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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.