1 in 6 Draw Welfare in Predominantly Red States

[Markle]

The so called American stream is reserved for a select few. All the power to them. The rest are a burden in a way.

I disagree. Anyone with character and motivation can paddle up that stream.

 

[JonKoch]

Go ahead. Get rid of social security. Tens of millions who need it because of the ridiculous moronic low wages they received would work until death. Says something ominous and rotten about the SUPPOSED greatest nation on earth. Emphasis on supposed. The land of the rich for the rich...america.

Look, this country isn't for everybody...you can't be ignorant and sit on your hands your whole life or make poor decisions and expect to live the "American Dream"...simply breathing, having a heart beat and the title HUMAN does not and should not mean one is ENTITLED to the "American Dream"
The formala to achieve the dream is very simple and there for all to follow but one must be willing to set forth an effort.
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
There's a clear reason that NO ONE doing well shares your sentiment.
REMEMBER...there's an "amazing" country just to our south that is full of under achieving humans...they'd love to have you and you'd probably fit right in.

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.”

National Review, a conservative thought leader, wrote that “most Western European and English-speaking nations have higher rates of mobility.”

Even Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who argues that overall mobility remains high, recently wrote that “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”

Liberal commentators have long emphasized class, but the attention on the right is largely new.

“It’s becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think you’ll find too many people who will argue with that.”

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations.


A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

NYT

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

Blah, blah, endless phukking blah...

150 years of excuses is quite enough...

Yet the GOP will NOT stop trying to keep minorities down, Go figure

Supreme Court rules race improperly dominated N.C. redistricting efforts



WAPO

Supreme Court rules race improperly dominated N.C. redistricting efforts

 

[JonKoch]

Go ahead. Get rid of social security. Tens of millions who need it because of the ridiculous moronic low wages they received would work until death. Says something ominous and rotten about the SUPPOSED greatest nation on earth. Emphasis on supposed. The land of the rich for the rich...america.

Works for me!

Simply give me a check for all I contributed since 1960, a reasonable going rate of interest compounded daily and I'm a happy camper!

Sorry Cupcake, since Ronnie "saved" SS they've used $2.7+ trillion of excess SS payments to fund UNFUNDED tax cuts and wars!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The federal government is limited by the US Constitution. That's why they created it. It was limitations on what the federal government could do to us.

What the federal government is to provide for it's people is listed in the Powers of Congress. And no, Cash for Clunkers or midnight basketball isn't in there.

Tough. Your opinion is all yours. The great majority of educated Americans disagree, including those in Congress, SCOTUS, federal judiciary, state governments, and so forth.

No, only liberals agree with that-not conservatives. Liberals hate the Constitution because of those limitations. Republicans are for a constitutional government.

No, you are in the very small minority with that belief. The GOP is a Big Government Progressive political party. It is not small government, less taxes oriented. The GOP legislation has shown that this year.

The big-governmet Republicans are the establishment, not the Tea Party or conservatives. The left is big-government no matter what.

The conservatives and Trump are pushing for lowering taxes. Trump is pushing for a smaller government.

HOW MUCH LOWER OF A TAX RATE SHOULD CHEETO BE PUSHING FOR HIS PEERS

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

...In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income.


WAPO


As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

It all depends on their taxable income fruitcake. And what your chart says is the top 50% of income earners paid almost all the federal income taxes collected (97.2%) while the bottom 50% paid almost nothing.

In 2015, the top 1% paid almost half of all federal income taxes collected.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Republicans will do nothing for the poor.

HUH?
It's Republicans (and a few DemonCrat elites) whom are funding the poor. Republican church groups all over the nation bend over backwards helping "the poor".
DemonCrats by and large don't DO shit for "the poor" they simply talk about it and demand more from Republicans in helping "the poor".
The Left assures the poor that they are not in control of their own destiny. They convince the poor that their situation was predetermined and that they themselves can do nothing about it. The Left teaches complacency and acclimation in poverty by providing the excuses and coddling.
The Right seeks to convince the poor that they are in charge and they can do something about their situation. They use proven methods, which force true resolve and change through teaching accountability and responsibility.
If this nations district leaders weren't all ghetto minded trash themselves and poverty stricken districts were ran by Ben Carson types we'd see major changes in our numbers...which would mean less votes for DemonCrats.
This is all simple shit.

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala
A theory of a divided nation


...In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala

Good job bud...you've done well...you found some fabricated editorial spun by some fucked-up twisted Libtard on the internet...AWESOME!
Here's some credible shit for you.
California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients
Note that Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....also note all three are blue states. Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents. According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.

In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.

However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state. Despite this, the number of people immigrating to California increases exponentially each year."

Is this Scandinavia....or Lost Angeles? Haha

 

[Markle]

The Founders lived centuries ago and designed a Constitution which can be amended and which permitted free and fair elections where citizens can choose the policies they want.

Then simply amend the Constitution enumerating everything you think the government should do for you.

 

[Markle]

The Founders never wanted their slaves to vote either.

Not true. As you so well know.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes it did, but had nothing to do with social programs. Social programs make people lazy and dependent on their federal government. Our founders never wanted that.

The Founders never wanted their slaves to vote either.

Some of our founders were for slavery and some were not. As for voting, that's a Constitutional issue that was remedied by the amendment process.

When liberals can change our Constitution so that the government is a cradle-to-grave institution, that's when the federal government can justify financially supporting the people.

I think slavery of Black people is an obscenity but it was tolerated by the Founding Fathers.

Slavery was tolerated around the world--not just by our founders. The Republican party was created because of slavery and the fight against it. There are still countries that have slaves even today.

Other countries were quicker to end slavery than the USA. Some of the Founding Fathers "owned" slaves. They have no moral authority.

The Republican Party today is unrecognizable as the party of Lincoln. It would even make Eisenhower turn in his grave.

Really? So what other countries ended legal slavery faster than the US?

 

[JonKoch]

In a democracy, the electorate deserve the government policies they get.
In civilized countries, social programs are written in party manifestos.

That's great for democracies because we aren't one. We are a Republic.

Correct. Social programs are written in party manifestos, but not the Constitution or the responsibility of government in general. Our founders never wanted the people to be dependent on the federal government, and as we've seen, it's a terrible idea.

Yes, Ray, we are a democratic republic, meaning we elect representative to govern in our republican system. Your opinion about 'social program's is merely an opinion. And from the rise of the Progressive Age in 1912 the living standard of America rose to lead the world. The world is still trying to get here.

Yes it did, but had nothing to do with social programs. Social programs make people lazy and dependent on their federal government. Our founders never wanted that.

Without false premises, distortions and lies what would right wingers EVER have?




All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Ben
Franklin

Ya mean, like dee way you Dems keeps dem Darkies on dee Inner City Plantations wif dee Welfare Moneys and keeps da good Nigras votin' Democrat, dont'cha?

^^^AND THE RIGHT WONDERS WHY THE DEMS GET 90%+ OF THE BLACK VOTE^^^

 

[9thIDdoc]

Bogus thread. Disability is not welfare. Workers in rural areas work physically harder and are more subject to disabling injuries.

 

[Markle]

I think slavery of Black people is an obscenity but it was tolerated by the Founding Fathers.

If you lived during that period, it would be perfectly normal to you. Whether you liked it or not. Slavery has been practiced all over the world for thousands of years. My own ancestors may well have been slave owners. Possibly slaves but I kind of doubt that.

 

[JonKoch]

In a democracy, the electorate deserve the government policies they get.
In civilized countries, social programs are written in party manifestos.

That's great for democracies because we aren't one. We are a Republic.

Correct. Social programs are written in party manifestos, but not the Constitution or the responsibility of government in general. Our founders never wanted the people to be dependent on the federal government, and as we've seen, it's a terrible idea.

Yes, Ray, we are a democratic republic, meaning we elect representative to govern in our republican system. Your opinion about 'social program's is merely an opinion. And from the rise of the Progressive Age in 1912 the living standard of America rose to lead the world. The world is still trying to get here.

Yes it did, but had nothing to do with social programs. Social programs make people lazy and dependent on their federal government. Our founders never wanted that.

Without false premises, distortions and lies what would right wingers EVER have?




All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Ben
Franklin

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, Annals of Congress, 1794

Was he one of the SCOTU's that ruled they could, over and over and over for 100+ years?

“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” T JEFFERSON



It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot. ALEX HAMILTON

 

[Markle]

And it's common knowledge red states take from the federal government for welfare and programs like SSA disability while blue states pay in more than they take. In other words the blue states are funding the people in red states to be lazy. And now this comes out that shows people in the red states get on disability and their families never get off it.

The exact opposite of what conservatives claim every day. THEY are the lazy ones that need to get jobs and stop taking a handout from the 'gubment'.

Try it with cities and see which are most dependent on welfare and which cities contribute the most.

"Rural communities, where on average 9.1 percent of working-age people are on disability — nearly twice the urban rate and 40 percent higher than the national average — are in a brighter shade than cities. An even brighter hue then spreads from Appalachia into the Deep South and out into Missouri, where rates are higher yet, places economists have called “disability belts.” "

From link above


The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White
The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White | Breaking Brown


Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
Red States Are Welfare Queens

One sentence and you're incapable of comprehending. I'll try again. I'll type slowly for you.

Try it with cities and see which are most dependent on welfare and which cities contribute the most.

 

[JonKoch]

Tough. Your opinion is all yours. The great majority of educated Americans disagree, including those in Congress, SCOTUS, federal judiciary, state governments, and so forth.

No, only liberals agree with that-not conservatives. Liberals hate the Constitution because of those limitations. Republicans are for a constitutional government.

No, you are in the very small minority with that belief. The GOP is a Big Government Progressive political party. It is not small government, less taxes oriented. The GOP legislation has shown that this year.

The big-governmet Republicans are the establishment, not the Tea Party or conservatives. The left is big-government no matter what.

The conservatives and Trump are pushing for lowering taxes. Trump is pushing for a smaller government.

HOW MUCH LOWER OF A TAX RATE SHOULD CHEETO BE PUSHING FOR HIS PEERS

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

...In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income.


WAPO


As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

It all depends on their taxable income fruitcake. And what your chart says is the top 50% of income earners paid almost all the federal income taxes collected (97.2%) while the bottom 50% paid almost nothing.

In 2015, the top 1% paid almost half of all federal income taxes collected.

Weird, you mean federal income taxes which are 25% of ALL Gov't revenues

Oh you mean the bottom HALF OF US WHO RECEIVE ONLY 11% OF ALL US INCOME, DOWN FROM 18% PRE REAGANOMICS CUPCAKE?


The federal income by itself is progressive. But when all of the taxes we pay are taken into account, most of that progressivity disappears. Those who advocate for tax cuts for the highest earners and erroneously claim that the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring all of the other taxes that Americans pay. As the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2016 is roughly equal to their total share of income.


Many of the taxes we pay are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from poor and middle-income families than they do from the rich. To offset the regressive impact of payroll taxes, sales taxes and even some state and local income taxes, we need federal income tax policies that are more progressive than they are now

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2016? | CTJReports

 

[Kondor3]

That's great for democracies because we aren't one. We are a Republic.

Correct. Social programs are written in party manifestos, but not the Constitution or the responsibility of government in general. Our founders never wanted the people to be dependent on the federal government, and as we've seen, it's a terrible idea.

Yes, Ray, we are a democratic republic, meaning we elect representative to govern in our republican system. Your opinion about 'social program's is merely an opinion. And from the rise of the Progressive Age in 1912 the living standard of America rose to lead the world. The world is still trying to get here.

Yes it did, but had nothing to do with social programs. Social programs make people lazy and dependent on their federal government. Our founders never wanted that.

Without false premises, distortions and lies what would right wingers EVER have?




All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Ben
Franklin

Ya mean, like dee way you Dems keeps dem Darkies on dee Inner City Plantations wif dee Welfare Moneys and keeps da good Nigras votin' Democrat, dont'cha?

^^^AND THE RIGHT WONDERS WHY THE DEMS GET 90%+ OF THE BLACK VOTE^^^

Wrong again, buffalo breath...

I voted for Bernie in the Illinois Primaries...

I voted (extremely reluctantly) for Shrillary in the General on November 8, 2016...

And all your rock-throwing and all your whiny-bitch blathering about systemic racism fails to dilute the power of the Percentages approach outlined in Post #39...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/17419822/

 

[Markle]

You do understand after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies we lost 600,000+ jobs? Hint Obama saw 16 million jobs created after hitting Bush's bottom March 2010

The main problem in the US is the wages for the bottom 90% have been stagnant, and we have "capitalists" who are subsidized BECAUSE they refuse to pay living wages

Cute.

Then using your methodology, we'll take the administration of President Bush up to October 2007. What was the employment level at that point?

As you know, petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama was responsible for the economy the past eight years. What do you expect from such an anemic recovery? The first president in history to never have a single year of growth with a GDP exceeding 3%. Failure.

 

[JonKoch]

Republicans will do nothing for the poor.

HUH?
It's Republicans (and a few DemonCrat elites) whom are funding the poor. Republican church groups all over the nation bend over backwards helping "the poor".
DemonCrats by and large don't DO shit for "the poor" they simply talk about it and demand more from Republicans in helping "the poor".
The Left assures the poor that they are not in control of their own destiny. They convince the poor that their situation was predetermined and that they themselves can do nothing about it. The Left teaches complacency and acclimation in poverty by providing the excuses and coddling.
The Right seeks to convince the poor that they are in charge and they can do something about their situation. They use proven methods, which force true resolve and change through teaching accountability and responsibility.
If this nations district leaders weren't all ghetto minded trash themselves and poverty stricken districts were ran by Ben Carson types we'd see major changes in our numbers...which would mean less votes for DemonCrats.
This is all simple shit.

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala
A theory of a divided nation


...In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala

Good job bud...you've done well...you found some fabricated editorial spun by some fucked-up twisted Libtard on the internet...AWESOME!
Here's some credible shit for you.
California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients
Note that Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....also note all three are blue states. Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents. According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.

In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.

However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state. Despite this, the number of people immigrating to California increases exponentially each year."

Is this Scandinavia....or Lost Angeles? Haha

Weird, you mean we in Cali CHOOSE to not let the poorest go hungry and provide help, unlike those "christian" red states Cupcake? You mean we in Cali don't kick the kids off the safety nets just because their parents time out like those "christian" red states? Toy mean in Cali we allow the max 5 year lifetime for welfare versus how those "christian" red states kick them off as early as 1 year LIFETIME?




HOW IS CALI DOING COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE NATION CUPCAKE?

California Leads U.S. Economy, Away From Trump
Whatever the president says, this state does the opposite. It's working.



...Look at California, which is one-eighth of the U.S. population with 39 million people and one-seventh of the nation's gross domestic product of $2.3 trillion. Far from being a mess, California's economy is bigger than ever, rivaling the U.K. as No. 5 in the world, when figures for 2016 are officially tabulated

California is the chief reason America is the only developed economy to achieve record GDP growth since the financial crisis of 2008 and ensuing global recession, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Much of the U.S. growth can be traced to California laws promoting clean energy, government accountability and protections for undocumented people. Governor Jerry Brown, now in his fourth term, considers immigrants a major reason for the state's success: "39 percent of us are Latino and the majority are from Mexico,"

California Leads U.S. Economy, Away From Trump

BTW, THAT NBER REPORT IS NOTHING BUT A RIGHT WINGER MASQUERADING AS A INTELLECTUAL CUPCAKE


George Jesus Borjas (born Jorge Jesús Borjas; October 15, 1950) is an American economist and the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

He is most well known for his advocacy of reducing the rates of immigration to the United States.

 

[JonKoch]

The Founders lived centuries ago and designed a Constitution which can be amended and which permitted free and fair elections where citizens can choose the policies they want.

Then simply amend the Constitution enumerating everything you think the government should do for you.

It already does: SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, SNAP, etc ALL determined by SCOTUS to be constitutional

 

[JonKoch]

Republicans will do nothing for the poor.

HUH?
It's Republicans (and a few DemonCrat elites) whom are funding the poor. Republican church groups all over the nation bend over backwards helping "the poor".
DemonCrats by and large don't DO shit for "the poor" they simply talk about it and demand more from Republicans in helping "the poor".
The Left assures the poor that they are not in control of their own destiny. They convince the poor that their situation was predetermined and that they themselves can do nothing about it. The Left teaches complacency and acclimation in poverty by providing the excuses and coddling.
The Right seeks to convince the poor that they are in charge and they can do something about their situation. They use proven methods, which force true resolve and change through teaching accountability and responsibility.
If this nations district leaders weren't all ghetto minded trash themselves and poverty stricken districts were ran by Ben Carson types we'd see major changes in our numbers...which would mean less votes for DemonCrats.
This is all simple shit.

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala
A theory of a divided nation


...In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala

Good job bud...you've done well...you found some fabricated editorial spun by some fucked-up twisted Libtard on the internet...AWESOME!
Here's some credible shit for you.
California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients
Note that Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....also note all three are blue states. Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents. According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.

In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.

However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state. Despite this, the number of people immigrating to California increases exponentially each year."

Is this Scandinavia....or Lost Angeles? Haha

BTW, WHY WAS THAT HAPPENING AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP "JOB CREATOR" POLICIES CUPCAKE? Now The Cheeto wants to put them on steroids???

 

[JonKoch]

And it's common knowledge red states take from the federal government for welfare and programs like SSA disability while blue states pay in more than they take. In other words the blue states are funding the people in red states to be lazy. And now this comes out that shows people in the red states get on disability and their families never get off it.

The exact opposite of what conservatives claim every day. THEY are the lazy ones that need to get jobs and stop taking a handout from the 'gubment'.

Try it with cities and see which are most dependent on welfare and which cities contribute the most.

"Rural communities, where on average 9.1 percent of working-age people are on disability — nearly twice the urban rate and 40 percent higher than the national average — are in a brighter shade than cities. An even brighter hue then spreads from Appalachia into the Deep South and out into Missouri, where rates are higher yet, places economists have called “disability belts.” "

From link above


The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White
The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White | Breaking Brown


Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
Red States Are Welfare Queens

One sentence and you're incapable of comprehending. I'll try again. I'll type slowly for you.

Try it with cities and see which are most dependent on welfare and which cities contribute the most.

I get it Cupcake, the problem is YOU need to provide something IF you want to make a posit Cupcake


I'm showing those RED STATES SUCK OFF THE TEET OF THE BLUE STATES, This threads article shows RURAL AREAS ARE TWICE THE RATE OF CITY'S AND 40% MORE THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGES