Why Are Southern States The Most Dependent on Government? Go Figure

www.huffingtonpost.com...

If we learned nothing else during the 2012 election, it is that some of us are makers, hard-working folk solely responsible for America's prosperity, and others are takers, who want the federal government to pay for luxuries like food and health care. What may come as some surprise is where these two warring tribes tend to live. The states with elected officials most likely to espouse anti-taker sentiments -- i.e., Republican-dominated states -- are the most dependent on federal spending, while returning the least to Washington in the way of tax dollars.

There must be a reason that this is the case. It indeed appears to be the case.

Is this a conspiracy that the government has made the south most dependent on government?

1. We have many of the Latino immigrants (legal and not) that come to this country. They are more likely to be the children of immigrants and, because of this, be poorer. There are other parts of the country that do have them, and more, to be honest, but this is just a minor peg amongst several others. It, however, does play a part.

2. We have the vast majority of the African Americans in this country, who also tend to be several more times likely to be born to single parent homes and come from a long family legacy of poverty.

3. The cost of living is generally much less in the South, making it look as though a disproportionate amount of people are living in poverty when compared to the absolute value for poverty set my the United States' government.

4. There is an undeniable religious bent in the South that doesn't exist so much in the North or out West. There's a strong stance against abortion, sex ed, and other things that exacerbate the poverty situation.

5. Up until a few generations ago, much of the South was rural and agricultural. Even when it wasn't, it was mostly working in the coal industry, the logging industry, textiles, that sort of thing. Settling into adulthood early and having several children was just how things were. This is a cultural attitude that hasn't completely vanished yet because the textile mills didn't really disappear en-massed until about 20 years ago.

6. The south is still the south. There is an unspoken cultural hierarchy that isn't exactly as rigid as the Indian caste system...but it's analogous to it. The end of the world could happen tomorrow and there are entire sections of the South that would barely notice it. That's just how it is, forever and ever amen. Actually moving up is actually pretty hard if you're not a hustler or really smart.

brandiwine14
Yes, we know this. As well as the fact that the most racially segregated schools all reside in Liberal states. Clearly you did not search the site or you would have seen that this thread was already in abundance on here.

I have seen that you are new here and yet you have several open threads without facts just conjecture. Tell me, what is it like being a payed disinformant? Does it pay well?

So, nothing about the OP's topic aside from "yes we know" and the near-universal accusation of "shill"?

You're citing the OP for providing conjecture rather than facts, and yet, you provide no backup for YOUR claims?

Just providing a great example and helpful advice for a new member, eh?

How about any counter facts to address the bitter irony that the Red States are the greatest financial drain on the "welfare state"? (Not to mention, on the Federal Budget, overall.)

No comment on-topic? Sad.

If the OP understood demographics and the historic trends that differentiate agricultural states from industrial states? Some of the answers would become self evident and totally separate from political party....which wasn't what it is today, when the roots for the situation we see on colorful maps were first laid.

I'm afraid some folks scope-lock on partisan game playing to the level of becoming part of the problem, not the solution. Generally speaking...

Nothing worth getting into a tizzy about, to be sure.

But aren't the southern states against things like welfare and handout... don't we call that hypocrisy?

its like they are against government assistance for the sake of their political party, but they depend on the whole system themselves.

Shooting themselves in the foot.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


I see the blame game already started.

How much % of the population is Latinos and Blacks in the south?

reply to post by Gryphon66


No problem

dailycaller.com...

www.gopusa.com...


This person has several opened threads all pertaining to how horrible the Republicans are, he gives no facts. In fact on another thread he lies about the politicians and their beliefs, even stating the lies in the thread it's absurdity at best.

I did not think I needed to any information because as I stated both topics have been on the front page of ATS for days now. Seriously, front page of ATS, being bitterly feuded upon for days now. This op is not here to debate facts for either side, he is here in hopes that he can guide the gullible into being swayed his way. Look to his other threads, see for yourself that he offers no debate on any matter, just blindly spews out info then moves on to begin yet another thread in hopes of wrangling in those who can not think for themselves. My purpose in replying in the first place was to point out to him that not all of us ATS'ers are gullible and ready to jump on a hate filled bandwagon.

Clearly A one sided dis-informant any way you look at it, but hey all they want and need is someone to believe them and keep them going, and going, and going and blah!

reply to post by luciddream


I didn't realize we could stereotype the entire southern tier of states into any such corner? I recall spending time in towns down there that are as conservative as anyone could want to ask for. I also enjoyed the time in places that were so left, I think the car dealerships removed the right turn signal for customer consideration.

Like every other area of the nation....stereotyping is simple thinking to a very complex situation and combination of factors. Hard to stick that into a few lines to start vicious debate tho...so most never try to look deeper, IMO.

brandiwine14
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

No problem

dailycaller.com...

www.gopusa.com...


This person has several opened threads all pertaining to how horrible the Republicans are, he gives no facts. In fact on another thread he lies about the politicians and their beliefs, even stating the lies in the thread it's absurdity at best.

I did not think I needed to any information because as I stated both topics have been on the front page of ATS for days now. Seriously, front page of ATS, being bitterly feuded upon for days now.

Clearly A one sided dis-informant any way you look at it, but hey all they want and need is someone to believe them and keep them going, and going, and going and blah!

edit on 31-3-2014 by brandiwine14 because: (no reason given)

didn't you know that ATS is all about conservative bashing, and there are no threads bashing the left?.....just look at the "US Political Madness" forum....nothing but hundreds of liberal loving threads...(sarcasm)

reply to post by jimmyx


Someone needs to be heavily biased to not see that there are 4-5 posters actively bashing the liberals.

Meaning, every post they type, every thread they make is against liberals.

They don't post in any other forums, purely political forums.

reply to post by luciddream


If I saw one person bashing another side over and over and over and all in the span of a couple of hours I would likely say something to them as well.

Clearly this is the sort of the thing that this op wanted in this first place, petty arguments over side vs side.

We all have our opinions, beliefs political and otherwise and we are all entitled to them but to have several threads with little more than a sentence, all clearly one-sided and some filled with pure lies is in my opinion a misuse of this site and a misuse of my time, as I am now done with this thread. Perhaps you are one of those people who like the bashing of one side over and over and over again.

Suit yourself!

I have noticed this, yes. In fact, a friend of mine and I were discussing this a few weeks ago, although we talking more about farm and agriculture subsidies in western states that tend to be very red. I've also known a few people why, while railing against the federal government, were happy to take on federal or state assistance.

Don't ask me why. Makes no sense.

reply to post by luciddream


What part of this is a blame game? If minorities are more likely to be poorer, and substantially so, and they also happen to live more so in one region of the country, then that is obviously going to have an effect on the overall poverty of the region. That's not laying blame; that's simply pointing out the effects of population dynamics playing a part in the equation.

Also, I love how you pointed out 2 of 6, one of which I specifically stated was quite a small part of the equation, and then decided that I was playing a blame game.

Stop trying to be offended.

brandiwine14
reply to post by luciddream

 

If I saw one person bashing another side over and over and over and all in the span of a couple of hours I would likely say something to them as well.

Clearly this is the sort of the thing that this op wanted in this first place, petty arguments over side vs side.

We all have our opinions, beliefs political and otherwise and we are all entitled to them but to have several threads with little more than a sentence, all clearly one-sided and some filled with pure lies is in my opinion a misuse of this site and a misuse of my time, as I am now done with this thread. Perhaps you are one of those people who like the bashing of one side over and over and over again.

Suit yourself!

edit on 31-3-2014 by brandiwine14 because: (no reason given)

What the op posted is fact. The heavily right wing southern states are the biggest recipients of federal aid. Another person started on about segregated schools being in the north which is true but have nothing to do with the thread. The Republicans in DC like to scream about the poor being self reliant and get off welfare but they seem to forget this when it comes their constant begging of welfare for their home states. As the old saying goes "practice what you preach".

reply to post by Skymon612


Its a grassroots problem .. they force the fathers out of the lives of children using the 'child support system' which has nothing to do with the benefit of the child .. and then keep the single moms and the kids on welfare by convincing them they are doing the right thing keeping the father away ..such women are easily convinced and kept in the 'box' because they get free money by killing the fathers .. with a divorce rate of 80% now in USA, you can see how this is all created by a corrupt broken system, called your good 'ol 'child support system' ..lol

Eliminate that corrupt system completely, and you will see how the numbers magically balance out ..and everyone suddenly has starts working ..

I am calling Bullsnip.

There are more people on welfare in blue states than most red states entire populations.

Example my home state of Indiana.

6 million people reside in Indiana.

Compared that to California or New York.

That article is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

www.businessweek.com...

Skymon612
www.huffingtonpost.com...


There must be a reason that this is the case. It indeed appears to be the case.

Is this a conspiracy that the government has made the south most dependent on government?

This is simply a convenient myth being parroted by the Huffington Post….go figure! This dumb argument isn’t based in fact. Some of the states they call “red states” aren’t really red at all. Mississippi, West Virginia, North Dakota, and South Dakota have consistently elected more Democrats than Republicans since the 80’s. The “blue states” aren’t exactly blue either. New Hampshire and Delaware have elected predominantly Republicans in the House; Colorado has seven Republican ‘representatives’ (I use that term loosely).

This is more distraction.

Easy to understand this data, and it has nothing to do with partisan bickering.

Population Density vs Federal cost per square mile to "upkeep".

That is all this study is calculating.

The "left" states are highly populated states, because there are more people per square mile they have more "givers/taxpayors" per square mile requiring "upkeep". It costs the federal government similar amounts per square mile, to "upkeep" roads, highways, infrastructure, parks, police firefighters etc.

If you then have 11,000,000 people (givers/taxpayors) living on 25 square miles (NYC) it become more cost effective for the federal government to "upkeep" those 25 square miles, because they have 11,000,000 "givers/taxpayors" to take from, regardless of the numbers truly on government aid.

If, by contrast, you live in a rural area, you might only have 500 "givers/taxpayors' living on that same 25 square miles of land. It would cost the federal government more to "upkeep" those 25 square miles when compared to taxes collected in that area.

All this graphic proves is that it is more cost effective for the federal government to maintain large cities, because you have many times more "givers/taxpayors" putting in taxes, than you have federal costs coming out of it to cover the same land area.

If you want to buy what the article is selling you are not thinking logically here, the study is clearly simply measuring taxes in and federal expense out, which has far more to do with population density then which party your congressmen claims to represent.

God Bless,

luciddream
But aren't the southern states against things like welfare and handout... don't we call that hypocrisy?

its like they are against government assistance for the sake of their political party, but they depend on the whole system themselves.

Shooting themselves in the foot.

Perhaps we're against the welfare abuse culture because we see it all around us.

Hypocracy would be me being against it while benefitting from it myself.