see a lot of New England states and California car tags here.
People change tags when they move. Why would they still have New England or California tags on their cars if they LIVE there somewhere else?

Come on now...don't get carried away.

And i'm well aware that certain states have lost population. So what?

That has nothing to do with the argument. If you say that the South has a more simple life, you can't prove that at all. Mostly because it isn't true.

And again, only 3 states in the South have no income tax, so to say that the South is a cheaper place to live overall based on the income tax issue doesn't hold water.

I remain steadfast in my belief that living in rural Indiana or rural Michigan is no more expensive than living in a rural area anywhere else. I mean, if we're talking about a simple life, we ARE talking about rural living. You certainly can't make a claim that living in a major southern city is akin to living a simple life anymore than living in a northern major city would be. Living in Cleveland is stressful...so is living in Dallas or Birmingham.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 11:32 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,755 posts, read 9,604,691 times
Reputation: 13164
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
That's what I said and it has been happening for decades.
The cost of living they once could afford, no longer exist on a fixed income, they get more bang for their buck Southward bound..
Some retirees may be moving south or west (not me, I'm staying!), but there are plenty of younger people moving to New Jersey because the jobs are here.

If you take a look at the New Jersey forum, you will see that most threads are from people moving into the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Planet Earth
1,293 posts, read 1,210,385 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
Most of the welfare in Red States goes to minorities in the cities.
Whites receive the most welfare benefits in this country. I can back it up in more ways than one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 12:16 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,843,804 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErnieG View Post
Whites receive the most welfare benefits in this country. I can back it up in more ways than one.
Back it up after adjusting for population differences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,270,221 times
Reputation: 49247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
First off, the welfare crowd are the same as the wealthy in one respect: they span the political spectrum, largely depending on location. Contrary to the "evil GOP recently hoodwinked the poor" myth, people generally don't vote according to their income level and probably never have at any point in American history. It should also be noted that most Republicans are not in favor of eliminating welfare to those they believe are truly and deeply in need, which means that under most Republicans' policy the OP's map would look largely the same, just with lighter colors, because the map for obvious reasons closely correlates with poverty.

Federal welfare dollars are a function of poverty, not political affiliation; where there are more poor people you would expect more welfare recipients. It should be noted that that metric is not a like-for-like comparison between states, and how much money their people get is out of the state government's control. What is very much in their control and dictated by political choices is the percentage of the state budget funded by the federal government. This paints a far more mixed picture.





Just offhand, living in the country rather than the city does have a significant beneficial effect on one's health, all other things being equal. Things aren't equal in the rural South for a variety of reasons, but it should be noted that rural Minnesota, North Dakota, and Colorado have some of the country's highest life expectancies.
and as I said earlier, a lot has to do with the population of the state and the tax structure. Charts only tell part of the story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Planet Earth
1,293 posts, read 1,210,385 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I don't know if that is true but it wouldn't surprise me for that small demographic. Nationwide by percentage there is a 1:1 ratio of blacks and whites on welfare. When you adjust that ratio for population it's 6:1.

In other words when adjusted for population for every one white person on welfare there is 6 blacks on welfare.
That's incorrect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top