Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest

[bedowin62]

i missed it because you cant back it up leftard

oh and the states with the highest numbers of African-Americans in percentage and totals are Red states. i guess you missed that part

Dont click this link if you want to remain ignorant: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

But I'll put it here anyway so you have no excuse

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21
Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.



Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

Whatever you do please dont read that. In fact, just say that its all lies and jam your fingers in your ears

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ClosedCaption again.

debunked talking point; like most of the lies you spoon-fed yourself

stand by................................

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

you cant prove what you said; because george soros thinks for you

I can't prove what? That Wal-Mart doesn't have any loyalty to its employees? That Wal-Mart employees are getting fucked by the company that they work for? That the corporation profits billions of dollars every quarter while the employees struggle by on food stamps? I don't have to prove it. Wal-Mart already proved it for me.

If George Soros speaks for me, then the Waltons definitely speak for you.

why aren they here bitching like the loser you are instead of you then?

face it; you're nothing but an insignificant idiot; on a rant. even Walmart employees dont care that you're here making a fool of yourself in their honor

The welfare state created a thriving Wal-Mart, but at the same time, it hates its success.

 

[bedowin62]

Dont click this link if you want to remain ignorant: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

But I'll put it here anyway so you have no excuse




Whatever you do please dont read that. In fact, just say that its all lies and jam your fingers in your ears

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ClosedCaption again.

debunked talking point; like most of the lies you spoon-fed yourself

stand by................................

During the last few years, a key liberal talking point has been "red state welfare." The argument is that the states that get more from the federal government than they pay in taxes tend to be red states, whereas the states that give more to the federal government than they pay in taxes tend to be blue states. This "red state welfare" hypothesis falls completely apart when we look at the data.

The so-called top 10 "red states" on welfare are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Virginia, and Kentucky.

The purportedly bottom 10 "blue states" not on welfare are New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado.

To show how mindless this liberal proposition is, the "red state welfare" argument appears to be entirely based only on how each state voted in the most recent presidential election. This results in entirely junk science.

To show how mindless this liberal proposition is, the "red state welfare" argument appears to be entirely based only on how each state voted in the most recent presidential election. This results in entirely junk science.



First off, states that are either "haves" (i.e., give more to the federal government than they receive) or "have-nots" (i.e., get more from the federal government than they give) do not just arise overnight. State finances take decades to develop as either "haves" or "have-nots," so looking at only a single election is meaningless. Rather, we need to look at how a state has voted over several decades to obtain any relevant insights.

Furthermore, it's equally nonsensical to just consider how a state votes for the president. We also need to look at how each state votes for its senators, representatives, and even governors. Given how Congress has the "power of the purse," this is core to assessing how a state's welfare status relates to its Democrat versus Republican voting record. And this is where the "red state welfare" hypothesis disintegrates.

The following table shows the percentage of person-years between 1980 and 2013 for which each of the top and bottom welfare states voted Democrat at the presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial levels.

 

[bedowin62]

the bluest parts of Red states are where the welfare is

and the gun violence too



libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[dblack]

I can't prove what? That Wal-Mart doesn't have any loyalty to its employees? That Wal-Mart employees are getting fucked by the company that they work for? That the corporation profits billions of dollars every quarter while the employees struggle by on food stamps? I don't have to prove it. Wal-Mart already proved it for me.

If George Soros speaks for me, then the Waltons definitely speak for you.

why aren they here bitching like the loser you are instead of you then?

face it; you're nothing but an insignificant idiot; on a rant. even Walmart employees dont care that you're here making a fool of yourself in their honor

The welfare state created a thriving Wal-Mart, but at the same time, it hates its success.

Me too. Are you really saying government should be supporting Wal-Mart?

 

[Meathead]

why aren they here bitching like the loser you are instead of you then?

face it; you're nothing but an insignificant idiot; on a rant. even Walmart employees dont care that you're here making a fool of yourself in their honor

The welfare state created a thriving Wal-Mart, but at the same time, it hates its success.

Me too. Are you really saying government should be supporting Wal-Mart?

Government should support all legal businesses. We need private sector jobs! Why is that so fucking hard to understand?!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Dont click this link if you want to remain ignorant: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

But I'll put it here anyway so you have no excuse




Whatever you do please dont read that. In fact, just say that its all lies and jam your fingers in your ears

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ClosedCaption again.

debunked talking point; like most of the lies you spoon-fed yourself

stand by................................

Didnt I tell you he would ignore and dismiss everything that disrupts his bubble

So predictable

 

[dblack]

The welfare state created a thriving Wal-Mart, but at the same time, it hates its success.

Me too. Are you really saying government should be supporting Wal-Mart?

Government should support all legal businesses. We need private sector jobs! Why is that so fucking hard to understand?!

Because it's not the job of government to supplement corporate income.

 

[bedowin62]

Me too. Are you really saying government should be supporting Wal-Mart?

Government should support all legal businesses. We need private sector jobs! Why is that so fucking hard to understand?!

Because it's not the job of government to supplement corporate income.

just idiotic. it IS the job of goverment to ensure a vibrant economy; the government already "supplements" corporate income in countless ways.

Walmar is "supplementing" the government here. do you think they cant find a way to have machines to the jobs of some of their employees?

in other words they are on limited help from the government now. if they get let go by walmart the government will be supplying ALL OF THEIR NEEDS

 

[dblack]

Government should support all legal businesses. We need private sector jobs! Why is that so fucking hard to understand?!

Because it's not the job of government to supplement corporate income.

just idiotic. it IS the job of goverment to ensure a vibrant economy; the government already "supplements" corporate income in countless ways.

I disagree. I don't want government interfering in the economy.

 

[hangover]

Why don't record corporate profits trickle down?

Why don't job creators create any jobs with their record corporate profits?

Record corporate profits. In a recession. While everyone struggles to get by.

Corporations can raise employee wages and pay for it with record profits.

Any cons got an answer? No? Yeah, that figures.

 

[bedowin62]

Why don't record corporate profits trickle down?

Why don't job creators create any jobs with their record corporate profits?

Record corporate profits. In a recession. While everyone struggles to get by.

Corporations can raise employee wages and pay for it with record profits.

Any cons got an answer? No? Yeah, that figures.

you idiot

there are more poor people under this Progressive President than there were under bush and Republicans

got an answer for that moron that isnt more pathetic excuse-making how people you idiots insist you are so superior to are able to "obstruct" you and hold you "hostage"?

 

[bedowin62]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ClosedCaption again.

debunked talking point; like most of the lies you spoon-fed yourself

stand by................................

Didnt I tell you he would ignore and dismiss everything that disrupts his bubble

So predictable

lmao

i proved your left-wing talking point was a lie; and you have the gall to accuse ME of not wanting my bubble disrupted?

lol you're a pathetic loser..........................PROJECT MUCH???

 

[ClosedCaption]

debunked talking point; like most of the lies you spoon-fed yourself

stand by................................

Didnt I tell you he would ignore and dismiss everything that disrupts his bubble

So predictable

lmao

i proved your left-wing talking point was a lie;

Where and when did you do that? Or are you lying again?

 

[bedowin62]

Didnt I tell you he would ignore and dismiss everything that disrupts his bubble

So predictable

lmao

i proved your left-wing talking point was a lie;

Where and when did you do that? Or are you lying again?

YAWN

what a bore you are

 

[bedowin62]

lmao

i proved your left-wing talking point was a lie;

Where and when did you do that? Or are you lying again?

YAWN

what a bore you are

The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.
The Heritage Foundation explains that:

“Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”


Read more: Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[bedowin62]

Where and when did you do that? Or are you lying again?

YAWN

what a bore you are

The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.
The Heritage Foundation explains that:

“Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”


Read more: Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.


Read more: Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[buckeye45_73]

you mispelled 'guano'

lol!!

:d

It's always entertaining when these newcomers pop in and post screeds assuming that unions, minimum wages, etc. are somehow "good for people's economic self-interest", when in fact those things reduce jobs and lengthen recessions.

YEAH! Minimum Wage is bullshit!

Which goes back to the OP's question...Why do republicans vote against their own economic interest? lol

wait I Thought all republicans were rich and controlled everything?

Second, how does the min wage improve anyone's life, you are still making the minimum.......think about it!

 

[boilermaker55]

Certainly! When CEO's get stock given to them and their homes given to them and cars given to them. It is a just and fair equitable market.

.

So the only reason to vote for something is so that someone will give you something?

Maybe not everyone thinks that way.

.

 

[hangover]

Red states access social services to a greater degree than blue - maybe you missed that part.

i missed it because you cant back it up leftard

oh and the states with the highest numbers of African-Americans in percentage and totals are Red states. i guess you missed that part

Dont click this link if you want to remain ignorant: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

But I'll put it here anyway so you have no excuse

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21
Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.



Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

Whatever you do please dont read that. In fact, just say that its all lies and jam your fingers in your ears

Liberals keep showing cons reality with facts, and all they've got is sandbox banter. They must really believe that responses like, "Idiot" and "liar" win the debate. And they can't understand why they keep losing. Just keep counting on the stupid southern bigots cons. Their ignorance is your bliss.