Welfare Queen says Working is Stupid

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trucks don't pay for all the roads, but much of them.

The Hidden Trucking Industry Subsidy
June 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm · Filed under Business, Economics, Policy

Freight trucks cause 99% of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35% of the maintenance. This $60B subsidy causes extra congestion and pollution, and taxpayers pay the bill.

It seems obvious that the heavier the vehicle, the more damage it does to roads over time. A 40,000 pound big rig probably does a bit more damage than your average 3500 pound consumer vehicle, right? It turns out that vehicle road damage doesn’t rise linearly with weight. Road damage rises with the fourth power of weight, and this means that a 40,000 pound truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage to roadways than the average car [1]!

In other words, one fully loaded 18-wheeler does the same damage to a road as 9600 cars. According to the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the trucking industry represents 11% of all vehicles on the road in the US, while paying 35% of all highway taxes. But if trucks represent 11% of vehicles, their heavy loads cause them to do 99% of all road damage! [2] The trucking industry paid $35 Billion in highway taxes in 2005, according to the ATA. Since most of the $100 Billion in highway taxes paid goes to maintenance (and US infrastructure maintenance is far behind), this implies that the trucking industry receives a $60 Billion annual subsidy from other drivers.



Well looky there ray, you were lying again. You make habit of that (lying). Does your boss know?

On top of lying Ray,you have to get tax payer subsidy to do your job. That's funny.

Oh gee, you actually found a BLOG to support your point. Boy don't I feel foolish now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They kept getting more and more behind on rent. When it got to the point of over a month away, I called them to my apartment to discuss the situation.

How much is "more and more behind on rent".

What does "When it got to the point of over a month away".
What does that sentence even mean?

Then you wanted her to get a job. After they were already behind on rent.

How many months do you let a tenant get behind before you decide to do something about it?

You know about these things. Right? LMAO.

Let me worry about things you know nothing about. And before you give us your usual BS that you make your living this way (to the tune of 80K a year) I'll tell you that you're FOS right now, because I come from a family of landlords, I've been a landlord for 25 years now. I know what kind of money comes in and what kind of money goes out.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Trucks don't pay for all the roads, but much of them.

The Hidden Trucking Industry Subsidy
June 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm · Filed under Business, Economics, Policy

Freight trucks cause 99% of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35% of the maintenance. This $60B subsidy causes extra congestion and pollution, and taxpayers pay the bill.

It seems obvious that the heavier the vehicle, the more damage it does to roads over time. A 40,000 pound big rig probably does a bit more damage than your average 3500 pound consumer vehicle, right? It turns out that vehicle road damage doesn’t rise linearly with weight. Road damage rises with the fourth power of weight, and this means that a 40,000 pound truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage to roadways than the average car [1]!

In other words, one fully loaded 18-wheeler does the same damage to a road as 9600 cars. According to the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the trucking industry represents 11% of all vehicles on the road in the US, while paying 35% of all highway taxes. But if trucks represent 11% of vehicles, their heavy loads cause them to do 99% of all road damage! [2] The trucking industry paid $35 Billion in highway taxes in 2005, according to the ATA. Since most of the $100 Billion in highway taxes paid goes to maintenance (and US infrastructure maintenance is far behind), this implies that the trucking industry receives a $60 Billion annual subsidy from other drivers.



Well looky there ray, you were lying again. You make habit of that (lying). Does your boss know?

On top of lying Ray,you have to get tax payer subsidy to do your job. That's funny.

Oh gee, you actually found a BLOG to support your point. Boy don't I feel foolish now.

Poor ole Ray. Exposed as a liar again.
Where's your blog showing trucking fees pay most of the road maintenance costs?

Where you lying or just making shit up?

How long you let your deadbeat tenants go before you evict?
Family of slum lords eh Ray.
Sure Ray sure. LMAO.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trucks don't pay for all the roads, but much of them.

The Hidden Trucking Industry Subsidy
June 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm · Filed under Business, Economics, Policy

Freight trucks cause 99% of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35% of the maintenance. This $60B subsidy causes extra congestion and pollution, and taxpayers pay the bill.

It seems obvious that the heavier the vehicle, the more damage it does to roads over time. A 40,000 pound big rig probably does a bit more damage than your average 3500 pound consumer vehicle, right? It turns out that vehicle road damage doesn’t rise linearly with weight. Road damage rises with the fourth power of weight, and this means that a 40,000 pound truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage to roadways than the average car [1]!

In other words, one fully loaded 18-wheeler does the same damage to a road as 9600 cars. According to the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the trucking industry represents 11% of all vehicles on the road in the US, while paying 35% of all highway taxes. But if trucks represent 11% of vehicles, their heavy loads cause them to do 99% of all road damage! [2] The trucking industry paid $35 Billion in highway taxes in 2005, according to the ATA. Since most of the $100 Billion in highway taxes paid goes to maintenance (and US infrastructure maintenance is far behind), this implies that the trucking industry receives a $60 Billion annual subsidy from other drivers.



Well looky there ray, you were lying again. You make habit of that (lying). Does your boss know?

On top of lying Ray,you have to get tax payer subsidy to do your job. That's funny.

Oh gee, you actually found a BLOG to support your point. Boy don't I feel foolish now.

Poor ole Ray. Exposed as a liar again.
Where's your blog showing trucking fees pay most of the road maintenance costs?

Where you lying or just making shit up?

How long you let your deadbeat tenants go before you evict?
Family of slum lords eh Ray.
Sure Ray sure. LMAO.

 

[Dragonlady]

Okay, and do you include those who are too lazy to work in your category of "those who cannot effectively compete?"

I would never rag on anybody who is always trying no matter what level they are at. I understand that some people are too stupid to make a good living; I work with some of those people. The people I do rag on are those who are more than capable of working, but instead of using their talents to earn an income, use them to game the system.

When you take from those who create money, and give it to those who just don't want to work, that is redistribution.

Yes, there will be "some" people who are unfortunate or are slick enough to rob the system, but when you have a country of 315 million people, and 93 million of them within working range are not working nor looking for a job, and 45 million of them are being fed by the taxpayers, that's more than "some" people.

The vast majority of the 45 million being fed by the taxpayers are the working poor. They have jobs, some of them more than one, but have such low wages that they need assistance in feeding their families. The assistance they receive, IMO, is a wage subsidy to their employers.

I have so many objections to this practice. I know of no other country which has such an expensive, and quite frankly, ridiculous system. And yet Americans, who rage against "redistribution" seem incapable of understanding that such a system is bloating their government, and doubling the cost to the taxpayers of getting money into the hands of the poor. I higher minimum wage would have the same effect, at half the cost to the economy.

In order for the working poor to receive assistance, the government has to review the tax returns for "earned income credits", and process their refunds. Food stamps have a huge administration system, at both the federal and state level. Wouldn't it be far cheaper to just have their employers pay them a wage reflective of the cost of living, and eliminate the entire syustem? I am very much in agreement with those who say that if your business can't pay its employees a living wage, it deserves to fail.

I see, so your position is that it's better to have no jobs than low paying jobs. That's quite an admission.

Believe it or not, people don't start or open up businesses as a social obligation. They open up businesses to sell products or services. Because there is competition and the American consumer is so cheap, they have to keep prices down in order to attract customers. If you are paying good wages and benefits to those doing monkey jobs in your company, and your competition isn't, you will go out of business.

I'm in industry all day long. I talk to our customers about various things--one of them being employment. Some of our customers use temporary services. It gives them the ability to adjust the size of their work crew according to their fluctuating business, and it also give them the opportunity to try out employees first before hiring them.

What they tell me is that when things get busy and they ask their temporary help if they could work extra hours, many of them refuse. Why? Because earning more money will interfere with their SNAP's allotment. For them, it's like working for free, so they simply don't do it.

On a personal note, I see what those food stamp people are buying when they get in line in front of me: food, cigarettes, beer or wine, greeting cards, flowers for the yard, huge bags of dog food or cat litter, already made chocolate cakes and candy. At times when I have only a couple of things to purchase, I end up behind them as they leave the store. I wish I could afford the vehicles some of these people are driving.

So I don't buy into this notion that all of these people need help. In fact from what I've seen, very few of them need help, it's just that the help is free so why bother working?

All the more reason why wages need to be high enough to eliminate assistance. Asking people to give up long term support for a few extra hours on a temporary basis, given the process they had to go through to get the assistance in the first place, is ridiculous. If you paid these people a living wage, they'd be more than willing to work the hours.

 

[namvet]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, and do you include those who are too lazy to work in your category of "those who cannot effectively compete?"

I would never rag on anybody who is always trying no matter what level they are at. I understand that some people are too stupid to make a good living; I work with some of those people. The people I do rag on are those who are more than capable of working, but instead of using their talents to earn an income, use them to game the system.

When you take from those who create money, and give it to those who just don't want to work, that is redistribution.

Yes, there will be "some" people who are unfortunate or are slick enough to rob the system, but when you have a country of 315 million people, and 93 million of them within working range are not working nor looking for a job, and 45 million of them are being fed by the taxpayers, that's more than "some" people.

The vast majority of the 45 million being fed by the taxpayers are the working poor. They have jobs, some of them more than one, but have such low wages that they need assistance in feeding their families. The assistance they receive, IMO, is a wage subsidy to their employers.

I have so many objections to this practice. I know of no other country which has such an expensive, and quite frankly, ridiculous system. And yet Americans, who rage against "redistribution" seem incapable of understanding that such a system is bloating their government, and doubling the cost to the taxpayers of getting money into the hands of the poor. I higher minimum wage would have the same effect, at half the cost to the economy.

In order for the working poor to receive assistance, the government has to review the tax returns for "earned income credits", and process their refunds. Food stamps have a huge administration system, at both the federal and state level. Wouldn't it be far cheaper to just have their employers pay them a wage reflective of the cost of living, and eliminate the entire syustem? I am very much in agreement with those who say that if your business can't pay its employees a living wage, it deserves to fail.

I see, so your position is that it's better to have no jobs than low paying jobs. That's quite an admission.

Believe it or not, people don't start or open up businesses as a social obligation. They open up businesses to sell products or services. Because there is competition and the American consumer is so cheap, they have to keep prices down in order to attract customers. If you are paying good wages and benefits to those doing monkey jobs in your company, and your competition isn't, you will go out of business.

I'm in industry all day long. I talk to our customers about various things--one of them being employment. Some of our customers use temporary services. It gives them the ability to adjust the size of their work crew according to their fluctuating business, and it also give them the opportunity to try out employees first before hiring them.

What they tell me is that when things get busy and they ask their temporary help if they could work extra hours, many of them refuse. Why? Because earning more money will interfere with their SNAP's allotment. For them, it's like working for free, so they simply don't do it.

On a personal note, I see what those food stamp people are buying when they get in line in front of me: food, cigarettes, beer or wine, greeting cards, flowers for the yard, huge bags of dog food or cat litter, already made chocolate cakes and candy. At times when I have only a couple of things to purchase, I end up behind them as they leave the store. I wish I could afford the vehicles some of these people are driving.

So I don't buy into this notion that all of these people need help. In fact from what I've seen, very few of them need help, it's just that the help is free so why bother working?

All the more reason why wages need to be high enough to eliminate assistance. Asking people to give up long term support for a few extra hours on a temporary basis, given the process they had to go through to get the assistance in the first place, is ridiculous. If you paid these people a living wage, they'd be more than willing to work the hours.

Wages don't increase because it's a nice thing to do. Wages increase when the consumer is willing to pay more for a product or service that has better paying jobs. Until that time comes, companies will try to make their product or service as cheap as possible to attract customers.

They do nothing more than you or I, it's just that you don't like to but yourself in that same boat.

If you need a lawn care company, do you hire one that will take care of your lawn for $60.00 a cut, or do you hire the service that will do the same job for $30.00 a cut? If your car needs a major repair, do you get three estimates and choose the highest one, or do you choose the lowest one providing they do the same exact work? If you need a new roof on your home or a new furnace installed, do you pick the highest bidder of the three estimates you got, or do you pick the lowest one?

If you are honest and tell me you always choose the lowest one provided you get the same quality of product or work, then you are doing nothing more than lowering wages for those workers.

 

[leftwinger]

Greeting cards? Lol!

 

[Dragonlady]

Wages don't increase because it's a nice thing to do. Wages increase when the consumer is willing to pay more for a product or service that has better paying jobs. Until that time comes, companies will try to make their product or service as cheap as possible to attract customers.

They do nothing more than you or I, it's just that you don't like to but yourself in that same boat.

If you need a lawn care company, do you hire one that will take care of your lawn for $60.00 a cut, or do you hire the service that will do the same job for $30.00 a cut? If your car needs a major repair, do you get three estimates and choose the highest one, or do you choose the lowest one providing they do the same exact work? If you need a new roof on your home or a new furnace installed, do you pick the highest bidder of the three estimates you got, or do you pick the lowest one?

If you are honest and tell me you always choose the lowest one provided you get the same quality of product or work, then you are doing nothing more than lowering wages for those workers.

For starters, I avoid giving my business to large corporations, if at all possible. I'm not interested in supporting companies which pay their executive millions, while paying workers minimum wage. I will not shop at Walmart no matter how cheap their crap is.

I recently bought a custom made sofa-bed. I bought a quality unit which was made in Canada and I purchased it from a local family owned furniture store.

When I need work done, I always hire local small business owners. If I needed a new roof, I'd hire my son-in-law to do it. I buy meat, fruit and produce from the local farmer's market.

Canadians don't shop for price the way Americans do. It's why American business models don't always work here. Americans are prepared to sacrifice their friends and neighbours jobs for cheap goods, Canadians, not so much.

 

[bripat9643]

Trucks don't pay for all the roads, but much of them.

The Hidden Trucking Industry Subsidy
June 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm · Filed under Business, Economics, Policy

Freight trucks cause 99% of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35% of the maintenance. This $60B subsidy causes extra congestion and pollution, and taxpayers pay the bill.

It seems obvious that the heavier the vehicle, the more damage it does to roads over time. A 40,000 pound big rig probably does a bit more damage than your average 3500 pound consumer vehicle, right? It turns out that vehicle road damage doesn’t rise linearly with weight. Road damage rises with the fourth power of weight, and this means that a 40,000 pound truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage to roadways than the average car [1]!

In other words, one fully loaded 18-wheeler does the same damage to a road as 9600 cars. According to the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the trucking industry represents 11% of all vehicles on the road in the US, while paying 35% of all highway taxes. But if trucks represent 11% of vehicles, their heavy loads cause them to do 99% of all road damage! [2] The trucking industry paid $35 Billion in highway taxes in 2005, according to the ATA. Since most of the $100 Billion in highway taxes paid goes to maintenance (and US infrastructure maintenance is far behind), this implies that the trucking industry receives a $60 Billion annual subsidy from other drivers.



Well looky there ray, you were lying again. You make habit of that (lying). Does your boss know?

On top of lying Ray,you have to get tax payer subsidy to do your job. That's funny.

You'll have to excuse us if we don't accept truecostblog.com as a credible source. They don't even list where their data comes from.

 

[bripat9643]

Wages don't increase because it's a nice thing to do. Wages increase when the consumer is willing to pay more for a product or service that has better paying jobs. Until that time comes, companies will try to make their product or service as cheap as possible to attract customers.

They do nothing more than you or I, it's just that you don't like to but yourself in that same boat.

If you need a lawn care company, do you hire one that will take care of your lawn for $60.00 a cut, or do you hire the service that will do the same job for $30.00 a cut? If your car needs a major repair, do you get three estimates and choose the highest one, or do you choose the lowest one providing they do the same exact work? If you need a new roof on your home or a new furnace installed, do you pick the highest bidder of the three estimates you got, or do you pick the lowest one?

If you are honest and tell me you always choose the lowest one provided you get the same quality of product or work, then you are doing nothing more than lowering wages for those workers.

For starters, I avoid giving my business to large corporations, if at all possible. I'm not interested in supporting companies which pay their executive millions, while paying workers minimum wage. I will not shop at Walmart no matter how cheap their crap is.

I recently bought a custom made sofa-bed. I bought a quality unit which was made in Canada and I purchased it from a local family owned furniture store.

When I need work done, I always hire local small business owners. If I needed a new roof, I'd hire my son-in-law to do it. I buy meat, fruit and produce from the local farmer's market.

Canadians don't shop for price the way Americans do. It's why American business models don't always work here. Americans are prepared to sacrifice their friends and neighbours jobs for cheap goods, Canadians, not so much.

Most of the Canadians I've met complain bitterly about how prices are so much higher in Canada than in America. They often drive across the American border so they can get the same goods at 40% less. If they "don't shop for price" it's because they don't have the option of getting it cheaper. Price is one of the fundamentals of economics. That's why your claim is obviously just more leftwing bullshit.

 

[SmokeALib]

Wages don't increase because it's a nice thing to do. Wages increase when the consumer is willing to pay more for a product or service that has better paying jobs. Until that time comes, companies will try to make their product or service as cheap as possible to attract customers.

They do nothing more than you or I, it's just that you don't like to but yourself in that same boat.

If you need a lawn care company, do you hire one that will take care of your lawn for $60.00 a cut, or do you hire the service that will do the same job for $30.00 a cut? If your car needs a major repair, do you get three estimates and choose the highest one, or do you choose the lowest one providing they do the same exact work? If you need a new roof on your home or a new furnace installed, do you pick the highest bidder of the three estimates you got, or do you pick the lowest one?

If you are honest and tell me you always choose the lowest one provided you get the same quality of product or work, then you are doing nothing more than lowering wages for those workers.

For starters, I avoid giving my business to large corporations, if at all possible. I'm not interested in supporting companies which pay their executive millions, while paying workers minimum wage. I will not shop at Walmart no matter how cheap their crap is.

I recently bought a custom made sofa-bed. I bought a quality unit which was made in Canada and I purchased it from a local family owned furniture store.

When I need work done, I always hire local small business owners. If I needed a new roof, I'd hire my son-in-law to do it. I buy meat, fruit and produce from the local farmer's market.

Canadians don't shop for price the way Americans do. It's why American business models don't always work here. Americans are prepared to sacrifice their friends and neighbours jobs for cheap goods, Canadians, not so much.

Most of the Canadians I've met complain bitterly about how prices are so much higher in Canada than in America. They often drive across the American border so they can get the same goods at 40% less. If they "don't shop for price" it's because they don't have the option of getting it cheaper. Price is on of the fundamentals of economics. You claim is just more leftwing bullshit.

Not to mention the shit healthcare. I watched a doc that told of a little girl that had a 10 week wait to get her tonsils out. They went to Buffalo and the procedure was performed the next day.

 

[Anathema]

.....A strong safety net is a necessity in a capitalistic society to provide assistance to those who, for whatever reason, cannot effectively compete. It is the price that capitalists must pay for the wealth they can achieve.

No. What is needed is a mass grave in a pauper's field to dispose of the bodies of those unable to support themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

Wages don't increase because it's a nice thing to do. Wages increase when the consumer is willing to pay more for a product or service that has better paying jobs. Until that time comes, companies will try to make their product or service as cheap as possible to attract customers.

They do nothing more than you or I, it's just that you don't like to but yourself in that same boat.

If you need a lawn care company, do you hire one that will take care of your lawn for $60.00 a cut, or do you hire the service that will do the same job for $30.00 a cut? If your car needs a major repair, do you get three estimates and choose the highest one, or do you choose the lowest one providing they do the same exact work? If you need a new roof on your home or a new furnace installed, do you pick the highest bidder of the three estimates you got, or do you pick the lowest one?

If you are honest and tell me you always choose the lowest one provided you get the same quality of product or work, then you are doing nothing more than lowering wages for those workers.

For starters, I avoid giving my business to large corporations, if at all possible. I'm not interested in supporting companies which pay their executive millions, while paying workers minimum wage. I will not shop at Walmart no matter how cheap their crap is.

I recently bought a custom made sofa-bed. I bought a quality unit which was made in Canada and I purchased it from a local family owned furniture store.

When I need work done, I always hire local small business owners. If I needed a new roof, I'd hire my son-in-law to do it. I buy meat, fruit and produce from the local farmer's market.

Canadians don't shop for price the way Americans do. It's why American business models don't always work here. Americans are prepared to sacrifice their friends and neighbours jobs for cheap goods, Canadians, not so much.

Most of the Canadians I've met complain bitterly about how prices are so much higher in Canada than in America. They often drive across the American border so they can get the same goods at 40% less. If they "don't shop for price" it's because they don't have the option of getting it cheaper. Price is on of the fundamentals of economics. You claim is just more leftwing bullshit.

Not to mention the shit healthcare. I watched a doc that told of a little girl that had a 10 week wait to get her tonsils out. They went to Buffalo and the procedure was performed the next day.

When I ruptured my Achilles tendon the emergency room doctor wanted to check me in for surgery direct from the emergency room

 

[Dragonlady]

Most of the Canadians I know understand why there are price differentials between Canada and the US. The smart ones at least. These same people who complain about the prices, have no difficulty accepting their child benefit cheques, GST refunds, their Old Age Security cheques, paid prescriptions for seniors, or government funded health care.

As for waiting to get your tonsils out, what's the big deal? Clearly the child was not sick or she would have been attended to. It's called triage. People who are sick and in need of care, are seen immediately. Those who can wait, are asked to.

When I had a heart attack, I was taken for an angiogram as soon as I was stablized. Had I needed a stent or a by-pass operation, it would have been done immediately.

 

[Unkotare]

.....A strong safety net is a necessity in a capitalistic society to provide assistance to those who, for whatever reason, cannot effectively compete. It is the price that capitalists must pay for the wealth they can achieve.

No. What is needed is a mass grave in a pauper's field to dispose of the bodies of those unable to support themselves.

As long as you're at the bottom of it to catch them as they are deposited.

 

[Anathema]

As long as you're at the bottom of it to catch them as they are deposited.

If/when I reach that point in life, I'll go in the hole voluntarily. However, since I am currently able to support myself and my family you're gonna have to wait.

 

[Unkotare]

As long as you're at the bottom of it to catch them as they are deposited.

If/when I reach that point in life, I'll go in the hole voluntarily. ......

You're there. Now shut the fuck up and hop in already.

 

[Flopper]

What the resulting map shows is that the most “dependent states,” as measured by the composite score, are Mississippi and New Mexico, each of which gets back about $3 in federal spending for every dollar they send to the federal treasury in taxes. Alabama and Louisiana are close behind.

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina: The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax. This bar chart, made from Wallet Hub's data, reveals the sharp discrepancies among states on that measure.

On the other side of this group, folks in 14 states, including Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, and Ohio, get back less than $1 for each $1 they spend in taxes.

It’s not just that some states are getting way more in return for their federal tax dollars, but the disproportionate amount of federal aid that some states receive allows them to keep their own taxes artificially low. That's the argument Wallet Hub analysts make in their 2014 Report on Best & Worst States to be a Taxpayer.

Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the “most dependent” category is historical. During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic, its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority, came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states in the form of contracts, projects, installations.

Another part of the explanation is easier to discern. The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain a “safety net” intended to help the neediest among us. Consider, for example, the percentage of each state’s residents who get “food stamps” through the federal government’s SNAP program. This chart tells the story.

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

Typical truck driver, not very bright. What the states don't pick up, we taxpayers in other states do.

Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican?
Posted on February 22, 2012 by Tino


Paul Krugman is in puzzlement, having observed that Red States get more welfare funding, while Republican voters oppose the welfare state. He portrays Republicans as “Moochers” who are either hypocritical or too stupid to know their own best interest.

But as we know, states do not vote, individuals do. There is only a paradox if Republican voters receive welfare at above average rates while voting against it. From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though Red state earn less than Blue states.

Krugman reports no individual level data, so let me. The Maxwell Poll has detailed information about welfare use. The data is from 2004-2007. During this period in these polls a plurality of voters supported Democrats. I will graph the two-party vote, more data is at the end.


Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats.

Share of Recipients of each program that self-identified as supporters of Republican party in 2004-2007 Maxwell Poll:

Gov. Subsidized Housing 12%
Medicaid: 16%
Food Stamps: 20%
Unemployment Compensation: 21%
Welfare or public assistance: 22%
Disability benefits from government 25%

Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican? | Tino Sanandaji

The Democrat leaning poor just don't vote. Those who are financially insecure largely opt out of the political system altogether. Those that are most dependent on government welfare programs are the least likely to vote. That opting out disproportionately affects Democratic support.


Among the poor that vote for Republican, do so because of issues that have little to do with social welfare, abortion, same sex marriage, immigration, and terrorism.

Pew: The poor like Democrats, but don't vote for them

The blacks like Democrats too. A large percentage of them don't vote either, but the Democrats scramble to win that vote and in fact, many say that the minority vote will wipe out the Republican party. The black population in this country is only 13%.

Ask yourself: what does the Democrat party have to offer people but free stuff? Nothing.

Liberals and Demorats don't pay attention to politics, this is true. Look at the cable news ratings compared to Fox. Look at how many liberal outlets on the radio and television have failed. PBS, NPR and others would not be around today if not for taxpayer support. They just don't attract enough audience.

But a little here and a little there, their support of the Democrat party is priceless.

It seems from your post, you're saying that welfare is a major reason why the poor vote Democrat. The question why members of any demographic group vote a certain way involves a number of issues because we are all different..

The poor, at least those that do vote, do lean Democrat for a lot of reasons other than the size of their government check. Republicans have fought to keep wages low by blocking minimum wage increase. They have been fighting to destroy unions forever. Most Republican tax proposals increases taxes on those least able to pay. They support legislation that weakens civil rights. In general, Republicans support most legislation the middle and upper class over the poor. Thus there are good reason why the poor leans Democrat that have nothing to do with welfare.

However, there are lot of poor people who vote Republican who are Christian conservatives, and swayed by many of the same issues as higher income tax payers such as terrorism, healthcare, and immigration.

It doesn't have to be a government check to "give them anything."

I can't go through your lengthy list of what you THINK Republicans are for, but let's look at what Sanders and Clinton are preaching about. If it were up to Sanders, he would take away most of the wealth from the wealthy. Of course his followers "assume" that they will end up with that wealth. Free college! Liberals love to talk about free stuff--but never talk about who is going to pay for free.

Then we have the equal pay nonsense. Yes, the Democrats can point to statistics that show men make more than women, but no evidence as to why. They just leave the impression that it must be gender discrimination. So they tell half of our population that they will pass an equal pay law, even though that law was already passed in 1962.

Hillary (like Sanders) complains about those evil one-percenters. Her followers ignore the fact that she is a one-percenter. Criminal justice reform. That's a hot one. Blacks commit a disproportional amount of crime in this country--especially theft and violence, so Hillary wants to do something about getting them out of jail.

Paid family leave. Yes, it's not bad enough that businesses leave this country due to all the expense it takes to have employees in the US, now she is promising Americans even more paid time-off from work.

It all boils down to making more government dependents and giving people more stuff. As you can see, it doesn't have to be a check from the government.

At the heart of your posts seems to be the belief that government social programs create dependency and that dependency is destroying the will to work. If generous government social programs are destroying the incentive to work, then why are 60% of families on food stamps working? And why do most families receiving welfare payments have at least one family member working? And why are most families on TANF off in 21 months?

I don't believe social programs are stopping people from working but I do believe some of the programs need a better phase out as income increases, some of the programs such as child care for the working poor needs to be expanded, and benefits should be based on total income without excisions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wages don't increase because it's a nice thing to do. Wages increase when the consumer is willing to pay more for a product or service that has better paying jobs. Until that time comes, companies will try to make their product or service as cheap as possible to attract customers.

They do nothing more than you or I, it's just that you don't like to but yourself in that same boat.

If you need a lawn care company, do you hire one that will take care of your lawn for $60.00 a cut, or do you hire the service that will do the same job for $30.00 a cut? If your car needs a major repair, do you get three estimates and choose the highest one, or do you choose the lowest one providing they do the same exact work? If you need a new roof on your home or a new furnace installed, do you pick the highest bidder of the three estimates you got, or do you pick the lowest one?

If you are honest and tell me you always choose the lowest one provided you get the same quality of product or work, then you are doing nothing more than lowering wages for those workers.

For starters, I avoid giving my business to large corporations, if at all possible. I'm not interested in supporting companies which pay their executive millions, while paying workers minimum wage. I will not shop at Walmart no matter how cheap their crap is.

I recently bought a custom made sofa-bed. I bought a quality unit which was made in Canada and I purchased it from a local family owned furniture store.

When I need work done, I always hire local small business owners. If I needed a new roof, I'd hire my son-in-law to do it. I buy meat, fruit and produce from the local farmer's market.

Canadians don't shop for price the way Americans do. It's why American business models don't always work here. Americans are prepared to sacrifice their friends and neighbours jobs for cheap goods, Canadians, not so much.

I can't debate you on that topic because I'm not a Canadian nor do I know their business dealings. But here in the US, the reason non-skilled labor makes little money is because they have no skill. Consumers will always go with the cheapest price most times and not even look at where the product is made. That's why Walmart is the number one store in America today.

When we were forced by unions to pay great wages to non-talented workers, our jobs eventually left for other countries and others were replaced by automation. That's because we weren't even buying our own products. They were too expensive.

You can't blame industry or government for the desires of the people. If the majority want cheap crap and they don't care where it's made or who sells it, that's what the markets will aim for. They will look to cut costs on labor, they will look to where they can save on taxes and regulations, they will do whatever it takes to provide the consumers with what they want.