Red States take more than Blue States

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.

Not really.

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.

Source

Additionally, production and industry is overall up. Has been since 1945 - almost a straight line going up at 45 degrees over time.

The manual and semi-skilled jobs left. Now it only takes a few college graduate engineers to fun an assembly line that used to take 200 people.

A lot of my friends who graduated with me in the 70's and went to work for Bethlaham Steel right out of high school and earned "big bucks" are now on welfare. Glad I took another route.

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.

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Because if you think red or blue makes a difference you're an idiot. Pretty much every president has sold the jobs away from those awful and dumb red states. Unless you're argument is that they're moochers, in which case we'll just apply your logic to minorities also (I wonder how the percentages work there), and call you racist as well.

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.

Really not so stunning. Democrats pander to the poor. Republicans pander to the working poor soon to loose their jobs, create a boogeymen even though it ls usually the industry changing, and pander to the dieing industry instead of try an encourage retraining and new industry.

If we are making generalizations anyway.

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: 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.

All true but the counties in which the 4 major cities reside in Texas all voted Democrat in the last three Presidential elections. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin are all in Blue Counties.

The Red states have a lot of jobs that pay less. The Liberal states tend to have a lot of import companies that buy from other countries and resell it at a high cost. Liberal states also tend to be way into building technology, well not building it, they import a lot of the parts. Liberals in some states tend to believe that a person doing office work should get paid more than those doing physical labor and agriculture.

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: 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.

Show Me.

Bet ya can't.

Just jibberish.

a reply to: xuenchen

I was born there and still visit there. You can look it up yourself, its all public information.

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.

I dont have to Google , I know how it works. Interstate Highways are covered under "Interstate Trade" in the Constitution
And , like I said , that could sway numbers tremendously . My State , Georgia , completed 10 miles of repaving I-75 for I think 40 million dollars or more. And there is a lot more work being done.Funded in most part by the Feds. When I-85 collapsed , the Feds were responsible for not only the funding but also taking bids from companies on the repairs. The State has every right to DIY or contribute , but is under no obligation .

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: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

I was born there and still visit there. You can look it up yourself, its all public information.

Thanks for showing us.

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.

I am left, and prefer Norways style of proportional democracy or even better Venus Project.

But, people swing vote, in Canada and the US. This idea of rightwingers and left, isn't as accurate as looking at the past wins.

They do it for a reason, its to get rid of evil corruption, who have a body count, and we know it and its usually out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Unless people form councils of citizens and start to become the first level of government and get rid of the bad guys, network and wake everyone up. Can't have any form of democracy without that.

I'm far more left than your liberals.

I'm NDP in Canada. Not that I'm open border or sell out my children's nations, constitutions left, and not into he/she/ze, and men in bathroom, not that kind of left.

I'm into equality, homes for all, no homeless, dental for all. People not being slaves. The highest cleanest technologies out, beamships in our backyard, cavitation and a star in a jar, everything run by implosion within water.

Space age clean high tech with life extensions.

Not a burka on this planet, no fundamental lies. spiritual yes, metaphysical yes. Gnostic yes. and any loving faith yes. No violent ones allowed.

No fascism.

People the first level of government.

High tech replacing menial labor.

People could take a time out for 50 years and raise children and then still have hundreds of years to do several different life goals.

All the things I knew as a child we already could do, but was hidden by the most evil psychotic universal criminals that run our planet.

Norway and Finland and countries that are left and committed to Equality AND Freedom, have the best economies and highest standards of living in the world.

And they're great places to live.

But in this election, if I was American, considering people didn't get going on councils of citizens and parties made up of their own famiilies and neighbors to vote for, I would have voted Trump to.

In fact took some tests and in the US, was a mixture of Libertarianism and Green because you don't have a party that resembles NDP. You go the next step into communism and fascism, but not social democratic democracy.

So Liberatarian is Dad/Freedom/Constitution and Green is Mom/Equality. They need to be wedded.


Left and liberal countries have great economies too, in fact some of them have higher standards of living than any of ours.

Scarsity and far right harms economy and people, you never impose scarsity or cause mortgages to fail and businesses.

Each full time employment creates 6 more service jobs. You don't snip snip snip in a recession. You spend carefully in a recession.

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: 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.

No, it's freaking not.

Rural poverty in Red States and Red districts is a definite reality whether you can grasp it or not.

It is a ubiquitous problem, across cultural, racial and political lines. Trying to make this a left-right thing is simply wrong.

Here - poorest county in America, extremely high level of SNAP use and child poverty. It's Republican and demographically:

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.

Owsley County, Kentucky

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.

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.

What are you talking about when you say conservatives do not care about fair wages. The best paying jobs I had were working for conservative employers. The liberals seemed to give you a new job title and no pay increase. Sanitary engineers are just garbage men, that is a very respectable job. It is necessary for someone to pick up the trash. I have seen a lot of changing of titles in jobs and that practice is a liberal tactic. Also, I have seen a severe reduction in employer sponsored health insurance in the new more liberal society, liberals are pushing for Obamacare to do that since the liberal employers do not want to as much as conservative employers used to do.

I would never worry about getting paid by a conservative person, You did the work you agreed to and they paid you. A handshake was as good as a written contract with most conservative people. Now, I did have people trying to get a better price after the job was done, all liberals who I had problems with. I am a residential builder. There is definitely a need for change orders and exact wording on contracts when dealing with liberals. Not all liberals are like that but many more than conservatives. Liberals tend to make things expensive. conservatives tend to want things reasonable priced and necessary before they do them. But they are much better at paying their bills. I did good work at a reasonable price, if I were doing work for liberals, I would have to raise my price just to cover the headaches.

By the way, Trump is a liberal, he is just "acting", Pence is a conservative I think. There are some liberals in the Republicans, it is not all conservatives.

a reply to: rickymouse

What I am talking about is a conservative position as a ceo would be to pay as little as possible and make as much profit as possible. Labor is one of the first major chopping blocks of capitalism. It's just a fact. Lowering cost not only translates into profit but also lower cost for consumers.

So a conservative state Govenor is not going to fight for higher carpenters wages to increase. Ever.

Not true on the Democrats side.

Now this means nothing because both parties literally are made up of fund raisers. Literally. They spend more time fundraising then legislating.


There is no good side. Just stop choosing and blaming. You will come to see its all our faults. Specific people do very bad things but most everybody in the world wants to feed their family and friends and stay alive as comfortably as possible. We have more common ground as independents then choosing sides. And the sides ain't worth the notoriety.