(02-14-2012 02:23 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:14 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:08 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 01:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Most are red meat GOP strongholds. Surprising.

Would you like to compare the local politics and stop using generalities like the entire states? I mean, if you don't want to sound like a disingenuous ahole, that is.

So true. I mean, there is a difference between the southern plantation owners and the cities full of those "colored" people.

I was unaware Sunflower, Bolivar, Sharkey, Humphreys, and Holmes counties were considered "cities". Perhaps you more about the state I lived in for 18 years than I do. Please, by all means, elaborate.

BTW retards, their congressman is Bennie Thompson. Gee, wonder what party affiliation he holds?

Except for the gulf coast counties, it looks like most of MS is receiving a lot of benefits. Not just a couple of counties. Appalachia and upstate Maine and Michigan are also fairly rural.

Name the county and lets do a little research. Talking about the entire state is pointless. You wanna address this issue, it has to be done locally. Some moonbats out in CA want to ban Happy Meals. I don't want foreigners looking at me as if I'm a nut that wants to ban happy meals because I'm from the same nation. As for MS, I don't doubt it. When you have a poverty pimp representing just about the entire delta from Port Gibson, Jackson, and all the way up to Tunica, MOSTLY Democrat, it stands to reason.

(02-14-2012 02:28 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 01:59 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It is odd that major cities like, oh, New York and Washington were left off the map...

NYC and DC are on there as far as color coding. While both of these cities have a lot of poor, they also have a large upper middle and wealthy class. So if using percentage of total income this is probably correct. If it was somehow percent of people depending on these incomes it would probably be a different percentage.

I was more referring to the choice of cities to show location markers for when zoomed out.

You can look at the counties. It makes you wonder if Reb even checked the link?

(02-14-2012 02:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You can look at the counties. It makes you wonder if Reb even checked the link?

What the hell do you think I based my argument on, light brite?

This is deceptive in four ways .... one ... the map is not adjusted for population. With that representation, I could make the case Obama lost in 2008:





Second ... government benefits are handed out irrespective of cost of living. If you live in NYC and make $40K ... you are dirt poor and need food stamps. And you don't qualify for food stamps. If you make $40K in the South ... you are middle class, and don't need food stamps. The high cost of living places tend to be those we most associate with liberalism (NYC, Boston, LA, SF, etc, etc).



Third ... medicare/SS is a huge portion of the government handout. It goes to old people. Where do old people move when they retire? Right ... the south. And they take their medicare/SS with them.




Lastly, and actually to your benefit, but showing how different costs of living deceive different economic realities, unemployment is tilted very very heavily towards all the liberal areas. But note the right to work states and conservative areas do far far better on this. Because the cost of existing for a business is much lower there, and ergo the threshold for packing it in or laying people off is higher.

(02-14-2012 02:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:23 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:14 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:08 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Would you like to compare the local politics and stop using generalities like the entire states? I mean, if you don't want to sound like a disingenuous ahole, that is.

So true. I mean, there is a difference between the southern plantation owners and the cities full of those "colored" people.

I was unaware Sunflower, Bolivar, Sharkey, Humphreys, and Holmes counties were considered "cities". Perhaps you more about the state I lived in for 18 years than I do. Please, by all means, elaborate.

BTW retards, their congressman is Bennie Thompson. Gee, wonder what party affiliation he holds?

Except for the gulf coast counties, it looks like most of MS is receiving a lot of benefits. Not just a couple of counties. Appalachia and upstate Maine and Michigan are also fairly rural.

Name the county and lets do a little research. Talking about the entire state is pointless. You wanna address this issue, it has to be done locally. Some moonbats out in CA want to ban Happy Meals. I don't want foreigners looking at me as if I'm a nut that wants to ban happy meals because I'm from the same nation. As for MS, I don't doubt it. When you have a poverty pimp representing just about the entire delta from Port Gibson, Jackson, and all the way up to Tunica, MOSTLY Democrat, it stands to reason.

Some moonbats just do not like people being happy. I was not attacking. I have been to MS and have family there. The delta region is heavily poor and black. However there are also a lot of poor whites who will vote republican due to the social issues Motown mentioned. I think MS only has one democratic congressman, the rest are republican and their districts also seem to be heavily dependent on government assistance. This is more from me being a demographic nerd.

I also agree with what UCF08 said, I’ll use Alabama as the example. They seem more interested in maintaining the status quo instead of trying to fix any problems. They scream about the federal government, yet when there Gulf Oil spill hit the first thing they did was scream about the Federal Government not doing enough fast enough. If they spent as much energy in working to identify and fix issues as they do in rhetoric to maintain the status quo they standard of living for everyone would probably be better.

(02-14-2012 02:44 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I think MS only has one democratic congressman, the rest are republican and their districts also seem to be heavily dependent on government assistance. This is more from me being a demographic nerd.

...and those Republican congressmen only need 51% of the vote to get elected. That leaves 49% of Democrats or other. This entire thread is pointless.

(02-14-2012 02:09 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 01:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Most are red meat GOP strongholds. Surprising.

(02-14-2012 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, it isn't. It has consistently been that way for quite some time, republicans slash taxes and benefits in their own states and force their citizens to rely on the federal government for aid, then jump on the bandwagon crying for smaller government.

For Alabama and Mississippi, if you look at only income support, the vast majority of areas that have higher dependence on gov't benefits are mostly black and vote Democratic. You two should stop being so racist.

Who said anything about race? Welfare/Social dependence isn't a racial issue, unless of course you're utterly ignorant of the facts

Quote:Race
--------------
White/Hispanic 56.6%
Black 37.2
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4

Like in the census, white/hispanic is grouped together however on their own, whites do account for more welfare recipients than any other race. The stereotype of 'single black welfare mom' isn't true, it's simply a byproduct of the fact that major media outlets are located in areas where those on welfare are disproportionately black (big cities) and it's easier to just take a shot at the welfare office downtown than traveling all the way to Appalachia or the elsewhere.

(02-14-2012 02:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:44 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I think MS only has one democratic congressman, the rest are republican and their districts also seem to be heavily dependent on government assistance. This is more from me being a demographic nerd.

...and those Republican congressmen only need 51% of the vote to get elected. That leaves 49% of Democrats or other. This entire thread is pointless.

No it is not pointless. Many of the whites who receive aid still vote for the guy saying that the aid should be terminated because of unrelated issues.

(02-14-2012 03:43 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:44 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I think MS only has one democratic congressman, the rest are republican and their districts also seem to be heavily dependent on government assistance. This is more from me being a demographic nerd.

...and those Republican congressmen only need 51% of the vote to get elected. That leaves 49% of Democrats or other. This entire thread is pointless.

No it is not pointless. Many of the whites who receive aid still vote for the guy saying that the aid should be terminated because of unrelated issues.

What aid? Do you not realize there are about 6 different types of "aid" in this little "study" and that a few of them aren't exactly what we'd call a "handout"? Pick a county, and break it down by the type of "aid" and get back with me.

BTW, I only know one person on welfare, my crack-headed POS cousin in Jackson, Ms. He's a f'n Democrat.

Well obviously your arbitrary anecdotal evidence far trumps the governments own data on who receives welfare. I'm sold.

Here you go, pick "Income Support". This is welfare, food stamps, "EITC", etc. I'll give you two cases. Compare Madison County, Ms. ® with Hinds County, Ms. (mainly D). You could also pick Columbia County, Ga. (Very R), and Richmond County, Ga. (somewhat D).

(02-14-2012 03:53 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Well obviously your arbitrary anecdotal evidence far trumps the governments own data on who receives welfare. I'm sold.

No, I'm saying that insinuating these "Republican Strongholds" are somehow all welfare recipients is a bunch of bullsh*t. Look at the damn counties getting most of the aid, and in particular, "Income Support" and "Medicaid". These two are handouts and the Democratic-majority counties beat the Republican-majority counties hands down. My county is well below the national average. No conservative has ever insinuated that VA benefits, SS, and unemployment were handouts. ...well, until unemployment went from something reasonable to, what is it, 99 GDAMN WEEKS.

How does that change the makeup of the state legislative assembly/governor?

(02-14-2012 03:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  How does that change the makeup of the state legislative assembly/governor?

What does that have to do with who receives federal aid? Last I checked, my GI bill didn't need state legislative approval. I told you guys to keep it on a local level if you wanted to make a coherent argument.

(02-14-2012 03:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:09 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 01:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Most are red meat GOP strongholds. Surprising.

(02-14-2012 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, it isn't. It has consistently been that way for quite some time, republicans slash taxes and benefits in their own states and force their citizens to rely on the federal government for aid, then jump on the bandwagon crying for smaller government.

For Alabama and Mississippi, if you look at only income support, the vast majority of areas that have higher dependence on gov't benefits are mostly black and vote Democratic. You two should stop being so racist.

Who said anything about race? Welfare/Social dependence isn't a racial issue, unless of course you're utterly ignorant of the facts

Quote:Race
--------------
White/Hispanic 56.6%
Black 37.2
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4

Like in the census, white/hispanic is grouped together however on their own, whites do account for more welfare recipients than any other race. The stereotype of 'single black welfare mom' isn't true, it's simply a byproduct of the fact that major media outlets are located in areas where those on welfare are disproportionately black (big cities) and it's easier to just take a shot at the welfare office downtown than traveling all the way to Appalachia or the elsewhere.

Now go look specifically at the racial makeup (and how they vote) of the counties in AL/MS with the highest dependence on gov't benefits, and report back to me.

My problem with the various analyses like this that I've seen is that what is never revealed is sufficient information to determine what the numbers actually mean. For example,

- How is Social Security handled. Lots of people move south when they retire, and I'm fairly certain far fewer move to North Dakota (although maybe more should). So if I work all my life in Michigan and then retire to South Carolina, are my social security payments counted as Michigan (to offset the tax revenues I generated) or South Carolina? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, which is a structural problem with the study, although it is probably not possible to do it any other way.
- How is military spending handled? What about dependents' services? What about payments to defense contractors? I believe there is a preponderance of military facilities in several of the states that are net receivers, and this could skew that.
- How are corporate tax receipts handled? If a corporation does business in 50 states, are its taxes apportioned over the 50 states or merely counted in the state in which it is headquartered? I would expect the latter, as again I'm not sure the data to do it any other way would be available. Same for the high-income executives of those companies. Does the CEO of Ford earn his income in Michigan or in every state where Fords are sold? Given that corporate headquarters appear to be disproportionately located in the giving states, that would skew things.
- What about law enforcement expenditures? Particularly with the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, those are probably concentrated closer to borders.

These are a few items, there are many more, which would indicate biases in the numbers that have nothing to do with the proposition for which those numbers are usually advanced.

(02-14-2012 04:12 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Now go look specifically at the racial makeup (and how they vote) of the counties in AL/MS with the highest dependence on gov't benefits, and report back to me.

Not racial makeup, look at the political makeup.

(02-14-2012 04:25 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 04:12 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Now go look specifically at the racial makeup (and how they vote) of the counties in AL/MS with the highest dependence on gov't benefits, and report back to me.

Not racial makeup, look at the political makeup.

The political makeup is what's important, yes, but it's fun to mess with the white guilt/PC libs.