10/27/2008 01:43:52 PM EST

Red States are the Welfare States - Who Are the Real Deadbeats?

posted by desertpear

Interesting maps...

"Given the concentration of wealth created by industry centers, these states contribute more than they receive in Federal taxes. In effect, the blue states are subsidizing the red states."

 

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

  

Texas's Energy focus is the last successful industry in the United States that relies on excavation of natural resources rather than intellectual capital or services. Next generation energy development is concentrated in Northern California (solar) and in the Great Lakes area (power cell). Agriculture is not included as an area of competitive advantage since agriculture in both the United States and the European Union is protected with government subsidies from competition from developing nations. Hence the agricultural center of the United States does not have any financial strength or competitive advantage.

< Stolen Obama campaign signs | Open Thread >
 Display:
Red States are the Welfare States - Who Are the Real Deadbeats? | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
i heard (none / 0)
its all those Muslim and Asian immigrants that are on welfare:)

y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/27/2008 02:38:55 PM EST

can't forget the blacks there, Yasemin :) (none / 0)
never forget them :)
So I guess, at your house, Chris and you are living of those welfare checks that could have gone to the good folks in the Bible belt :)

by callisto on 10/27/2008 02:46:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
all the welfare money (none / 0)
is going to those inner-city urban black and Muslim non-American Alaskans!

y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/27/2008 05:17:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
NOOOOOOOO, you told the dirty little secret!!! (none / 0)
of how the Democratic/mostly coastal states are subsidizing the life of "real America" and in exchange these "real, hard working, conservative" Americans dictate the 1950s policies and "values" that constrain the coastal hedonistic :) states from their freedom

without the farm subsidies, paid by those leeeebrals from the coasts, the heartland would not survive

isn't it sad that these welfare queens and kings from the middle have dominated American politics for all these years?

by callisto on 10/27/2008 02:42:16 PM EST

This is fascinating to me. (none / 1)
Why don't we stop all this income redistribution and see what happens?

by jarett on 10/27/2008 03:00:01 PM EST

excellent idea (none / 0)
How about letting the free market deal with the agricultural sector as well?

by desertpear on 10/27/2008 03:35:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Where do most Americans live? (none / 0)

Bobo made a comment the other day that made me curious about something:

"If you are speaking of large Metro areas, Chicago or maybe even Houston. NYC is too diverse and really is its own little country...Kind of like San Francisco... I like to think of America as not only being represented by cities, though - a large percentage of Americans live in rural areas, and there is a lot that is good about rural America even if it doesn't support such a high level of "diversity"... Liberals tend to forget that in my opinion..."

I really didn't know what percentage of Americans lived in urban areas, so I thought I would find out.  Well, it turns out that only a very small percentage of Americans live in rural areas.  I'm sure it depends on the definition, of course.

"The United States is an urbanized nation, with 80.8% of its population... residing in cities and suburbs as of mid-year 2005."

Here is a map of population density, from the same page.

So, with this information, can one still argue that "real" Americans are those in "small towns"?

by desertpear on 10/27/2008 04:03:21 PM EST

Pear, what was... (none / 0)
The definition of a "city" or "urban" area in your research? That makes a big difference. - Some research suggest areas as little as 2000 people are considered "urban", and if that is the case, your data is skewed... :)

by bobo1 on 10/27/2008 04:21:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
not good enough argument (none / 0)

I agree that the 81% figure could be high, but even with a much more conservative definition of "urban", it wouldn't change the basic argument:  most Americans live in urban areas.  And most Americans live in blue states.  Us blue-staters basically subsidize the red states.  Prove me wrong.

 

 

by desertpear on 10/27/2008 04:36:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't say... (none / 0)
That the red states were more populous - they aren't - what I asked is what was the definition of "city" or "urban" in the study you quoted... 2000? 5000? 10000? It DOES make a difference when you speak of rural vs. Urban definitions... 81 percent sounds way high... And BTW - being from a rural red state doesn't make one any less than someone from a blue urban area - that's Liberalism rearing its ugly head... Or do you really believe that we live in "2 Americas?" :)

by bobo1 on 10/27/2008 04:49:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
like I said (none / 1)

You could drastically change the criteria, but it probably wouldn't change the basic point I was making--that most Americans live in more urban rather than more rural areas.

I didn't find the criteria, but feel free to research more--the link and sources are in my post.  It's not worth it to me.  81% is high, I agree, but that's still a lot of room for error.

I'm not saying it makes anyone "less American" to live in a red state or rural area.  I like rural areas myself.  What I am arguing is that there is no such thing as "real" or "patriotic" areas of America.  We are all Americans and we each have one vote.  

I created this post because of all the comments I hear from Republicans complaining about "spreading the wealth around" to less fortunate people.  The majority of those people--those paying less taxes--seem to live in the red and rural areas of the country.  Why do Republicans hate their own?  Or, like the book says:  "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers - when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings -- when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work -- you could be damned sure about what would follow.

Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

 

 

by desertpear on 10/27/2008 05:09:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great excerpt (none / 0)
.

by Tom Hanc on 10/27/2008 05:46:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Awesome (none / 0)
I've read this before but I had forgotten about it. Great find Pear!

by Tom Hanc on 10/27/2008 04:33:24 PM EST

I thought it was pretty cool too (none / 0)
Kind of deflates a lot of the bullshit arguments, doesn't it?

by desertpear on 10/27/2008 04:37:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
i agree....great info..... (none / 0)
sean
portland

by sfinneganus on 10/27/2008 05:16:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)
I wish these damn onion pickers would get their hands out of my wallet. Good luck on that one.

by z1p101 on 10/27/2008 05:48:57 PM EST

Red States are the Welfare States - Who Are the Real Deadbeats? | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: