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.
My real question though...as the GOP courts the South with rhetoric of "Leeching off of the taxpayer"...do those southern states realize that it is them that are the "Leeches" thier nominee is referring to?
Originally posted by Praetorius
If it's mainly a matter of state and county governments eating up the funds for various needs (or wastes...) as compared to the taxpayers receiving direct benefits and welfare, then it falls a bit flat on that appeal.
I'll have to look more into it. Nice post, and definitely gets the mind working...I'll have to follow up when mine's doing so better.
Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Indigo5
I saw the part about poverty levels, but it doesn't appear to refer to actual (personal) welfare funds distribution. You happen to have any sources or info handy on that, as federal poverty levels don't necessarily correlate to people collecting welfare (likely due to associated cost of living, and so forth)? I'm not having luck finding numbers by state right at the moment.
Originally posted by jjkenobi
Regardless, I love reading stories like this because of all the conflicting stereotypes that abound. Red states are all the rich people, the 1%. No wait, they are all the poor and uneducated leeching off the govt. No no I got it, only a few really rich control all the poor. It's entertaining to me.
Originally posted by jjkenobi
I would like to see this study done on county by county basis. Blue states have red counties and red states have blue counties.
At a glance, one sees the layout of high rates of SNAP participation across Appalachia, the Mississippi delta and the deep south, the Texas borderlands, and remote rural parts of the West.
It included everything from Unemployment to Welfare etc.
Originally posted by IncognitoGhostman
reply to post by Indigo5
Just making a guess here, I know that South Carolina doesn't have any state taxes and I believe Florida is the same. It could quite possibly be that because they don't have revenue collected from taxes they require more money from the federal government for welfare and the likes.
I also noticed states like California, New York and the others with high state taxes. They wouldn't need as much Federal money.
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Indigo5
It included everything from Unemployment to Welfare etc.
Where did you find what it included? I can't find that anywhere on the link you provided.
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
The "Blue States" Which by your definition means they liked Obama more than McCain and "Red States" the opposite.
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
I would consider a "Blue State" one that is primarily governed and represented by democrats and a "Red State" one that is primarily governed and represented by republicans. Have you looked at the representation of these states or are you just going from who voted for who by state for president? I don't know exactly how reliable a way that is to judge the majority of political leanings in any particular state.
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
This data doesn't mean a thing though without a link to what programs it includes and an understanding of the actual democrat or republican representation of each state.
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
Also the data is from 2005 and the redstate/bluestate thing is from 2008. 3 years is a long time when it comes to political theater. Perhaps you can see which states where blue or red from the year 2005 based on their government and representation.
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
My conclusion is that your statement has been made from unrelated data and is thus inconclusive and perhaps quite faulty.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Doesn't explain the stats on actual food stamp and welfare participation that lean Red.