• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Cash raised for Mo. cop surpasses Brown donations

SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
Those "red states" that get all that "welfare" are states with high numbers of minorities.

Those of you in the blue states voted to give it to them.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Then how come red States are the biggest welfare recipients?
Click to expand...
Actually, California is by far the biggest welfare state of the all.
There are more welfare recipients in CA than the entire population of Vermont and Wyoming combined.

Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Actually, California is by far the biggest welfare state of the all.
There are more welfare recipients in CA than the entire population of Vermont and Wyoming combined.

Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %
Click to expand...
What is the population of California (worlds 8th largest economy) and that of wyoming and vermont combined?
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
What is the population of California (worlds 8th largest economy) and that of wyoming and vermont combined?
Click to expand...
ChesusRice said:
What is the population of California (worlds 8th largest economy) and that of wyoming and vermont combined?
Click to expand...
Not hard to believe that only 13 years ago, California was the 5th largest economy in the world.
Because of over regulation and high taxes, businesses are leaving this state like crazy.
Same thing with the country and corporate inversion.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Flip to any news channel in the past three years, and you can almost be certain to see any number of Republican governors, blustering about how Washington spends too much money and how they'd never spend that much money if they were President. It's a lot of tough talk, really. But is there any truth to it?
Well, all of this tough budget talk from Republicans got me thinking about the central: who really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers.
The truth? Not so fast, Michele Bachmann.
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.
Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
Go ahead and bookmark this article. The next time some smarmy teabagger tries to tell you it's liberals who are ruining the country and spending us into oblivion, kindly point them to the evidence that shows it is GOP states, not Democrat states, who are Welfare Queens. It is GOP states who spend more than they collect in taxes. It is GOP states who are out of balance, nationally.
See if they still want to cut off funding when it means no more socialism for slave states.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#ixzz3BXw2hjt4
Click to expand...
It is welfare at the national level and done for political reasons. I dont care who is giving and who is receiving, we should quit doing it.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
I'm ok with that.
It will kill off that old white guy vote real quick
Click to expand...

I am not interested in parties or politics anymore. It is time to fix this shit. I dont think it will happen from the top as both parties are the same and are just fighting over how to overspend the money they steal from us.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I am not interested in parties or politics anymore. It is time to fix this shit. I dont think it will happen from the top as both parties are the same and are just fighting over how to overspend the money they steal from us.
Click to expand...
almost correct
One party is actually working to funnel all the money to the top of the food chain
What do you think of that minnow?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
almost correct
One party is actually working to funnel all the money to the top of the food chain
What do you think of that minnow?
Click to expand...
I think you are deluded.

How is unemployment in the black community??

How are the middle class doing compared to 10 years ago??

Obama has been in power for 6 years and it isnt getting any better for the little people.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I think you are deluded.

How is unemployment in the black community??

How are the middle class doing compared to 10 years ago??

Obama has been in power for 6 years and it isnt getting any better for the little people.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it will only get better when the conesrvatives can try to take credit for it
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Governor Wallace of Georgia, Sen. Robert Byrd, A.G. Eric Holder, several hundred more, were all Democrats.
Click to expand...
it's funny that you call wallace racist, since you share the same opposition to civil rights that he does. you're just calling yourself racist, but this isn't the first time.
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
there ya go.

as long as you can change the meaning of words enough, you can twist and fit your failed arguments around anything.
Click to expand...
Well, more minorities are on welfare than whites despite ony being 1/3 the population.

welfare is a mostly monority atribute, but whites arent excluded.

And in states with almost no people, and damn near all of them white, the poor whites will be on the dole.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I think you are deluded.

How is unemployment in the black community??

How are the middle class doing compared to 10 years ago??

Obama has been in power for 6 years and it isnt getting any better for the little people.
Click to expand...
Not much has changed since then. In an Aug. 31 blog post, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center wrote that “the unemployment rate for blacks has averaged about 2.2 times that for whites” since 1954 — which is the earliest that BLS has reliable unemployment data by race.
The current 12.5 percent unemployment rate for blacks is unquestionably high. But by historical standards the current black unemployment rate is consistent with the average from 1972 to 2004, and the ratio of black-to-white unemployment rates is actually below the historical average.
We looked at the average rate of unemployment for blacks and whites in the first 58 months of the last four presidents who were reelected to a second term: Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. (We averaged the monthly unemployment rates from the first February in office to the first November in their second term.)
Obama had the lowest average ratio (1.9), followed by Bush (2.1), Clinton (2.2), and Reagan (2.3).

Paul was talking about the November unemployment rates and ratio — not the 58-month average unemployment rate and ratio — but even by that measure the black-to-white unemployment ratio is lower under Obama (2) than it was under Reagan (2.6), Clinton (2.4) and Bush (2.5) at this point in their second terms.

Paul also said that the black unemployment rate “hasn’t budged” under Obama, but it has. It reached a high of 16.8 percent in March 2010 and dropped to a low of 12.5 percent in November — lower than the 12.7 percent rate when Obama took office. That wasn’t the case for two of his recent predecessors, Reagan and Bush.
Under Reagan, the black unemployment rate went up a full percentage point from 14.6 percent in January 1981 to 15.6 percent in November 1985 — even as the white unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 5.9 percent.
Under Bush, the rates went up for both blacks and whites. But it went up faster for blacks, from 8.2 percent in January 2001 to 10.6 percent in November 2005 — the biggest increase in the black unemployment rate of any of the four presidents at that point in their second terms. The white unemployment rate went up more than a half percentage point, from 3.6 percent to 4.3 percent.
(We did not compare Obama to George H.W. Bush, since he did not serve two terms. But, for the record, the average black unemployment rate was 12.4 during the elder Bush’s four years in office, while the white rate was 5.5 percent. That’s an average black-to-white ratio of 2.3 to 1 — identical to the historical average from 1972 to 2004.)
Few would disagree with Paul that the black unemployment rate is unacceptably high and he is entitled to his opinion about the president’s policies. But to blame Obama for the black unemployment rate being double the white rate ignores decades of data and fails to put this president in historical context.
– Eugene Kiely
Categories: The Wire
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top