Posted on 09/17/2013 6:55:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
During the last few years, a key liberal talking point has been "red state welfare." The argument is that the states that get more from the federal government than they pay in taxes tend to be red states, whereas the states that give more to the federal government than they pay in taxes tend to be blue states. This "red state welfare" hypothesis falls completely apart when we look at the data.
The so-called top 10 "red states" on welfare are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Virginia, and Kentucky.
The purportedly bottom 10 "blue states" not on welfare are New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado.
To show how mindless this liberal proposition is, the "red state welfare" argument appears to be entirely based only on how each state voted in the most recent presidential election. This results in entirely junk science.
First off, states that are either "haves" (i.e., give more to the federal government than they receive) or "have-nots" (i.e., get more from the federal government than they give) do not just arise overnight. State finances take decades to develop as either "haves" or "have-nots," so looking at only a single election is meaningless. Rather, we need to look at how a state has voted over several decades to obtain any relevant insights.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It’s not about red and blue, it’s about black and white. look at the demographics of the red and blue states in question.
All I can tell you is that California has 1/3rd of all welfare.
The nation has 1/2 of all children born into welfare and I also bet in California we have a 90% born into welfare number with all the illegals.
Liberals LOVE the hand outs, that IMO is NOT a conservative deal.
IMO withdraw the funding for welfare families in 6 months or make it real poverty for them so they stop reproducing.
Here in CA when I see a large family, they are dressed most often like dirt which means I am looking at a welfare family getting often $45k worth of benefits in this state.
California is not only weird, but crazy and broke. This red state blue state stuff means nothing.
Defund to some extent growing welfare families.
It's not like Illinois, Calif, DC and a few others are beacons of snowland.
Various groups find ways to mooch. They are professionals at doing such.
Bear in mind that much of the so-called “federal welfare” is military spending and bases. Since progressives are decidedly anti-military (along with the jobs they provide) , and vote against military spending whenever possible, that may have something to do with it.
states do not get more than they paid in taxes because the federal government swallows about 70% of it off the top.
uh-oh
Yep, red-blue state means nothing. I am also always amused when people are shocked that Texas schools do crazy crap, they are public schools no matter where they are located and always run by the same kind of idiots.
If the Senate is trying to get a Senator to change his vote by lavishing him with pork, the pork goes a lot further in a low population state.
And that premise can be looked at two ways: either the “red” states take a lot more from the FedGov than they send, but are sending some “standard” amount (and Blue states take less), or the red states take the same as the blue states, but send less to the FedGov.
Not all government money is for “welfare” yet. Without looking at the other 9 “welfare states” I can debunk New Mexico right now. Becuase of it’s geography and sparce population It is home to Two Airforce bases, Los Alamos Natl. Labs, Sandia Natl. labs, and White Sands Missile range. All this R&D, testing, and military goes on in a state with less than 3 million inhabitants.
As for the state finances, all the money comes from oil and gas taxes on the more conservative southern part of the state while the leftist a-holes in Santa Fe control it.
The usual democratic talking point involves a certain map that they like to post along with the talking point to add credence to their spurious point. If one looks at that map, the situation is largely, though not entirely explained by large concentrations of non-working minorities which are not present in the blue states.
It's all democratic propaganda and utter BS regardless of anything else. It's far easier to make up and spread lies than to refute them.
Huh??? Who writes this? And who edits it?
1. Let them rant about "welfare conservatives" and how evil, lazy, racist, etc. they are. Then say that both sides should work to end the fraud (which they just stated is primarily Republican). They will look at you as if you handed them the address of IRS so they could send in more of their money or a deadly viper (the look is the same).
2. After they rant about "welfare republicans" ask them why do they think those people vote republican. Somewhere in the conversation they will say something like "I don't know why they don't vote their best interests". Which is an admission that it's the Democrat policies that encourage welfare fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.