I have no idea where you get that their government goodies have been cut. Which ones? To my knowledge thanks to DumBama, we have more people on Medicaid than ever before, more people on food stamps than ever before, more people on housing assistance than ever before. Nothing has been cut--it's been expanded.
Now, using your own chart above, let's try to shrink the two bluest areas. Can you explain how by doing that it will expand any other area of the pie? Sure, you can take more money from the wealthy, but how would that help the people that don't have money? Government can't do it. Government could only take their money and keep it for themselves making the government richer. That doesn't help anybody.
Look at the red section of the pie. Let's say you wanted to see a larger red section. Do you suppose you could accomplish that by having people work more hours, look for better pay jobs, or take more from the darker blue areas?
The red section of the pie, is getting the majority of government assistance.
Oh geez, more confusion among the desperate and lost Liberals...haha? I'm guessing you've done some significant due diligence to assert such a claim...right?
Here some enlightenment for you...you're welcome for the free lesson:
California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients - FACT
By the way Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....are they blue or red states? hahaha
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only
12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents.
According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.
In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “
income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.
However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s
seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state. Despite this, the number of people immigrating to California increases exponentially each year.
