It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
So more rural states make less money than states where our remaining industry is concentrated... say it aint so.
Want to know why, take a look at the industry that have been clobbered over the last 40 years by environmental law suits, or epa regs, and I will wager (I have not looked) that these rural red states took it in the shorts.
Manufacturing never really left -- only the jobs did. In terms of output -- how much value it produces -- the manufacturing sector is by far the biggest contributor to the U.S. economy.
originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: xuenchen
Conservative poor people don't exist??? lol WTF
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: xuenchen
Conservative poor people don't exist??? lol WTF
Look at Mississippi for example.
Compare the poverty levels (most likely to receive benefits)
Now compare the Blue Democrat areas
Stunning isn't it.
originally posted by: MarkOfTheV
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0
Do you want to crunch numbers and read blogs... or have a real talk about QUALITY OF LIFE in blue vs red states.
I've lived in California, and I've lived in Texas... take a guess which one is better.
One group of residents has Stockholm Syndrome.
The other has nice affordable housing, great food, clean streets, low crime, and a booming skilled trade and corporate climate.
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen
A stunning example of Mississippi gerrymandering. The Delta has a majority black population. Whom have voted democrat since the 60's. Without the poor and fed programs and money, the state economy would be a lot worse.
originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: Gothmog
Lol wiki interstate highway system, then read financing. I don't understand are you arguing that Red States aren't more dependent on the federal government than Blue States? Because even if you ignore the averages, there are more Red States than Blue States, odds are they would be more dependent lol.
originally posted by: xuenchen
The problem lies inside the Democrat voting pockets.
That's where the poverty is.
Very simple.
Although the poverty rate is higher in districts represented by Democrats, most poor people in the United States live in a community represented by a Republican.
Taken together, the poverty rate in districts represented by Democrats in 2016 (“blue” districts) was 17.1 percent in 2010-14 compared with 14.4 percent in those represented by Republicans (“red” districts).
But Republican districts have more poor residents overall: 25.1 million poor people lived in red districts in 2010-14 compared with 22.7 million in blue districts.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
originally posted by: xuenchen
The problem lies inside the Democrat voting pockets.
That's where the poverty is.
Very simple.
Um. Not exactly.
Although the poverty rate is higher in districts represented by Democrats, most poor people in the United States live in a community represented by a Republican.
Taken together, the poverty rate in districts represented by Democrats in 2016 (“blue” districts) was 17.1 percent in 2010-14 compared with 14.4 percent in those represented by Republicans (“red” districts).
But Republican districts have more poor residents overall: 25.1 million poor people lived in red districts in 2010-14 compared with 22.7 million in blue districts.
Poverty Crosses Party Lines
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse
Your post doesn't make much sense. I did get you don't like liberals though.
It seems however that liberal states want to pay people more for manual labor and that red states have lower min wage and still have people in offices.
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: AboveBoard
originally posted by: xuenchen
The problem lies inside the Democrat voting pockets.
That's where the poverty is.
Very simple.
Um. Not exactly.
Although the poverty rate is higher in districts represented by Democrats, most poor people in the United States live in a community represented by a Republican.
Taken together, the poverty rate in districts represented by Democrats in 2016 (“blue” districts) was 17.1 percent in 2010-14 compared with 14.4 percent in those represented by Republicans (“red” districts).
But Republican districts have more poor residents overall: 25.1 million poor people lived in red districts in 2010-14 compared with 22.7 million in blue districts.
Poverty Crosses Party Lines
Actually it is exactly.
It's voting pockets that are Democrat.
As of the census[17] of 2010, there were 4,755 people, 2,328 housing units, and 1,733 households residing in the county.
The population density was 24.1 per square mile (9.3/km2).
The racial makeup of the county was 98.7% White, 0.3% Black or African American, 0.3% Native American, ~ 0% Asian, 0% Pacific Islander, and 0.8% of the population were Hispanics or Latinos of any race.
originally posted by: rickymouse
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse
Your post doesn't make much sense. I did get you don't like liberals though.
It seems however that liberal states want to pay people more for manual labor and that red states have lower min wage and still have people in offices.
Actually, I considered myself a liberal most of my life. But the liberals went too far now, so I am leaning more conservative now. We need a balance between liberal and conservative, we are moving too fast towards liberal which tends to create too many entitled people. Or at least people who think they have more rights than others they do not agree with.
Liberal has taken a turn to the worse in the last ten years or so. I usually voted Democrat on the ticket before if I did not get a chance to research things because I was too busy. I did always vote for president independent of party lines though. Always researching the presidential candidate. Just because I am leaning more towards conservative now has nothing to do with me strongly disliking Clinton in the last election, She was one person I did not trust at all. I would never have voted for Trump if the Democrats had a decent candidate.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: rickymouse
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse
Your post doesn't make much sense. I did get you don't like liberals though.
It seems however that liberal states want to pay people more for manual labor and that red states have lower min wage and still have people in offices.
Actually, I considered myself a liberal most of my life. But the liberals went too far now, so I am leaning more conservative now. We need a balance between liberal and conservative, we are moving too fast towards liberal which tends to create too many entitled people. Or at least people who think they have more rights than others they do not agree with.
Liberal has taken a turn to the worse in the last ten years or so. I usually voted Democrat on the ticket before if I did not get a chance to research things because I was too busy. I did always vote for president independent of party lines though. Always researching the presidential candidate. Just because I am leaning more towards conservative now has nothing to do with me strongly disliking Clinton in the last election, She was one person I did not trust at all. I would never have voted for Trump if the Democrats had a decent candidate.
I was just saying your post didn't make sense. Conservatives don't care about fair wages for labor so I wasn't sure why you posted what you did.
Most conservatives pretend they want a free market but really are just the same donation zombies the liberals are. They vote for things like the Patriot act, and mistake religious freedoms intentions to pander to an old and out of touch base in the parts of the south.
Tell me what the difference is from pandering to jobless folks with Obama phones verse lie in to coal miners the market hasn't left them behind?
There are a handful of statesmen left in each party. They are the ones called crazy usually by the others.
Let's examine reality. Unless we expand new technological infrastructure and space exploration and space mining we just won't have enough jobs ever again like the good old days.
One side wants to give money and not plan for when the robots finally finish off manufacturing and labor and the other wants to ignore it's happening and promote an antiquated energy and infrastructure system.