About "free stuff": Why are Red States so dependent on Blue States?

[Edgetho]

Someone writes of red states "the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients."

The solid, strong middle and upper middle classes of Fort Worth, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, e.g. would tell you "flip off until you know what you are talking about."

You have no idea waht you are talking about.... As usual.

In Dallas, Whites comprise only 28% of the population.

In San Antonio, it's only 26%

In Atlanta, it's a mind-boggling 33%

Houston it's 25%

So, as usual, malarkey.... You're clueless, an idiot and a liar.

 

[Freemason9]

No one can ever be sure of what rdean is talking about, since he doesn't even know.

For most of the last 2 centuries the southern states economies have been based on agriculture. It wasn't until the 1920's that anyone would have tried to build a skyscraper in the south because of AIR CONDITIONING. It's not because of the way "conservatives" managed anything, it's because of the way liberals destroy everything that people and businesses are moving south, and they can do so since we have the ability to control indoor climate, and the south has been exploding in the last 80 years.

Funny how the bed wetters are so hell bent on "energy conservation", policies that seek to restrict thermostats or rely on excessively expensive "green" bullshit.

Secondly, the "blue states" have well established ports and banking infrastructure, since there was no AC in New Orleans at the time. Finished products and agricultural goods produced in the south and shipped to "blue states" for export are treated as if they were produced in that state, and all the taxes and tariffs are applied at that point. The burden of the cost is passed on to the consumer, and the banks that handle the transactions of course charge their fees.

If there are any parasites on the economy, it's the "blue states".

I've always wondered why they're "blue states", shouldn't they be "red states" since they're so devoted to marxist dogma?

A funny thing happens you know...as those southern states grow their economy and education develops and large urban area become productive...guess what? They turn blue.

Really, it's just solid fact...some of the fastest growing states have been Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and even Texas.

Guess what? ALL of those states are trending leftward, probably by 2020 or 2024 Arizona and Georgia will become swing states and Texas will probably follow soon after.

It happened in Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia already...it's happening elsewhere too.

Growth always happens first in Red States during recessionary economies because of the massive amount of federal "stimulus" money they receive relative to other states. They are already recipients of a lot of federal funding, so they are very sensitive to changes in outlays.

On the negative side, their economies tend to do relatively poorly during "boom years" or recoveries, when federal funding is reduced.

Those "fly over" states don't actually provide as much food for humans as you think. A large part of what farmers grow in those states is field corn, used for animal feed (beef, pork, etc.) and for ethanol production. We don't actually need that much corn at all, and the market doesn't support corn, so the Congress sends farmers massive welfare checks every year to grow it. They also try to create an artificial market by subsidizing ethanol production and creating "red state" legislation that forces its use in gasoline blends.

 

[NLT]

Why are red states so dependent on blue states? because we have large population of obama lovers that got thier obama phones, ebt cards and do not give anything to society they just take and take and take....you know who you are, you was in Walmart stealing on your ebt card the other day.

 

[rdean]

Let it NEVER be said that Rdeanie has lost his touch for skewing or completely ignoring the facts of any issue to make a political hack point! I will elaborate.

The ONLY union in this country for pipeline welders is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The members of that union, of which my son is one, all have residences in this state, they pay income tax here. BUT, they travel to where the pipelines are being built or put together. For example, my son and twenty of his union brothers went to Pennsylvania to help build a natural gas pipeline to New York. All that money that they make is counted for that states income. And they make a butt load of money.

Another example. A friend of mine owns a small tower cooler manufacturing company outside of Tulsa. He employs about 75 workers and makes great big tower coolers for large air conditioning units that sit on top of buildings. When he ships those coolers out, he is paid at the destination, which then becomes income at the DESTINATION. He ships about 20 coolers out a month, usually to the east coast.

Your statements are completely invalid, but not outside the realm of an rdean thread. Usually, when I read your threads they are for entertainment only. There's just something about a political hack having a complete meltdown over fictitious information that intrigues me. A guilty pleasure to be sure. Nothing that warrants an intellectual conversation...

I like hearing positive stories about UNION members. According to most USMB right wingers, unions are the source of evil, filled with lazy people and are completely worthless. Glad you don't fee that way.

 

[Nyvin]

wrong, the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients. The working areas of those states will always be very red.

Is detroit the example of where atlanta, birmingham, and houston are headed? could be.

The lesser populated rural areas use more welfare per capita due to lack of sufficient employment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even without all the charts and statistics showing how much the Red States are Dependent on Blue States, it's pretty obvious. Considering it's the Blue States that make the "real" money in this country.

Republicans are under the mistaken impression that liberals and business are moving to Red States because those states are so much more "attractive". But so is China. A large uneducated work force of unskilled labor willing to work for peanuts unencumbered by regulations and safety. What am I describing? China or the South?

For over a hundred years, conservatives have been managing the Deep South. The questions are:

Is what they did to the South what they want for the country?

Wouldn't building up their states be better than trying to entice educated workers from other states?

Do they see the state of southern states as the "model" of what they want for the country?

If they turn every state into a welfare state the way they did the southern states, who will pay? There won't be any Blue States left to fund them.

How many times have different people explained why your stupid assertion is so stupid that even Chris Matthews leaves it alone?

 

[Freemason9]

Why are red states so dependent on blue states? because we have large population of obama lovers that got thier obama phones, ebt cards and do not give anything to society they just take and take and take....you know who you are, you was in Walmart stealing on your ebt card the other day.

No, it's because of farmers and farm towns. They have been expensive welfare recipients of all kinds of aid for decades.

 

[rdean]

It's hilarious when right wingers try to blame their confederate conservative failure on blacks.

Kentucky is more than 90% white and it's one of the worst.

Love the one about "northern states screwed us because of air conditioning. Hilarious.

Republicans cry that Obama hasn't fixed the US economy in 5 years after what Republicans did to the economy, the military, the middle class and manufacturing. Yet, they've had 150 years of controlling Red States and their policies are such failures is because of air conditioning and black people? Really?

As far as "free stuff", when your state is subsidized the way Red States are, then of course, they are "experts" on "free stuff".

I'm just sharing the message. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Londoner]

wrong, the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients. The working areas of those states will always be very red.

Is detroit the example of where atlanta, birmingham, and houston are headed? could be.

The lesser populated rural areas use more welfare per capita due to lack of sufficient employment.

The essence of Movement Conservatism is to convince people who rely on Government to hate government. They've been conditioned to worry more about Food Stamps than the financial control exerted over government by Big Pharma, Oil and Finance.

The Republican Party is looking for people who don't understand government's necessary role in say creating the advanced industrial infrastructure upon which commerce depends.

Rather than blaming the large corporations that own government, they have been conditioned to blame the poor - the takers and their Washington helpers.

Truth be told: the real takers are contained inside the concentrated wealth which fund elections, staff government and invest heavily in Rightwing think tanks & tv/radio/internet. These forces are designed to convince stupid people that government is so evil and incompetent that it doesn't deserve tax revenue. But here is why we know this is a strategic ploy: because these same corporations who fund the anti-government bullhorn of Movement Conservatism have created vast lobbying empires and election funding departments to suck subsidies, regulatory favors and bailouts from the nanny state.

The dirty secret of Movement Conservatism is that the forces who convince the idiots that government is evil are the very same vampire squids sucking government dry and bankrupting future generations. It is the biggest scam in history and it depends on a class of under-educated white people who lack the critical skills to see that they are being manipulated with the culture war, patriotism and national security threats.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Even without all the charts and statistics showing how much the Red States are Dependent on Blue States, it's pretty obvious. Considering it's the Blue States that make the "real" money in this country.

Republicans are under the mistaken impression that liberals and business are moving to Red States because those states are so much more "attractive". But so is China. A large uneducated work force of unskilled labor willing to work for peanuts unencumbered by regulations and safety. What am I describing? China or the South?

For over a hundred years, conservatives have been managing the Deep South. The questions are:

Is what they did to the South what they want for the country?

Wouldn't building up their states be better than trying to entice educated workers from other states?

Do they see the state of southern states as the "model" of what they want for the country?

If they turn every state into a welfare state the way they did the southern states, who will pay? There won't be any Blue States left to fund them.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

To those here who claim Arizona and Texas are trending blue: that assertion is flat-out false.

Both states trended further Republican. Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina had slight shifts toward the Democrats, but not that much. For example North Carolina was 2 points MORE REPUBLICAN than 2008 but it "trended" Democrat by about 1% because it shifted LESS AGAINST Obama than the national average.

This is why the use of "trending blue" and "trending red" are misleading. It's basically saying "Ignoring the national average, here's how the states swung."

For example, if Joe Schmo got 50% in Indiana his first election and 50% nationwide, and the next election he got 10% nationwide but 15% in Indiana, Indiana would be said to have trended "toward Joe Schmo" because he lost less than he did nationally. But all this shows is that voters in the country and in Indiana each turned strongly against Mr. Schmo.

SWING is a far more useful criterion is SWING by state actually shows the move of voters in each.

The message is pretty clear with the swing map(nearly every state swung GOP)

This actually shows which DIRECTIONS the state moved in for the last election, and clearly, most states moved in the GOP direction.

I can't post URL's but both these maps are available on uselectionatlas.org under "2012 Presidential Election"

 

[rdean]

To those here who claim Arizona and Texas are trending blue: that assertion is flat-out false.

Both states trended further Republican. Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina had slight shifts toward the Democrats, but not that much. For example North Carolina was 2 points MORE REPUBLICAN than 2008 but it "trended" Democrat by about 1% because it shifted LESS AGAINST Obama than the national average.

This is why the use of "trending blue" and "trending red" are misleading. It's basically saying "Ignoring the national average, here's how the states swung."

For example, if Joe Schmo got 50% in Indiana his first election and 50% nationwide, and the next election he got 10% nationwide but 15% in Indiana, Indiana would be said to have trended "toward Joe Schmo" because he lost less than he did nationally. But all this shows is that voters in the country and in Indiana each turned strongly against Mr. Schmo.

SWING is a far more useful criterion is SWING by state actually shows the move of voters in each.

The message is pretty clear with the swing map(nearly every state swung GOP)

This actually shows which DIRECTIONS the state moved in for the last election, and clearly, most states moved in the GOP direction.

I can't post URL's but both these maps are available on uselectionatlas.org under "2012 Presidential Election"

Funny, I Googled "Arizona and Texas are trending blue" and look what came up:

Arizona and Texas are trending Blue

 

[Nyvin]

To those here who claim Arizona and Texas are trending blue: that assertion is flat-out false.

Both states trended further Republican. Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina had slight shifts toward the Democrats, but not that much. For example North Carolina was 2 points MORE REPUBLICAN than 2008 but it "trended" Democrat by about 1% because it shifted LESS AGAINST Obama than the national average.

This is why the use of "trending blue" and "trending red" are misleading. It's basically saying "Ignoring the national average, here's how the states swung."

For example, if Joe Schmo got 50% in Indiana his first election and 50% nationwide, and the next election he got 10% nationwide but 15% in Indiana, Indiana would be said to have trended "toward Joe Schmo" because he lost less than he did nationally. But all this shows is that voters in the country and in Indiana each turned strongly against Mr. Schmo.

SWING is a far more useful criterion is SWING by state actually shows the move of voters in each.

The message is pretty clear with the swing map(nearly every state swung GOP)

This actually shows which DIRECTIONS the state moved in for the last election, and clearly, most states moved in the GOP direction.

I can't post URL's but both these maps are available on uselectionatlas.org under "2012 Presidential Election"

The 2008 election is an outlier because it had huge support on both sides. The nation was in an uproar to elect a new president after Bush and Obama drew a huge fan following, especially among blacks and the young.

Comparing 2008 to 2012 isn't accurate. I'm not just saying that because it suits my interests...it really just ISN'T accurate. What is accurate is looking at states that ALREADY switched from being red to purple and maybe now solidly blue.

New Mexico has gone firmly democrat after being a red state then a swing state.

Virginia used to be solid GOP...nowadays it's probably a swing state with a small democrat advantage.

These states are basically trend setters that you can compare the rest of the states around them to since the demographics are all roughly the same or heading in the same directions.

Hispanics are growing in the southwest, the young vote is growing up, there are more single women then ever, more old white religious people are passing away each year.

All of these trends are coming into play and some states are further along or changing faster then others. Looking at numbers you see that Georgia, Arizona, and Texas are probably the three that are closest to going into "swing" territory.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Hey RDean, look at some of the links and they actually say the same things I am.

Link #3 from the Daily Kos discusses how Texas is trending Republican, exactly what I'm saying.

All of the other links were saying that Democrats HOPE to turn Arizona/Texas blue due to changing demographics.

But the demographics have been changing continually in their favor, but it's more than made up for by white backlash against Democrats.

In 2004, Kerry got 44.40% in AZ. In 2008, the worst year for Republicans in recent memory, Obama got 44.91%. In 2012, Obama got 44.45% of the vote in AZ. The Hispanic % has increased markedly from 2004 to 2012 but little has changed because it's canceled out by the white vote.

In Texas, Kerry got 38.22% in 2004. Obama got 43.63% in 2008, an improvement, but not exactly battleground territory. In 2012, Obama got 41.37% in Texas.

How do these figures show "imminent demographic doom" for the GOP? At these rates, Arizona's not changing at all and Texas may be moving Democratic at best an average of 1.5% every 4 years(though really Dems could keep declining in TX like from 2008-2012). Even with that very generous estimate, Texas still wouldn't go Dem for another 36 years, or in 2048. By that time, the GOP would likely be stronger in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, as unions continue to decline in influence and the big cities like Detroit lose population.

 

[Stephanie]

can anyone remember how many time he has posted this same crap?

you can for sure call him and that party he belongs in, the UNITERS...

not

 

[Nyvin]

Hey RDean, look at some of the links and they actually say the same things I am.

Link #3 from the Daily Kos discusses how Texas is trending Republican, exactly what I'm saying.

All of the other links were saying that Democrats HOPE to turn Arizona/Texas blue due to changing demographics.

But the demographics have been changing continually in their favor, but it's more than made up for by white backlash against Democrats.

In 2004, Kerry got 44.40% in AZ. In 2008, the worst year for Republicans in recent memory, Obama got 44.91%. In 2012, Obama got 44.45% of the vote in AZ. The Hispanic % has increased markedly from 2004 to 2012 but little has changed because it's canceled out by the white vote.

In Texas, Kerry got 38.22% in 2004. Obama got 43.63% in 2008, an improvement, but not exactly battleground territory. In 2012, Obama got 41.37% in Texas.

How do these figures show "imminent demographic doom" for the GOP? At these rates, Arizona's not changing at all and Texas may be moving Democratic at best an average of 1.5% every 4 years(though really Dems could keep declining in TX like from 2008-2012). Even with that very generous estimate, Texas still wouldn't go Dem for another 36 years, or in 2048. By that time, the GOP would likely be stronger in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, as unions continue to decline in influence and the big cities like Detroit lose population.

The Arizona numbers are easy to explain...in 2008 it was McCain's home state and he enjoy popularity there. In 2012 the number of voters for both candidates dropped, but the GOP voters...a lot of them being elderly or at least older...stayed more steady.

So you have situations that are masking what's happening in Arizona...but I guarentee you they are happening. Look at New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado...do you really think Arizona is somehow immune to the changes?

Also...the big cities in Penn and Mich may be slowing down in growth...but the rest of the state is almost entirely in absolute decline. Rural, smalltown USA is shrinking, whatever the big cities lose the GOP rural districts are almost guarenteed to lose more. In order for the GOP to get anywhere you need to gain votes...not just watch the other's go down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Someone writes of red states "the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients."

The solid, strong middle and upper middle classes of Fort Worth, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, e.g. would tell you "flip off until you know what you are talking about."

You have no idea waht you are talking about.... As usual.

In Dallas, Whites comprise only 28% of the population.

In San Antonio, it's only 26%

In Atlanta, it's a mind-boggling 33%

Houston it's 25%

So, as usual, malarkey.... You're clueless, an idiot and a liar.

You ignorant person. Hispanics are counted Caucasian, did you know that?

So eff off until you know what you are talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Someone writes of red states "the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients."

The solid, strong middle and upper middle classes of Fort Worth, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, e.g. would tell you "flip off until you know what you are talking about."

You have no idea waht you are talking about.... As usual.

In Dallas, Whites comprise only 28% of the population.

In San Antonio, it's only 26%

In Atlanta, it's a mind-boggling 33%

Houston it's 25%

So, as usual, malarkey.... You're clueless, an idiot and a liar.

You ignorant person. Hispanics are counted Caucasian, did you know that?

So eff off until you know what you are talking about.

Not according to the US government census.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go back and look at the census for Dallas and Houston, friend. Then figure the numbers. Then figure the numbers. Then looking at the Red voting districts.

You folks are stupid is the only answer.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Hey RDean, look at some of the links and they actually say the same things I am.

Link #3 from the Daily Kos discusses how Texas is trending Republican, exactly what I'm saying.

All of the other links were saying that Democrats HOPE to turn Arizona/Texas blue due to changing demographics.

But the demographics have been changing continually in their favor, but it's more than made up for by white backlash against Democrats.

In 2004, Kerry got 44.40% in AZ. In 2008, the worst year for Republicans in recent memory, Obama got 44.91%. In 2012, Obama got 44.45% of the vote in AZ. The Hispanic % has increased markedly from 2004 to 2012 but little has changed because it's canceled out by the white vote.

In Texas, Kerry got 38.22% in 2004. Obama got 43.63% in 2008, an improvement, but not exactly battleground territory. In 2012, Obama got 41.37% in Texas.

How do these figures show "imminent demographic doom" for the GOP? At these rates, Arizona's not changing at all and Texas may be moving Democratic at best an average of 1.5% every 4 years(though really Dems could keep declining in TX like from 2008-2012). Even with that very generous estimate, Texas still wouldn't go Dem for another 36 years, or in 2048. By that time, the GOP would likely be stronger in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, as unions continue to decline in influence and the big cities like Detroit lose population.

The Arizona numbers are easy to explain...in 2008 it was McCain's home state and he enjoy popularity there. In 2012 the number of voters for both candidates dropped, but the GOP voters...a lot of them being elderly or at least older...stayed more steady.

So you have situations that are masking what's happening in Arizona...but I guarentee you they are happening. Look at New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado...do you really think Arizona is somehow immune to the changes?

Also...the big cities in Penn and Mich may be slowing down in growth...but the rest of the state is almost entirely in absolute decline. Rural, smalltown USA is shrinking, whatever the big cities lose the GOP rural districts are almost guarenteed to lose more. In order for the GOP to get anywhere you need to gain votes...not just watch the other's go down.

With regards to New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, all clearly have more liberal white populations. Nevada and Colorado have Las Vegas, Denver, and Boulder, all of which are quite liberal. Indeed, demographics are helping them shift, but they were never as conservative as Arizona/Texas anyways, meaning that flipping AZ/TX will take far more work. New Mexico is majority Hispanic, which makes winning that state difficult unless one supports immigration reform (Bush got 46% of Hispanics there in 2004). Also, you never addressed my arguments on Texas. Also, keep in mind, AZ has far more sunbirds than Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, making the state harder to flip. It also has a strong conservative history including support for Barry Goldwater. These things don't flip overnight. Finally, if 2012 didn't motivate enough people to vote, when will it? If the results show movement in AZ in 2016, I can entertain your argument, but there hasn't even been a noticeable trend SINCE 2004. Obama/Kerry got the same % in Arizona. That can't be explained by the Obama/McCain 2008 effect. Not that much of a trend has taken place. Texas also has more Great Plains/Deep South culture, which excludes some of it from the "Western trends".

With regards to PA/MI, Western Michigan, the most conservative part, is growing while Wayne County is getting decimated. In PA, while Western PA(fairly conservative) is seeing some decline, there's also decline in very liberal Philly as well as very substantial growth in pretty conservative rural/suburban parts of East Pennsylvania.
(See Census county map for 2010 and you'll see what I'm saying)

Also, rural areas are not the only GOP strongholds. Romney won the suburban vote by 1 point, and did very well in exurbs and outer suburbs.