Can you pay down the debt WITHOUT growing the "economy"?

[itfitzme]

This is what's great about Macroeconomics-- the idea is that when costs (=taxes) are lowered, not only do consumers have more money to buy, but producers see lower costs and respond by producing more products at lower prices. It's a positive feedback loop AKA "virtuous circle".

BTW , taxes are not a cost. Taxes are a percentage of earnings (for businesses). Earnings are after costs. Hence ther terms EBT and EBIT...

People can define these words anyway they want to. What happens in business is people agree to define these words according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and that means the word "earnings" means "net income" and a typical standard income statement shows net income with taxes already subtracted.

None of that matters, it's just stuff I've used in the market place where continued participation depends on good faith. This conversation however appears to have wandered into political squabbling where success depends instead on an increasingly emotional fervor needed maintain the devotion of its followers.

That stuff's way over my head and I try to leave it to the experienced professionals

It is critical to use the same definitions when communicating. Otherwise we have no communication at all. I use the definitions that are employed by the professionals in the field because they know bettwr than I. And, in most cases, those definitions have been defined by some measure and mathematics so they are unmistakable in their meanings.

The problem arises when people of a political or emotional bend manipulate the definitions to their own devices. They do so to attach an emotional meaning that doesn't actually exist or to pretend the world is the way they want it to be rather than the way it really is.

Whatever my opinion may be, I make sure it is at least drawn from the correct definitions. Then, at least, it falls out from the assembly of facts that can be updated based on real experience, even experience that I may not like, rather than being based on how I want to feel, a perception that can be isolated from reality.

Sure, I can call coffee "orange juice" and then pretend I am getting vitamine C. But when it comes to ordering orange juice at McDonald's, I'm going to get what I asked for, not what I'm pretending.

When the convo gets a bit confounded, I do present the measures as best I know them. "Earnings", alone, takes on numerous meanings. "Earning per Share", "EBIT: Earninings Before Interest And Taxes", "EBT: Earnings Before Taxes", "EAT: Earnings After Taxes", ... Are all different measures with specific formulas.

Net Profit and gross profit, expences and cost, are distinctly different measures And worse yet is that accounting and economics may use the same terms with slightly different meaning.

To the best that I can find, simply "cost" is best applied as "cost of goods sold" while taxes are applied to earnings which is revenues - costs. And If I have to simplify from "gross" and "net profit", I find that "net profit" is the better choice.

My only definitive point is that costs are specifically not taxes though taxes are expences. The distinction is significant and I am reluctant to confuse people by implying that taxes are in any way like costs. Different from our personal home finances where we really don't have costs that are subtracted from revenues before the tax rate is applied, businesses pay zero taxes if they are selling at cost. I consider this as significant. And, no matter what the tax rate may be, taxes cannot consume all net profit as it is a percentage of EBT. Taxes do not, in any manner, act like costs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BTW , taxes are not a cost. Taxes are a percentage of earnings (for businesses). Earnings are after costs. Hence ther terms EBT and EBIT...

People can define these words anyway they want to. What happens in business is people agree to define these words according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and that means the word "earnings" means "net income" and a typical standard income statement shows net income with taxes already subtracted.

None of that matters, it's just stuff I've used in the market place where continued participation depends on good faith. This conversation however appears to have wandered into political squabbling where success depends instead on an increasingly emotional fervor needed maintain the devotion of its followers.

That stuff's way over my head and I try to leave it to the experienced professionals

It is critical to use the same definitions when communicating. Otherwise we have no communication at all. I use the definitions that are employed by the professionals in the field because they know bettwr than I. And, in most cases, those definitions have been defined by some measure and mathematics so they are unmistakable in their meanings.

The problem arises when people of a political or emotional bend manipulate the definitions to their own devices. They do so to attach an emotional meaning that doesn't actually exist or to pretend the world is the way they want it to be rather than the way it really is.

Whatever my opinion may be, I make sure it is at least drawn from the correct definitions. Then, at least, it falls out from the assembly of facts that can be updated based on real experience, even experience that I may not like, rather than being based on how I want to feel, a perception that can be isolated from reality.

Sure, I can call coffee "orange juice" and then pretend I am getting vitamine C. But when it comes to ordering orange juice at McDonald's, I'm going to get what I asked for, not what I'm pretending.

Yet you keep pretending that businesses figure taxes after they figure costs.

 

[itfitzme]

People can define these words anyway they want to. What happens in business is people agree to define these words according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and that means the word "earnings" means "net income" and a typical standard income statement shows net income with taxes already subtracted.

None of that matters, it's just stuff I've used in the market place where continued participation depends on good faith. This conversation however appears to have wandered into political squabbling where success depends instead on an increasingly emotional fervor needed maintain the devotion of its followers.

That stuff's way over my head and I try to leave it to the experienced professionals

It is critical to use the same definitions when communicating. Otherwise we have no communication at all. I use the definitions that are employed by the professionals in the field because they know bettwr than I. And, in most cases, those definitions have been defined by some measure and mathematics so they are unmistakable in their meanings.

The problem arises when people of a political or emotional bend manipulate the definitions to their own devices. They do so to attach an emotional meaning that doesn't actually exist or to pretend the world is the way they want it to be rather than the way it really is.

Whatever my opinion may be, I make sure it is at least drawn from the correct definitions. Then, at least, it falls out from the assembly of facts that can be updated based on real experience, even experience that I may not like, rather than being based on how I want to feel, a perception that can be isolated from reality.

Sure, I can call coffee "orange juice" and then pretend I am getting vitamine C. But when it comes to ordering orange juice at McDonald's, I'm going to get what I asked for, not what I'm pretending.

Yet you keep pretending that businesses figure taxes after they figure costs.

You can "figure it" any way you want to. You can call sugar salt and salt sugar then say you put salt in your coffee. You can "figure" thing any way you want to. The reality remains that Cost of goods sold are capital equipment, material and labor costs, fixed and variable costs that prices must account for and reduce profits on a one for one basis while taxes are a percentage that do not subtract from revenues and can never cause profits to equal zero. Nor do taxes require that price be increased. You can "figure" them any way you like so that you show a net profit. You can pretend they are costs but is doesn't change the reality.

The reality of the ideal economic model that you want to employ is that companies are price takers and if the market is perfectly competative, price = cost and taxes are zero because there is no profit in perfectly competative markets.

To the contrary, in inefficient markets with imperfections, price is greater than cost and the tax rate is a percentage of that, a percentage after costs have been subtracted.

What you want to do is pick and choose from the ideal model, the real market performance, and business accounting to put together piece of fiction because you like how it "figures"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is critical to use the same definitions when communicating. Otherwise we have no communication at all. I use the definitions that are employed by the professionals in the field because they know bettwr than I. And, in most cases, those definitions have been defined by some measure and mathematics so they are unmistakable in their meanings.

The problem arises when people of a political or emotional bend manipulate the definitions to their own devices. They do so to attach an emotional meaning that doesn't actually exist or to pretend the world is the way they want it to be rather than the way it really is.

Whatever my opinion may be, I make sure it is at least drawn from the correct definitions. Then, at least, it falls out from the assembly of facts that can be updated based on real experience, even experience that I may not like, rather than being based on how I want to feel, a perception that can be isolated from reality.

Sure, I can call coffee "orange juice" and then pretend I am getting vitamine C. But when it comes to ordering orange juice at McDonald's, I'm going to get what I asked for, not what I'm pretending.

Yet you keep pretending that businesses figure taxes after they figure costs.

You can "figure it" any way you want to. You can call sugar salt and salt sugar then say you put salt in your coffee. You can "figure" thing any way you want to. The reality remains that Cost of goods sold are capital equipment, material and labor costs, fixed and variable costs that prices must account for and reduce profits on a one for one basis while taxes are a percentage that do not subtract from revenues and can never cause profits to equal zero. Nor do taxes require that price be increased. You can "figure" them any way you like so that you show a net profit. You can pretend they are costs but is doesn't change the reality.

The reality of the ideal economic model that you want to employ is that companies are price takers and if the market is perfectly competative, price = cost and taxes are zero because there is no profit in perfectly competative markets.

To the contrary, in inefficient markets with imperfections, price is greater than cost and the tax rate is a percentage of that, a percentage after costs have been subtracted.

What you want to do is pick and choose from the ideal model, the real market performance, and business accounting to put together piece of fiction because you like how it "figures"

Tell you what, if I can show you generally accepted accounting practices that show taxes as a cost will you finally admit you are an idiot?

 

[itfitzme]

Yet you keep pretending that businesses figure taxes after they figure costs.

You can "figure it" any way you want to. You can call sugar salt and salt sugar then say you put salt in your coffee. You can "figure" thing any way you want to. The reality remains that Cost of goods sold are capital equipment, material and labor costs, fixed and variable costs that prices must account for and reduce profits on a one for one basis while taxes are a percentage that do not subtract from revenues and can never cause profits to equal zero. Nor do taxes require that price be increased. You can "figure" them any way you like so that you show a net profit. You can pretend they are costs but is doesn't change the reality.

The reality of the ideal economic model that you want to employ is that companies are price takers and if the market is perfectly competative, price = cost and taxes are zero because there is no profit in perfectly competative markets.

To the contrary, in inefficient markets with imperfections, price is greater than cost and the tax rate is a percentage of that, a percentage after costs have been subtracted.

What you want to do is pick and choose from the ideal model, the real market performance, and business accounting to put together piece of fiction because you like how it "figures"

Tell you what, if I can show you generally accepted accounting practices that show taxes as a cost will you finally admit you are an idiot?

I have already presented the definable math that explains exactly what I am telling you. You can present whatever you want.

It doesn't change the fact that we are discussing macro economics and business taxes come out of earnings as a percentage and not as a cost that applies to COGS or revenue.

The fact is, you are wrong, a deluded, ignorant, moron that sits in the corner, stroking yourself and drooling while making up whatever manner of words you want to "prove" some fantasy doesn't change reality. You would be better off getting stoned or drunk. It's much quicker.

Being wrong and convincing yourself that you are right doesn't mean anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can "figure it" any way you want to. You can call sugar salt and salt sugar then say you put salt in your coffee. You can "figure" thing any way you want to. The reality remains that Cost of goods sold are capital equipment, material and labor costs, fixed and variable costs that prices must account for and reduce profits on a one for one basis while taxes are a percentage that do not subtract from revenues and can never cause profits to equal zero. Nor do taxes require that price be increased. You can "figure" them any way you like so that you show a net profit. You can pretend they are costs but is doesn't change the reality.

The reality of the ideal economic model that you want to employ is that companies are price takers and if the market is perfectly competative, price = cost and taxes are zero because there is no profit in perfectly competative markets.

To the contrary, in inefficient markets with imperfections, price is greater than cost and the tax rate is a percentage of that, a percentage after costs have been subtracted.

What you want to do is pick and choose from the ideal model, the real market performance, and business accounting to put together piece of fiction because you like how it "figures"

Tell you what, if I can show you generally accepted accounting practices that show taxes as a cost will you finally admit you are an idiot?

I have already presented the definable math that explains exactly what I am telling you. You can present whatever you want.

It doesn't change the fact that we are discussing macro economics and business taxes come out of earnings as a percentage and not as a cost that applies to COGS or revenue.

The fact is, you are wrong, a deluded, ignorant, moron that sits in the corner, stroking yourself and drooling while making up whatever manner of words you want to "prove" some fantasy doesn't change reality. You would be better off getting stoned or drunk. It's much quicker.

Being wrong and convincing yourself that you are right doesn't mean anything.

Definable math?What the fuck do you think undefinable math is?

 

[RKMBrown]

Tell you what, if I can show you generally accepted accounting practices that show taxes as a cost will you finally admit you are an idiot?

I have already presented the definable math that explains exactly what I am telling you. You can present whatever you want.

It doesn't change the fact that we are discussing macro economics and business taxes come out of earnings as a percentage and not as a cost that applies to COGS or revenue.

The fact is, you are wrong, a deluded, ignorant, moron that sits in the corner, stroking yourself and drooling while making up whatever manner of words you want to "prove" some fantasy doesn't change reality. You would be better off getting stoned or drunk. It's much quicker.

Being wrong and convincing yourself that you are right doesn't mean anything.

Definable math?What the fuck do you think undefinable math is?

NP-Complete Problem set maybe?

 

[itfitzme]

Tell you what, if I can show you generally accepted accounting practices that show taxes as a cost will you finally admit you are an idiot?

I have already presented the definable math that explains exactly what I am telling you. You can present whatever you want.

It doesn't change the fact that we are discussing macro economics and business taxes come out of earnings as a percentage and not as a cost that applies to COGS or revenue.

The fact is, you are wrong, a deluded, ignorant, moron that sits in the corner, stroking yourself and drooling while making up whatever manner of words you want to "prove" some fantasy doesn't change reality. You would be better off getting stoned or drunk. It's much quicker.

Being wrong and convincing yourself that you are right doesn't mean anything.

Definable math?What the fuck do you think undefinable math is?

What do you think math is?

TC=Q*(FC+VC) Total Cost = Quantity times (Fixed Cost + Variable Cost)
Total Revenue = Q * P = Quantity times Price
COGS = TC=Q*(FC+VC)
Earnings = Revenues - COGS
Tax Paid = Earnings * Tax Rate
Profit = Earnings * (1 - tax rate)

Do you stop in the middle of the cross walk when the sign changes to "Don't Walk"?

Are you really as stupid as you come off? Or do you just pretend to be stupid?

Seriously, I'm not saying as an insult, I'm really curious. Do you know what is wrong with you? Do you even grasp that something is seriously wrong with you?

 

[itfitzme]

I have already presented the definable math that explains exactly what I am telling you. You can present whatever you want.

It doesn't change the fact that we are discussing macro economics and business taxes come out of earnings as a percentage and not as a cost that applies to COGS or revenue.

The fact is, you are wrong, a deluded, ignorant, moron that sits in the corner, stroking yourself and drooling while making up whatever manner of words you want to "prove" some fantasy doesn't change reality. You would be better off getting stoned or drunk. It's much quicker.

Being wrong and convincing yourself that you are right doesn't mean anything.

Definable math?What the fuck do you think undefinable math is?

NP-Complete Problem set maybe?

So you are as stupid as Windbag then. What is your IQ test at, less than 100? Like maybe 80? It has been falling with every birthday, hasn't it?

You know, that looking at yourself in the mirror and saying, "I'm smart enough, I'm good enough, and gosh darn it, people like me" doesn't make it true. You actually have to figure out what is wrong with you and work on it.

 

[rdean]

It's always strange to me when USMB Republicans talk economics. They don't see the two unfunded wars or the Bush tax cuts or the drugs for votes bill as "deficit creators". They feel the auto industry should have gone bankrupt. They see no problem with medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy. They want to lower the minimum wage and they feel "supply and demand" are wild liberal theories. It's like they have the opposite opinion of every legitimate economist.

 

[itfitzme]

It's always strange to me when USMB Republicans talk economics. They don't see the two unfunded wars or the Bush tax cuts or the drugs for votes bill as "deficit creators". They feel the auto industry should have gone bankrupt. They see no problem with medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy. They want to lower the minimum wage and they feel "supply and demand" are wild liberal theories. It's like they have the opposite opinion of every legitimate economist.

Oh, I've got that figured out. They consider defense to be a necessary part of government spending, therefor it doesn't count as adding to the deficit and debt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have already presented the definable math that explains exactly what I am telling you. You can present whatever you want.

It doesn't change the fact that we are discussing macro economics and business taxes come out of earnings as a percentage and not as a cost that applies to COGS or revenue.

The fact is, you are wrong, a deluded, ignorant, moron that sits in the corner, stroking yourself and drooling while making up whatever manner of words you want to "prove" some fantasy doesn't change reality. You would be better off getting stoned or drunk. It's much quicker.

Being wrong and convincing yourself that you are right doesn't mean anything.

Definable math?What the fuck do you think undefinable math is?

What do you think math is?

TC=Q*(FC+VC) Total Cost = Quantity times (Fixed Cost + Variable Cost)
Total Revenue = Q * P = Quantity times Price
COGS = TC=Q*(FC+VC)
Earnings = Revenues - COGS
Tax Paid = Earnings * Tax Rate
Profit = Earnings * (1 - tax rate)

Do you stop in the middle of the cross walk when the sign changes to "Don't Walk"?

Are you really as stupid as you come off? Or do you just pretend to be stupid?

Seriously, I'm not saying as an insult, I'm really curious. Do you know what is wrong with you? Do you even grasp that something is seriously wrong with you?

I know what math is, which is why I have no idea what the fuck you mean when you sputter about definable math. Is there undefinable math? Indefinable? Fictional? Do you think imaginary means not real when we are talking about numbers?

Maybe you should go back to grade school before you start talking about the difference between tax accounting and GAAP.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's always strange to me when USMB Republicans talk economics. They don't see the two unfunded wars or the Bush tax cuts or the drugs for votes bill as "deficit creators". They feel the auto industry should have gone bankrupt. They see no problem with medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy. They want to lower the minimum wage and they feel "supply and demand" are wild liberal theories. It's like they have the opposite opinion of every legitimate economist.

it is strange because you never grasped the concepts of association, commutation, and distribution.

 

[itfitzme]

Definable math?What the fuck do you think undefinable math is?

What do you think math is?

TC=Q*(FC+VC) Total Cost = Quantity times (Fixed Cost + Variable Cost)
Total Revenue = Q * P = Quantity times Price
COGS = TC=Q*(FC+VC)
Earnings = Revenues - COGS
Tax Paid = Earnings * Tax Rate
Profit = Earnings * (1 - tax rate)

Do you stop in the middle of the cross walk when the sign changes to "Don't Walk"?

Are you really as stupid as you come off? Or do you just pretend to be stupid?

Seriously, I'm not saying as an insult, I'm really curious. Do you know what is wrong with you? Do you even grasp that something is seriously wrong with you?

I know what math is, which is why I have no idea what the fuck you mean when you sputter about definable math. Is there undefinable math? Indefinable? Fictional? Do you think imaginary means not real when we are talking about numbers?

Maybe you should go back to grade school before you start talking about the difference between tax accounting and GAAP.

Yes, you do have some sort of issue.

This will help. When you are in the middle of the crosswalk and the sign says, "Don't Walk", it doesn't mean you should stop. It means that anyone on the sidewalk shouldn't start. See, it is called "context". The meaning of things depend on the "context".

Seriously. It's the best I can figure out for you.

Try tihs: Deos it ralely bthoer you wehn the ltteers in wrods are all fckued up? If it deos, you are osbessive cmoplusive.

It's a mental illness. There is medication for it.

 

[itfitzme]

It's always strange to me when USMB Republicans talk economics. They don't see the two unfunded wars or the Bush tax cuts or the drugs for votes bill as "deficit creators". They feel the auto industry should have gone bankrupt. They see no problem with medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy. They want to lower the minimum wage and they feel "supply and demand" are wild liberal theories. It's like they have the opposite opinion of every legitimate economist.

The really sad thing is that their very concepts are not only degrading to the economy in general, they actually hurt themselves.

And there is no logic in it. They don't bother comparing their "rules" to see if they are compatible.

The most obvious example are the two rules a) Companies must make profits or they go out of business and b) competition drives prices down to cost.

They can't put the two rules together in their mind for comparison.

The really wicked one is that both parties actually don't get that common taxes have zero effect on standard of living, on real spendable income. And it is really obvious once it is pointed out.

The problem is difficult for most people, even physicists. There is no absolute point of reference in economics any more than in physics. That is the problem that these wing nuts have. They have to have an absolute point of reference.

Notice Windbags OCD. The tyops and mipelslings cmoplelety disractts him. Can't focus on the point. Geos of on smoe tgnaets.

He literally has to have everything spelled out for him perfectly or he is confused.

 

[itfitzme]

It may be borderline personality disorder. Feels like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What do you think math is?

TC=Q*(FC+VC) Total Cost = Quantity times (Fixed Cost + Variable Cost)
Total Revenue = Q * P = Quantity times Price
COGS = TC=Q*(FC+VC)
Earnings = Revenues - COGS
Tax Paid = Earnings * Tax Rate
Profit = Earnings * (1 - tax rate)

Do you stop in the middle of the cross walk when the sign changes to "Don't Walk"?

Are you really as stupid as you come off? Or do you just pretend to be stupid?

Seriously, I'm not saying as an insult, I'm really curious. Do you know what is wrong with you? Do you even grasp that something is seriously wrong with you?

I know what math is, which is why I have no idea what the fuck you mean when you sputter about definable math. Is there undefinable math? Indefinable? Fictional? Do you think imaginary means not real when we are talking about numbers?

Maybe you should go back to grade school before you start talking about the difference between tax accounting and GAAP.

Yes, you do have some sort of issue.

This will help. When you are in the middle of the crosswalk and the sign says, "Don't Walk", it doesn't mean you should stop. It means that anyone on the sidewalk shouldn't start. See, it is called "context". The meaning of things depend on the "context".

Seriously. It's the best I can figure out for you.

Try tihs: Deos it ralely bthoer you wehn the ltteers in wrods are all fckued up? If it deos, you are osbessive cmoplusive.

It's a mental illness. There is medication for it.

I bet you think that made sense.

FYI, English and Mathematics are different subjects for multiple reasons, one of which is that while it is possible to say that 2+3=3+2 it is not possible to say that deliver means reviled.

 

[itfitzme]

We could reduce federal aid to republican states. That will go along ways towards reducing the deficit.

I keep seeing this idea that Republican controlled states draw more from the Fed while Democrat controlled states provide more.

Surely you've seen this;



I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue.

But, out of the box, that is

Takers - Blue 11 Red 18
Givers - Blue 9 Red 3


Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance. This then creates the situation that validates their flawed world view.

----------------------------

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

Federal Aid to States, 2010
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

State GDP varying years
List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Revenue by state
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other source.
Compare US Federal Spending by State for 2009 -Chart

 

[itfitzme]

I know what math is, which is why I have no idea what the fuck you mean when you sputter about definable math. Is there undefinable math? Indefinable? Fictional? Do you think imaginary means not real when we are talking about numbers?

Maybe you should go back to grade school before you start talking about the difference between tax accounting and GAAP.

Yes, you do have some sort of issue.

This will help. When you are in the middle of the crosswalk and the sign says, "Don't Walk", it doesn't mean you should stop. It means that anyone on the sidewalk shouldn't start. See, it is called "context". The meaning of things depend on the "context".

Seriously. It's the best I can figure out for you.

Try tihs: Deos it ralely bthoer you wehn the ltteers in wrods are all fckued up? If it deos, you are osbessive cmoplusive.

It's a mental illness. There is medication for it.

I bet you think that made sense.

FYI, English and Mathematics are different subjects for multiple reasons, one of which is that while it is possible to say that 2+3=3+2 it is not possible to say that deliver means reviled.

Your still having difficulties. I've notice that you have some sort of difficulty grasping concepts. Were you abused as a child? Early childhood trauma cases severe lifetime PTSD symptoms.

And if it helps any, thinking by constant "fault finding" isn't a good model for perception.

 

[jasonnfree]

We could reduce federal aid to republican states. That will go along ways towards reducing the deficit.

I keep seeing this idea that Republican controlled states draw more from the Fed while Democrat controlled states provide more.

Surely you've seen this;



I don't take these things for granted. I check them. I still have to run the numbers for GSP, Federal Aid and Revenue.

But, out of the box, that is

Takers - Blue 11 Red 18
Givers - Blue 9 Red 3


Still, I have this hypothesis that, in fact, Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance. This then creates the situation that validates their flawed world view.

----------------------------

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

Federal Aid to States, 2010
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

State GDP varying years
List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Revenue by state
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other source.
Compare US Federal Spending by State for 2009 -Chart

The solid red states are usually the low wage states at least in the south it's been my experience. But they keep voting in republicans that guarantee them that things won't get better. Look at the many republican governors that won't allow medicaid expansion in their states to short circuit obama care. Not having help with medical bills is a fast track to poverty for some.