When it comes to red state poverty, how do republicans explain it?

[Wyatt earp]

Granted, liberal policies don't always work. Some socialist programs fail. Of course we know many are also successful. That's why not every blue state is equally thriving. At least progressives try out NEW ideas. Republicans just do the same shit over and over without ever trying new ideas.

The thing about red state economics is their philosophy on government: less government and more capitalism. The thing about ReaganEconomics is that, yes, top executives do make more money through the tax cuts, but that doesn't mean they give a shit about investing more in the wages of their workers. They just keep and pocket most of the money they save with tax cuts because, why not? It's a simple decision. They ask: what is the bare minimum in making their low-end job positions popular?

My point is that even though blue states have mixed results with economic experimentation, red state poverty is a constant. Mississippi, for instance, is the economic shithole of America even though taxes on the wealthy are low.

When it comes to economic prosperity, the solution is investing in consumers I.e. Demand-side economics. Give them tax breaks - not people already wealthy. They can easily handle tax hikes. From there, the poor and middle class will become bigger consumers thus businesses will thrive as a result. Everyone is happy that way

Wow Billy all those words to show the world how ignorant and stupid you are about history and politics?

Here a dumb down version for you


The south was farm industry, poor, the North was manufacturing rich..

The youth of the south wanted manufacturing jobs so they started voting for Republicans in the 1970s fwd


Comprehend moron, it takes a bit to change and the south has changed

 

[FJO]

There are a LOT of good reasons. One of the best is that you aren't looking at the whole picture.

Fool’s Gold: California Has The Highest Poverty Rate In The United States

According to the Census Bureau, nearly one-fourth (23.8 percent, up from a 20-year low of 12 percent in 2006,) of California's 38-million people live below the poverty line – with Latinos, now the state's single largest ethnic group, bearing the brunt of such deprivation. According to the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), at least 6-million households in the state live with incomes below the federal poverty level (about $23,000 for a family of four). Poverty rates are extremely high not only for Latinos, but also African-Americans and those lacking in college diplomas. Reportedly, 5 million Latinos (one-third of their total number) are living in poverty in the state.

When I left Cali in 2005, the state income was so overweighted to soak "the rich" that LITERALLY just 40,000 residents were paying 12% of the total Cali Income tax. Many in the top quintile have fled. Like me for instance.

Another factor is Red states like Tenn are getting huge influxes of Blue state retirees.. Who have fucked up their states so badly, they simply can't afford to retire in them anymore.

I'm not a Republican, but I DO know -- I prefer the lean, efficient, responsible govt in Tenn to the clown circus in the Cali.. You can brag about concentrations of industry and business for a FEW more years, and then the jig is pretty much up.. My small town in Tenn has stolen 4 major companies from Cali since I moved here. And it's so pleasant, some of my neighbors COMMUTE out of state for work, but prefer to live here. We're just fine WITHOUT your concern.

And even tho you have TOO many topics in OP -- the "trickle up" consumer demand stuff simply doesn't work like it use to 20 or 30 years ago. USED to be you give away money to consumers and the factories would rev up, hire folks and create expansion. You do that "trick" now, and the ONLY THING that happens is more Chinese giant freighters arrive in Long Beach with the goods and they go directly to Amazon..

A critical takeaway from your article that you are missing is that Cali's poverty rate isn't based on liberal policies. It's because of a few different factors. One of those being the lucrative Hollywood industry. A mega industry like that will involve minimizing labor costs for the sake of profit. That means lower wages for people. This also causes an increase in the cost of housing. You aren't going to see a drastic change in price within a 10 miles of the Malibu neighborhood in cost of housing. That makes the entire city of LA high in standard of living. That also happens to be where a large percentage of total Cali population.

Despite the income inequality in Cali, the tax rates on the wealthy are higher in comparison to other states.

Hollywood can't AFFORD to produce films in America. You look at the credits and it reads like a world phone book. So only money is created as "an economy" there anymore. Of course, Cali rising poverty is based on liberal policies. They've CATERED to the illegal immigrant demographic. ENCOURAGED the growth of their own "cheap labor" force. They are worse than China in that regard. Adopting ESL standards for the schools which force other middle/upper class people to leave public schools. Standards that HURT immigrant children trying to RISE in the labor force in their country..

I've seen enough of the leftist folly out there. Middle/Upper people are fleeing. Only a matter of time.

Well since the far left wants the illegal here, why not annex Mexico?

Mexico has tons of natural resources and our regulations and laws would bring it up to our standards fairly quickly.

Or bring it down to their standards even quicker.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The south under the Democrats pre 1970






The South under the Republicans after they took over

Any fucking questions?

 

[rahtruelies]

Granted, liberal policies don't always work. Some socialist programs fail. Of course we know many are also successful. That's why not every blue state is equally thriving. At least progressives try out NEW ideas. Republicans just do the same shit over and over without ever trying new ideas.

The thing about red state economics is their philosophy on government: less government and more capitalism. The thing about ReaganEconomics is that, yes, top executives do make more money through the tax cuts, but that doesn't mean they give a shit about investing more in the wages of their workers. They just keep and pocket most of the money they save with tax cuts because, why not? It's a simple decision. They ask: what is the bare minimum in making their low-end job positions popular?

My point is that even though blue states have mixed results with economic experimentation, red state poverty is a constant. Mississippi, for instance, is the economic shithole of America even though taxes on the wealthy are low.

When it comes to economic prosperity, the solution is investing in consumers I.e. Demand-side economics. Give them tax breaks - not people already wealthy. They can easily handle tax hikes. From there, the poor and middle class will become bigger consumers thus businesses will thrive as a result. Everyone is happy that way

Hmmm, the source of poverty in a place like oh say Kansas is that sadly we have an infestation of obama/klintoon base voters.

 

[flacaltenn]

When will you loons stop trying to repackage the same old crap?

How many Venezuala's will it take?

Or Zimbabwes? I mean, Zimbabwe isn't a Socialist state, it's a capitalist one, run by a right wing dictator.

Correction -- always WAS a socialist movement. Just like in Venuzuela. Those "people's revolutions" just have a very bad track record of turning into SOCIALIST dictatorships. Don't run from that fact. Embrace it. And ponder the REASONS for that happening so often... Guaranteed -- will make you smarter about "socialism"..

I could explain it to you. Better if YOU figure out why that happens..

 

[frigidweirdo]

When will you loons stop trying to repackage the same old crap?

How many Venezuala's will it take?

Or Zimbabwes? I mean, Zimbabwe isn't a Socialist state, it's a capitalist one, run by a right wing dictator.

Correction -- always WAS a socialist movement. Just like in Venuzuela. Those "people's revolutions" just have a very bad track record of turning into SOCIALIST dictatorships. Don't run from that fact. Embrace it. And ponder the REASONS for that happening so often... Guaranteed -- will make you smarter about "socialism"..

I could explain it to you. Better if YOU figure out why that happens..

No, Zimbabwe is NOT a socialist movement, but don't let the facts get in the way of a bullshit argument.

 

[flacaltenn]

When will you loons stop trying to repackage the same old crap?

How many Venezuala's will it take?

Or Zimbabwes? I mean, Zimbabwe isn't a Socialist state, it's a capitalist one, run by a right wing dictator.

Correction -- always WAS a socialist movement. Just like in Venuzuela. Those "people's revolutions" just have a very bad track record of turning into SOCIALIST dictatorships. Don't run from that fact. Embrace it. And ponder the REASONS for that happening so often... Guaranteed -- will make you smarter about "socialism"..

I could explain it to you. Better if YOU figure out why that happens..

No, Zimbabwe is NOT a socialist movement, but don't let the facts get in the way of a bullshit argument.

Don't let the facts get in the way of YOUR BS preconceptions. I was arguing with Socialists over the "experiment in Socialism in Zimbabwe in the late 80s. They predicted wonderful outcomes for socialism --- I predicted the complete unraveling of the economy and disaster. I THINK -- I was following this closer than you were.

Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front - Wikipedia


In December 1987, after five years of the low-level civil war known as Gukurahundi, the opposition ZAPU, led by Nkomo, was absorbed through the Unity Accord with ZANU to form an official ZANU–PF.[4]

Ideology[edit]
Officially, ZANU–PF is socialist in ideology. The party maintains a politburo and a Central Committee.[5][6] African nationalism and anti-imperialism in the form of opposition to Western domination of the world are other key elements in the party's ideology.

Robert Mugabe - Wikipedia

Mugabe's government continued to make regular pronouncements about converting Zimbabwe into a socialist society, although did not take concrete steps in that direction.[118] In contrast to Mugabe's talk of socialism, his government's budgetary policies were conservative, operating within a capitalist framework and emphasising the need for foreign investment.[113] In office, Mugabe sought a gradual transformation away from capitalism and tried to build upon existing state institutions.

Following the collapse of the Marxist-Leninist regimes in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, in 1991 ZANU-PF removed any references to "Marxism-Leninism" and "scientific socialism" from its material, although Mugabe maintained that "socialism remains our sworn ideology".

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol18-issue2/H01826368.pdf

It was these racially
entrenched biases that ZANU PF and PF ZAPU militarily fought and defeated. During the liberation struggle
ZANU PF was supported by China while PF ZAPU was funded by the Soviet Union (SU).the ideological
orientation towards socialism is therefore not difficult to account for. Racial inequalities and the Eastern world
were the bedrock on which socialism was founded.

The ZANU PF government that emerged in 1980 found itself in an ambivalent position. While its
ideological orientation was Socialist, it on the other hand did not want to see a repeat of the Mozambican
scenario where whites had left the country enmass on the eve of independence leaving a very big skills gap in
the country. The Premier, R G Mugabe therefore articulated the policy of racial conciliation where yesterday‟s
friends and foes would join hands together to rebuild the new state. The question of “who really owed what to
whom” was not supposed to be asked as it were so as not to be retributive in outlook. This was to place the new
government in some strictures in its pursuit of Socialism.
At independence the Mugabe regime proclaimed itself to be committed to scientific Marxist-Leninist
socialism. The government first articulated its policy in a document known as „Growth with Equity: An
Economic Policy Statement‟ (Nyaruwata, 1988). Among other things the objectives of „Growth with Equity‟
were to establish a Socialist democratic and egalitarian society. It aimed at removing imperialist exploitation,
create and maintain high employment levels, improve and extend the economic base and social infrastructure
and to reform the fiscal and monetary systems.

 

[tyroneweaver]

This shit has been blown out of the water so many times. Because the statistics are always based on Presidential voting and no other factors. AKA a grand caca aka total bullshit .

Can't you come up with new material?

There's noting to it. Rightwing policies don't work, hence the abject poverty in, especially rural areas, despite the fact that they are, and have been, governed by Republicans for decades.

You just don't like the answer, therefore you play stupid, and/or try to obfuscate and run away from the subject.

here let me help you out a little marc. Here's one for starters:
1.5 million acres at 10k per acre = $15,000,000,000 That utah just donated to the feds.
Presidential Proclamation -- Establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument

but you won't hear about this.