1 in 6 Draw Welfare in Predominantly Red States

[Markle]

Again, I don't think anyone wants to deny a legitimately disabled person some benefits but when the government doesn't saddle up for any of the claims, it looks as though people are taking advantage. Especially in the red states.

My sister went legally blind when her retinas started detaching. It still took years for her get SS disability.

Are there people gaming the system? Maybe. But the real problem is that since the labor market is controlled by employer need and not workers needs, a lot of these people could work somewhere, it's just no one wants to hire them.

Perhaps because your case was real.

Disability, USA

Steve Kroft reports on the alarming state of the federal disability program, which has exploded in size and could run out of money

• 2013 Oct 10

The following script is from "Disability, USA" which aired on Oct. 6, 2013. The correspondent is Steve Kroft. James Jacoby and Michael Karzis, producers.

There is a Senate hearing scheduled tomorrow on a subject of some importance to millions of Americans, but with the government shutdown it's not clear that the Senate Committee on Government Affairs will be able to pay for a stenographer to record the event. The hearing involves the Federal Disability Insurance Program, which could become the first government benefits program to run out of money. When it began back in the 1950s it was envisioned as a small program to assist people who were unable to work because of illness or injury.

Today, it serves nearly 12 million people -- up 20 percent in the last six years -- and has a budget of $135 billion. That's more than the government spent last year on the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and the Labor Department combined. It's been called a "secret welfare system" with it's own "disability industrial complex," a system ravaged by waste and fraud. A lot of people want to know what's going on. Especially Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Disability, USA

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

A government which relies on church charities to feed the poor has abdicated its responsibility.

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1 in 6 Draw Welfare in Predominantly Red States

Of COURSE there will be more White Folk on Welfare than Blacks or Hispanics.

Blacks only constitute twelve (12%) percent of the total US population.

Whites constitute seventy-seven (77%) percent of the total US population.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00

Raw numbers, without the context of percentage-of-ethnic-population, in the racial context established by the OP, are highly misleading... and downright deceptive.

However, all one need do is to look at the PERCENTAGE of the total Black population on Welfare, vs. the PERCENTAGE of the total White population on Welfare, to understand the situation properly.

That's a perspective that Liberals don't want us looking at too closely, and that they try to mask, with all this Red State $hit... something they try to repeat every so often.

=============================================================

Using HuffPo's OWN racial demographics on food stamp consumption; drawn from USDA data...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html

And the USDA's total food stamp (SNAP) consumption figures...

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.pdf

Total US population, 2016, US Census Bureau estimate​	323,127,513​
Total Black population (323,127,512 X .12)	38,775,301​
Total White population (323,127,512 X .77)	248,808,185​
_
Total US food stamp (SNAP) participation, Jan 2017	42,684,691​
Percent of all US food stamps consumed by Blacks	25.7%​
Total US Blacks receiving food stamps (42,684,691 X .257)	10.959,965​
Percent of US Blacks receiving food stamps (10,959,965 / 38,775.301)	28.29%​
_
Total US food stamp (SNAP) participation, Jan 2017	42,684,691​
Percent of all US food stamps consumed by Whites	40.2%​
Total US Whites receiving food stamps (42,684,691 X .402)	17,159,245​
Percent of US Whites receiving food stamps (17,159,245/248,808,185)	6.9%​
_
Percent of US Blacks receiving food stamps (SNAP)	28.29%​
Percent of US Whites receiving food stamps (SNAP)	6.9%​
Difference	21.39%​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Consequently, we see that 21.39% more Blacks are on food stamps, than Whites, as a percentage of their demographic within the larger US total population.

So much for the raw-numbers hor$e$hit being fed to us by deceitful Liberals.

Next slide, please.

Who mentioned race?

The OP.

By implication.

Red States vs. Blue States.

And if you tell me that one cannot reliably infer "race" from such an opening, you are going to be laughed at.

Revealing percentages though, aren't they?

Enjoy.

Next contestant, please.

You’re obsessed with race then…
I’ve been away for a few months; are the no longer blacks in the South?

They all moved next door to Kondor3 and HenryBHough is the problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

A government which relies on church charities to feed the poor has abdicated its responsibility.

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The government is trying to make sure you die before getting benefits. WTF do you think they keep raising the retirement age for? They won't even let you use a 401k before they think you should have died.

The thing is if we want to keep these programs, they need to keep increasing contributions or it will eventually fail. I can't remember the last time they raised our SS or Medicare deductions. No program can survive if it keeps paying out more and more every year, and no additional funds coming in.

Dead on. Congress has to refund the monies that it has taken from the programs. The fix is easy.

No, that money is refunded on due dates the IOU's expire. That's not the solution. The solution is to keep increasing deductions from working Americans to keep them alive. When Americans get sick of seeing their paychecks getting robbed, it is they that will demand change.

 

[Eloy]

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.

A government which relies on church charities to feed the poor has abdicated its responsibility.

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

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.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

A government which relies on church charities to feed the poor has abdicated its responsibility.

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

A government which relies on church charities to feed the poor has abdicated its responsibility.

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Eloy]

A government which relies on church charities to feed the poor has abdicated its responsibility.

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

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.

The Founders never wanted their slaves to vote either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The government is trying to make sure you die before getting benefits. WTF do you think they keep raising the retirement age for? They won't even let you use a 401k before they think you should have died.

The thing is if we want to keep these programs, they need to keep increasing contributions or it will eventually fail. I can't remember the last time they raised our SS or Medicare deductions. No program can survive if it keeps paying out more and more every year, and no additional funds coming in.

Dead on. Congress has to refund the monies that it has taken from the programs. The fix is easy.

No, that money is refunded on due dates the IOU's expire. That's not the solution. The solution is to keep increasing deductions from working Americans to keep them alive. When Americans get sick of seeing their paychecks getting robbed, it is they that will demand change.

You don't understand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A government which relies on church charities to feed the poor has abdicated its responsibility.

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

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.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Eloy]

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.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Markle]

Social security is an insurance policy that the workers are forced to buy. It is not "welfare".

Not even an insurance policy.

Today it is a grand Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff would be proud if he had developed this one. In a Ponzi scheme, the payout to the investors depends on the income from new investors. That describes Social Security to a T.

With an insurance policy, at the payout, you get all you paid in plus a reasonable return. With Social Security, if I paid in $200,000. and die when I'm 65, I get nothing, my heirs get nothing.

Decades ago there was a loophole allowing certain groups to opt out. Galveston Texas and two other counties around them opted out and set up their own system. The results were stunning. The beneficiaries receive more than with SS plus, when they die, their appointed heir receives a decent death benefit. A remarkable improvement.

 

[JonKoch]

Especially in the red states. Ooooh, that's positively orgasmic. How can they compete morally with the angelic beings dwelling in the heavenly blue states?

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," he said in a March 2 interview in his Sacramento office.


In the stock and bond markets, where investors show no allegiance to political parties, California has outperformed the rest of the U.S. the past five years, especially since the Nov. 9 election, when Trump became the fifth person to win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote. California's creditworthiness keeps getting better, measured by the declining premium global investors must pay to ensure against depreciation of the state's debt obligations. That premium has diminished more than for any other state since 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. California, whose voters favored Hillary Clinton two to one, outperformed Treasury bonds since the November election. Texas, which is the second-largest state in population and which supported Trump, became cheaper compared to Treasuries and California in the market for state and local debt since the November election. Investors see security in the state with more protections for immigrants and more regulations.



California's borrowing cost is 0.15 percentage points lower than the average for states and municipalities and has declined to just 0.24 percentage points more than the U.S. pays on its debt, down from 1.97 percentage points in 2013.

At the same time, bonds sold by California's municipalities produced a total return of 2.3 percent since November, outperforming the benchmark for the U.S., according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The growing popularityof bonds sold by California issuers is a consequence of the state's more rigorous regulation of the market, specifically legislation signed by Brown last year, creating greater transparency and accountability for issuers of California debt.

No state or country has created as many laws discouraging fossil fuels and carbon while promoting clean energy. That convergence of policy and voter preference is paying off in the stock market.

California Leads U.S. Economy, Away From Trump

 

[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.