1 in 6 Draw Welfare in Predominantly Red States

[JonKoch]

Yes, Ray, we are a democratic republic, meaning we elect representative to govern in our republican system. Your opinion about 'social program's is merely an opinion. And from the rise of the Progressive Age in 1912 the living standard of America rose to lead the world. The world is still trying to get here.

Yes it did, but had nothing to do with social programs. Social programs make people lazy and dependent on their federal government. Our founders never wanted that.

Without false premises, distortions and lies what would right wingers EVER have?




All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Ben
Franklin

Ya mean, like dee way you Dems keeps dem Darkies on dee Inner City Plantations wif dee Welfare Moneys and keeps da good Nigras votin' Democrat, dont'cha?

^^^AND THE RIGHT WONDERS WHY THE DEMS GET 90%+ OF THE BLACK VOTE^^^

Wrong again, buffalo breath...

I voted for Bernie in the Illinois Primaries...

I voted (extremely reluctantly) for Shrillary in the General on November 8, 2016...

And all your rock-throwing and all your whiny-bitch blathering about systemic racism fails to dilute the power of the Percentages approach outlined in Post #39...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/17419822/

Gawd another farrr right racist prick who was a Bernie supporter AND hated Cheeto so much he voted Hil

 

[Markle]

Hey 15 dollars per hour down south gets ya a nice double wide.....what's wrong with that?

And up North, it gets you one window here.

 

[JonKoch]

You do understand after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies we lost 600,000+ jobs? Hint Obama saw 16 million jobs created after hitting Bush's bottom March 2010

The main problem in the US is the wages for the bottom 90% have been stagnant, and we have "capitalists" who are subsidized BECAUSE they refuse to pay living wages

Cute.

Then using your methodology, we'll take the administration of President Bush up to October 2007. What was the employment level at that point?

As you know, petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama was responsible for the economy the past eight years. What do you expect from such an anemic recovery? The first president in history to never have a single year of growth with a GDP exceeding 3%. Failure.

Sorry Cupcake, EVEN going to peak of emolument Dubya/GOP "job creator" polices had an ANEMIC 4 million jobs created Cupcake

BUT YOU DO REALIZE ONCE DUBYA'S ECONOMY STARTED CRASHING (9%+ THE LAST QUARTER OF 2008 ALONE) IT DIDN'T END UNTIL MARCH 2010 RIGHT CUPCAKE?


PRIVATE sector jobs Feb 2009 - 110,699,000


PRIVATE sector jobs Jan 2017 123,230,000


STILL NETTED 13 MILLION JOBS AFTER DUBYA LOST 600,000 IN YEARS CUPCAKE


JUST PUT IN THE DATES AND HIT GO

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

ANEMIC RECOVERY? WAIT WE HAD 8 YEARS OF GOP "JOB CREATOR" POLICIES WHAT HAPPENED?

 

[9thIDdoc]

It is ironic just how much the red states rely on welfare and this is true even in blue states. If you see a map of voting, red covers lots of blue states too and these are generally conservative areas away from cities. It shows you just how powerful the messaging is when money dominates the idea sphere. People vote against their own because the other is painted as an elite or as a welfare cheat, meanwhile the very people who vote have no healthcare, jobs, or a solid infrastructure. It is bizarre but it works. Check out, "The Trouble with Reality: A Rumination on Moral Panic in Our Time" by Brooke Gladstone, she covers the ways in which speech controls many people's choices.

well said.

The thing is that we've created a concept of "entitlements" vs. Welfare.

Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance are seen as "entitlements", even though most people who collect them end up taking out more than they ever paid in to them.

Meanwhile, SNAP, TANF, WIC, section 8, even if they are utilized by people who can't work (Children, the disabled) or people who work and don't make enough to make ends meet, are looked down upon.

I lovingly refer to the former groups as "White People Welfare", the kind of welfare that white folks are okay with, because people they know receive them.

White people also make up the majority of people who use the latter group, but we've trained people to look down on them.

"Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance are seen as "entitlements", even though most people who collect them end up taking out more than they ever paid in to them."
Bullshit, far more people have had their money confiscated by the government for these programs and never see a dime returned to them. They are "entitlements" people are entitled to money they have earned. Might as well call a paycheck an entitlement.

 

[JonKoch]

Hey 15 dollars per hour down south gets ya a nice double wide.....what's wrong with that?

And up North, it gets you one window here.

Yes Cupcake because Reaganomics hasn't de-industrialized those cities AS they gutted taxes on those (Chinese/Mexican) "job creators" right?

 

[Markle]

And it's common knowledge red states take from the federal government for welfare and programs like SSA disability while blue states pay in more than they take. In other words the blue states are funding the people in red states to be lazy. And now this comes out that shows people in the red states get on disability and their families never get off it.

The exact opposite of what conservatives claim every day. THEY are the lazy ones that need to get jobs and stop taking a handout from the 'gubment'.

Try it with cities and see which are most dependent on welfare and which cities contribute the most.

"Rural communities, where on average 9.1 percent of working-age people are on disability — nearly twice the urban rate and 40 percent higher than the national average — are in a brighter shade than cities. An even brighter hue then spreads from Appalachia into the Deep South and out into Missouri, where rates are higher yet, places economists have called “disability belts.” "

From link above


The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White
The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White | Breaking Brown


Red States Are Welfare Queens

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.
Red States Are Welfare Queens

One sentence and you're incapable of comprehending. I'll try again. I'll type slowly for you.

Try it with cities and see which are most dependent on welfare and which cities contribute the most.

I get it Cupcake, the problem is YOU need to provide something IF you want to make a posit Cupcake


I'm showing those RED STATES SUCK OFF THE TEET OF THE BLUE STATES, This threads article shows RURAL AREAS ARE TWICE THE RATE OF CITY'S AND 40% MORE THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGES

 

[Markle]

Hey 15 dollars per hour down south gets ya a nice double wide.....what's wrong with that?

And up North, it gets you one window here.

Yes Cupcake because Reaganomics hasn't de-industrialized those cities AS they gutted taxes on those (Chinese/Mexican) "job creators" right?

Your desperation is duly noted!

Wow, who can make this up?

Making a futile attempt to compare a highly skilled worker in 1957 with a totally unskilled worker today. You must be incredibly desperate. I'm almost sorry to make you feel so ashamed.

 

[Markle]

The system is not designed for people to rise up in class. It takes 100 grand to make it to middle class. Most won't ever sniff that.

Your ignorance is duly noted. $100,000 for one person is well above middle income.

The system is well designed for people to move up and down through the income brackets. Allow me to show you.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

THE POVERTY HYPE

Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts.

Dr. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer.

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991.

Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 -- 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge.

Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only seven percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers."

The Poverty Hype

 

[JonKoch]

And it's common knowledge red states take from the federal government for welfare and programs like SSA disability while blue states pay in more than they take. In other words the blue states are funding the people in red states to be lazy. And now this comes out that shows people in the red states get on disability and their families never get off it.

The exact opposite of what conservatives claim every day. THEY are the lazy ones that need to get jobs and stop taking a handout from the 'gubment'.

Try it with cities and see which are most dependent on welfare and which cities contribute the most.

"Rural communities, where on average 9.1 percent of working-age people are on disability — nearly twice the urban rate and 40 percent higher than the national average — are in a brighter shade than cities. An even brighter hue then spreads from Appalachia into the Deep South and out into Missouri, where rates are higher yet, places economists have called “disability belts.” "

From link above


The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White
The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White | Breaking Brown


Red States Are Welfare Queens

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.
Red States Are Welfare Queens

One sentence and you're incapable of comprehending. I'll try again. I'll type slowly for you.

Try it with cities and see which are most dependent on welfare and which cities contribute the most.

I get it Cupcake, the problem is YOU need to provide something IF you want to make a posit Cupcake


I'm showing those RED STATES SUCK OFF THE TEET OF THE BLUE STATES, This threads article shows RURAL AREAS ARE TWICE THE RATE OF CITY'S AND 40% MORE THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGES

Got it Cupcake you can't provide any evidence to support your posit and don't accept reality from this article?

 

[JonKoch]

Hey 15 dollars per hour down south gets ya a nice double wide.....what's wrong with that?

And up North, it gets you one window here.

Yes Cupcake because Reaganomics hasn't de-industrialized those cities AS they gutted taxes on those (Chinese/Mexican) "job creators" right?

Your desperation is duly noted!

Wow, who can make this up?

Making a futile attempt to compare a highly skilled worker in 1957 with a totally unskilled worker today. You must be incredibly desperate. I'm almost sorry to make you feel so ashamed.

Got it Cupcake, you aren't smart enough to understand how Reaganomics de-industrialized the US which is why Walmart is today's largest employer. I tell you I'm not shocked Cupcake

 

[Markle]

Typical European Union countries have more social and economic equality than the USA. The largest EU economy is Germany where there is manifestly more equality than the USA.

Which also means that there is no upward or downward mobility and where you are born, you remain all your life.

Then there is the cost of electric which is now so expensive as to be a luxury. Many households are now forced to turn off their electricity part of the day. Then they have all the problems which have come from having their government invite nearly a million refugees into the country.

 

[JonKoch]

The system is not designed for people to rise up in class. It takes 100 grand to make it to middle class. Most won't ever sniff that.

Your ignorance is duly noted. $100,000 for one person is well above middle income.

The system is well designed for people to move up and down through the income brackets. Allow me to show you.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

THE POVERTY HYPE

Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts.

Dr. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer.

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991.

Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 -- 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge.

Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only seven percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers."

The Poverty Hype

WEIRD CUPCAKE


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs


But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.”


National Review, a conservative thought leader, wrote that “most Western European and English-speaking nations have higher rates of mobility.”


Even Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who argues that overall mobility remains high, recently wrote that “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”

Liberal commentators have long emphasized class, but the attention on the right is largely new.

“It’s becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think you’ll find too many people who will argue with that.”

...At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.


NYT

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs


BUT YOU HAVE "OC" WILLIAMS HUH?

 

[JonKoch]

Typical European Union countries have more social and economic equality than the USA. The largest EU economy is Germany where there is manifestly more equality than the USA.

Which also means that there is no upward or downward mobility and where you are born, you remain all your life.

Then there is the cost of electric which is now so expensive as to be a luxury. Many households are now forced to turn off their electricity part of the day. Then they have all the problems which have come from having their government invite nearly a million refugees into the country.

OH CUPCAKE


Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

NYT

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

 

[Markle]

Got it Cupcake you can't provide any evidence to support your posit and don't accept reality from this article?

Why would I take seriously a racist site?

Thank you for confirming my post on the facts as to how Progressives are racist and glory in pigeon holing all people in order to pander to each. How righteous of you.

 

[JonKoch]

Got it Cupcake you can't provide any evidence to support your posit and don't accept reality from this article?

Why would I take seriously a racist site?

Thank you for confirming my post on the facts as to how Progressives are racist and glory in pigeon holing all people in order to pander to each. How righteous of you.

Sure Cupcake keep trying, WAPO is racist? lol

Disabled, or just desperate?
Disabled, or just desperate? Rural Americans turn to disability as jobs dry up

 

[Markle]

Got it Cupcake, you aren't smart enough to understand how Reaganomics de-industrialized the US which is why Walmart is today's largest employer. I tell you I'm not shocked Cupcake

Yeah, Volkswagon, Honda, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda, Fiat, and others had nothing, whatsoever to do with the collapse of the auto industry along with the help of the Auto Unions.

 

[Markle]

Got it Cupcake, you aren't smart enough to understand how Reaganomics de-industrialized the US which is why Walmart is today's largest employer. I tell you I'm not shocked Cupcake

So once again, you've got nothin'.

What fun!

 

[JonKoch]

Got it Cupcake, you aren't smart enough to understand how Reaganomics de-industrialized the US which is why Walmart is today's largest employer. I tell you I'm not shocked Cupcake

Yeah, Volkswagon, Honda, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda, Fiat, and others had nothing, whatsoever to do with the collapse of the auto industry along with the help of the Auto Unions.

What we only made cars with our industry Cupcake? IF that's all it was why is Germany 40% the size of US and yet they export as much as US Cupcake? OH RIGHT, THEY HAVE GOOD GOV'T POLICIES!


Reagan GUTTED taxes on the richest AND his and the CONServatives policies REWARDED those (Chinese/Mexico) "job creators" to off shore US jobs

 

[JonKoch]

Got it Cupcake, you aren't smart enough to understand how Reaganomics de-industrialized the US which is why Walmart is today's largest employer. I tell you I'm not shocked Cupcake

So once again, you've got nothin'.

What fun!

 

[Eloy]

In a democracy, the electorate deserve the government policies they get.
In civilized countries, social programs are written in party manifestos.

That's great for democracies because we aren't one. We are a Republic.

Correct. Social programs are written in party manifestos, but not the Constitution or the responsibility of government in general. Our founders never wanted the people to be dependent on the federal government, and as we've seen, it's a terrible idea.

Yes, Ray, we are a democratic republic, meaning we elect representative to govern in our republican system. Your opinion about 'social program's is merely an opinion. And from the rise of the Progressive Age in 1912 the living standard of America rose to lead the world. The world is still trying to get here.

Yes it did, but had nothing to do with social programs. Social programs make people lazy and dependent on their federal government. Our founders never wanted that.

Without false premises, distortions and lies what would right wingers EVER have?




All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Ben
Franklin

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, Annals of Congress, 1794

Republicans would agree with James Madison's centuries-old thinking.