Voting against one's own economic interests...Politics gone awry.

[eagle1462010]

Old Faithful...................and the Red State Rant.....................

The Rant always ignores the Military Bases in the states and uses this money as part of it's equation.

The Rant always ignores the construction of military equipment or places like NASA.......

They add all that in and goooooooooooooo see........see all the money they are getting even though the data is skewed.

Wrong numb-nuts, it's monies that have been paid to federal taxes that have been returned. Military and NASA are from a different budget.

BS...........your side uses skewed data...............you mainly use all federal spending in those states and include places like Ingalls shipbuilding in your data.

 

[OnePercenter]

New Yorkers lead pack in government benefits - USATODAY.com

New Yorkers get more government aid per person from social programs than residents of any other state, a USA TODAY analysis finds

The state's Medicaid program is the most expensive in the nation, driving the average cost of all government benefits in New York to $9,442 per person.

New York ranks 28th in Social Security payments per person and 9th in Medicare benefits. But the spending on Medicaid, the health program for the poor, is far above that in any other state. Only Washington, D.C., spends more.

Whats you point, 80% of the US population lives within 200 miles of water. Unless you look at the numbers in a per-capita basis, your answer is flawed.

 

[OnePercenter]

Old Faithful...................and the Red State Rant.....................

The Rant always ignores the Military Bases in the states and uses this money as part of it's equation.

The Rant always ignores the construction of military equipment or places like NASA.......

They add all that in and goooooooooooooo see........see all the money they are getting even though the data is skewed.

Wrong numb-nuts, it's monies that have been paid to federal taxes that have been returned. Military and NASA are from a different budget.

BS...........your side uses skewed data...............you mainly use all federal spending in those states and include places like Ingalls shipbuilding in your data.

Wrong numb-nuts.

2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States

 

[Rustic]

Old Faithful...................and the Red State Rant.....................

The Rant always ignores the Military Bases in the states and uses this money as part of it's equation.

The Rant always ignores the construction of military equipment or places like NASA.......

They add all that in and goooooooooooooo see........see all the money they are getting even though the data is skewed.

Wrong numb-nuts, it's monies that have been paid to federal taxes that have been returned. Military and NASA are from a different budget.

BS...........your side uses skewed data...............you mainly use all federal spending in those states and include places like Ingalls shipbuilding in your data.

Wrong numb-nuts.

2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States

Why don't you go by county, you'll find a much bigger/different picture there… Rural areas are much more less dependent. Fact

 

[eagle1462010]

Is California the welfare capital?

Welfare in California
34%

Of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California but only …

12%

… of the U.S. population resides here.

How we compare
California is third among states in per-capita spending on welfare:

$179

New York leads the nation:

$256

Idaho is at the bottom:

$17

 

[Kondor3]

Voting against one's own economic interests

Can you conjure-up a short list of reasons why folks might be persuaded to do that?

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ask yourself what issues they are voting for. What do the voters think are their interests? Or you could get out of the way and let the Republicans actually cut those subsidies. But instead you hope to win elections by along the voters stupid.

Wages are the number one problem for the middle class. Republicans and corporate America aren't interested in fixing that problem.

It's not up to government to fix that problem, it's up to the individual.

By individual you mean the employee or the employer?

Employee of course. If whatever you do is not paying enough money, you need to do something else that is.

Nobody pays a plumber $150.00 to fix their $75.00 toilet. Nobody pays a lawn care company $200.00 per cut of their lawn unless it's multiple acres.

In the US, it's not just business that looks to pay the least, it's American consumers as well. You do it, I do it, and most everybody does it.

An employees worth is what an employer can pay another person to do the same quality and same work, that's it.

If you sweep floors for a living, anybody can sweep floors, so the job pays very little. Same with making french fries, stocking shelves, washing windows, wiping cars off at a car wash.

If you learn a trade, you make more money because there are less people who can perform the jobs of those trades.

If you learn to be a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter, a bricklayer, that requires more education and experience, and the pay will reflect your efforts.

If you attend college in a field of demand, you can make nearly or six figures because even less Americans can do that job.

The problem there isn't anything else along with employers wanting to pay less to increase profit. Also, what I wrote about ALL jobs are low skilled unless it's a degree/licensed position, but that doesn't mean you'll make more money.

Absolutely correct. There are jobs that involve training and even licensing that pay little. Why? Because everybody else got the same training.

Take hair styling for example. It doesn't pay much in spite of learning and licensing. Why? Because many women want to cut hair for a living. It's something they enjoy.

I myself went to electronics school many years ago. It's a very difficult subject; all math. I went there because my company wanted me to and offered to pay for it as well. But after going for a couple of months, I found out what kind of jobs I could get after a one and two year degrees. I was making more at the time than if I graduated with an associates degree in electronics. Why did it pay so low? Because everybody wanted to get involved in electronics at the time. This was just before the technology era.

That's why I stated you need to be able to do something not everybody can do. The less people that can do a particular job, the better it pays.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Deregulation allowing small businesses to operate with less costs, less regulation to help the working class to stay working.

The people who voted for Trump looked out for their interests, wanting to make sure they had jobs and less regulation so the could do their jobs. The working class voiced out that they were not being heard. They don't care about gay marriage, gender equality, it doesn't matter, they are concerned about jobs, working and making ends meet.

The deregulation that Trump has pushed is in consumer protection and environmental. How can that deregulation benefit the 'people' when the store legally screws you? Go to a different store who is also going to screw you? How about a chemical plant who can legally dump methyl-ethyl nasty shit up stream from where you drink or fish? How is that a benefit for the 'people?'

The only benefit that Trump is giving are to business. How many well paying jobs has Trump created? None?

We had a record number of the usual June jobs jump, but wages remained stagnant. How is this good for the 'people?'

Wages remained stagnant during most of DumBama's two terms and we heard nothing from you leftists. Trump has been President for six months and he had to battle multiple activist judges rulings, plus this phony Russia thing.

Wages will remain stagnant until employers are forced to raise it. It's not going to happen until then.

Obama tried to raise minimum wage and was squashed by Republicans.

Increasing minimum wage is a farce. It won't do anything except kill jobs and perhaps cause inflation. Since the problem is supply and demand (too much supply) the real solution is to close down our borders to illegal and legal immigrants alike. Reducing the availability of workers will force employers to increase wages to attract workers. A huge reduction in social programs will help as well. You can't buy much living on the dole. Forcing people to go back to work where they can make money will stimulate the economy through spending. That creates even more jobs (demand) and will also increase wages.

Increasing minimum wage to $15.00/hr will increase pay dramatically to 41 million American workers. How is that a farce?

Increasing minimum wage has NEVER killed jobs or caused inflation.

I've always been a proponent of arresting, trial, fines, prison, and loss of business for those knowingly hiring illegals.

Ban legal immigrants? We can always make it retroactive and have 100% unemployment.

Reducing the availability of workers will cause workers to do more without raising their pay.

The need for social programs was brought on by workers not making enough monies to pay their bills.

Small increases means less job killing. But look at what's happening in Seattle right now. Somebody even started a topic on it. Drastic increases in the minimum wage will result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost. It means more outsourcing, more automation investments.

We went thorough something similar during the big union days. When one union got a dollar an hour more for their workers, the price of the products they produced went up. When another union did the same in their industry, the cost of their products increased. When my union did the same because I had less purchasing power of the products other union companies made, it was a full circle and nobody got ahead.

There is also a domino effect involved. You get out of school and find a job making minimum wage. As the years go on and you learn more things in the company, you get pay raises.

So after about five or six years, you find yourself making $12.00 an hour. Then a national $15.00 an hour minimum wage law takes effect, so now you just got a three dollar an hour raise. But wait! In spite of the new money, you are back to where you started six years ago with the company--minimum wage.

So you march into your supervisors office demanding at least $20.00 an hour. He has no choice but to give it to you because of all the experience you have running different operations in the company. Either that or let you go and hire a newbie and start him at minimum wage $15.00 per hour knowing nothing.

Okay, so what's wrong with that? What's wrong with that is what about your coworker who was making $20.00 an hour, and finds out you are now making his wage and he's been with the company much longer?

This domino effect (like the union days) will go full circle. Yes, you will be making more money, but the cost of everything you buy goes up as well, and now you find out you were no better off than before the new minimum wage went into effect. The only people to make out is the government because the more you make, the more they take.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

California has about a third of the nations welfare recipients.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Beyond the incessant "we won with Trump" mantra often voiced by right wingers, there should be the sanity of reality which occurs a bit later, sobering up the silly chanting.


Truth be told, red states that voted overwhelmingly for Trump just haven’t been pulling their weight.

Red states are nearly twice as dependent on the federal government as blue states. Of the twelve states that received the least federal aid in return for each tax dollar they contribute to the U.S. Treasury,TEN of them voted for Hillary Clinton—and the other two were Michigan and Wisconsin, barely won by Trump in a temporary loss of sanity.

By the same count, 20 of the 26 states most dependent on federal aid went to Trump.
For example, Mississippi [in]famous for being 49th or 50th in just about everything that matters. When it comes to sucking at the federal teat, the Magnolia State is the undisputed champ. More than 40 percent of Mississippi’s state revenue comes from federal funding; one-third of its GDP comes from federal spending; for every dollar it pays out in federal taxes, Good ol' Mississippi takes in $4.70 in federal aid, and one in five residents of that state is on food stamps.

So, what do these red states do when it comes to electing a president?.....They succumb to demagoguery and lies....and vote in the very worst person whose economic (and health) plans are aimed at royally screwing them......Wolf-like Populism in orange sheep clothing.

Bottom line: The generosity of blue states' contribution to the federal coffers, is slapped down by the stupidity of those who were the beneficiary of that generosity.

Parts of this thread were from Why Blue States Should Exit Red America

Don't you love it when a liberal advocates for the red states to secede??