What is?

[RobGMN Premium Member]

A state like West Virginia, your logic is 10000% accurate. A state like texas though, you really think the majority on welfare aren’t in the big cities which the democrats run? Welfare should be for people who fall on hard times, it should never be a way of life. That is the problem with welfare.

That's a pretty small number of places by number and geography,

The highest SNAP participation areas are actually a little bit north of the "democrat cities".
Even if they fell squarely in the "democrat cities", that wouldn't explain why a democrat state with democrat cities like Illinois can be a giver state, when a republican state like Texas with relatively few democrat cities is a taker state in comparison by a factor of almost two.

Wouldn't a democrat state with democrat cities be nothing but welfare recipients, and thus the state would rely on the Feds to give back more than they get?

 

[djdilliodon!]

That's a pretty small number of places by number and geography,

View attachment 51538

The highest SNAP participation areas are actually a little bit north of the "democrat cities".
Even if they fell squarely in the "democrat cities", that wouldn't explain why a democrat state with democrat cities like Illinois can be a giver state, when a republican state like Texas with relatively few democrat cities is a taker state in comparison by a factor of almost two.

Wouldn't a democrat state with democrat cities be nothing but welfare recipients, and thus the state would rely on the Feds to give back more than they get?

Look at the map of New York State, mostly red as well it’s just the spots with blue the population is huge compared. I don’t think we have the numbers on actual voting party for welfare recipients. For all we know the majority don’t even vote. The biggest point is welfare shouldn’t be a way of life, it should only be a temporary thing when people find themselves falling on hard times. I don’t care if a person votes republican, democrat, or doesn’t vote at all, welfare shouldn’t be your way of life. If republicans are the true sole beneficiaries of welfare and they are the ones against it, their own base agrees with it. Give them what they want then .

 

[djdilliodon!]

That's a pretty small number of places by number and geography,

View attachment 51538

The highest SNAP participation areas are actually a little bit north of the "democrat cities".
Even if they fell squarely in the "democrat cities", that wouldn't explain why a democrat state with democrat cities like Illinois can be a giver state, when a republican state like Texas with relatively few democrat cities is a taker state in comparison by a factor of almost two.

Wouldn't a democrat state with democrat cities be nothing but welfare recipients, and thus the state would rely on the Feds to give back more than they get?

I stand corrected, the info does exist and democrats do benefit more from welfare.

A Bipartisan Nation of Beneficiaries

As President Barack Obama negotiates with Republicans in Congress over federal entitlement spending, a new national survey by the Pew Research Center

www.pewresearch.org

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I stand corrected, the info does exist and democrats do benefit more from welfare.

A Bipartisan Nation of Beneficiaries

As President Barack Obama negotiates with Republicans in Congress over federal entitlement spending, a new national survey by the Pew Research Center

www.pewresearch.org

So the Democrat takers are all in the Republican states?

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

And is that even the correct way to frame the question?

www.theatlantic.com

And the study doesn't say that 60% of recipients are Democrat, it says that 60% of Democrats from the study have received aid, and 52% of Republicans from the study have received aid. Not a resounding difference, and the lifetime participation rates are even lower:
"Despite conservatives’ opposition to many poverty programs, there is virtually no difference in the lifetime participation rate of conservatives (40%), liberals (42%) and moderates (42%) in these programs. Also, conservatives are more likely to have gotten Social Security and Medicare (34% vs. 27% for liberals and 25% for moderates)"

So we're looking at a 2% difference in lifetime participation rates for programs.
Which circles us back to the big disparity in the states that are "red" takers and the states that are "blue" givers.

One theory that has been posited here is that the numbers have been rigged to show blues states as red in order to make them look bad.

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

So the Democrat takers are all in the Republican states?

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

And is that even the correct way to frame the question?

www.theatlantic.com

And the study doesn't say that 60% of recipients are Democrat, it says that 60% of Democrats from the study have received aid, and 52% of Republicans from the study have received aid. Not a resounding difference, and the lifetime participation rates are even lower:
"Despite conservatives’ opposition to many poverty programs, there is virtually no difference in the lifetime participation rate of conservatives (40%), liberals (42%) and moderates (42%) in these programs. Also, conservatives are more likely to have gotten Social Security and Medicare (34% vs. 27% for liberals and 25% for moderates)"

So we're looking at a 2% difference in lifetime participation rates for programs.
Which circles us back to the big disparity in the states that are "red" takers and the states that are "blue" givers.

One theory that has been posited here is that the numbers have been rigged to show blues states as red in order to make them look bad.

Rob....nobody cares, your a liar and nobody believes a word you type

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Rob....nobody cares, your a liar and nobody believes a word you type

Quite the argument there. Would you like to thumb your nose at me and say "I'm rubber and you're glue"?

You sound like Thxone, who simply denies every piece of information that contradicts his opinions or beliefs.
The census? A lie, because census takers are paid to go door to door.
Federal regulations? A lie because they use special symbols to denote the separation of chapters.
The economy? Historical stats are a lie since 1947 in order to make Trump look bad.
The distinction of red vs. blue states? Falsified to make the red states look bad.
The stock market? A scam created to steal money from people,
People who buy and sell stocks during a recession? Scumbags who are anti-American.

The two of you oddly similar in your childlike approach to discourse/debate/discussion.

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

Quite the argument there. Would you like to thumb your nose at me and say "I'm rubber and you're glue"?

You sound like Thxone, who simply denies every piece of information that contradicts his opinions or beliefs.
The census? A lie, because census takers are paid to go door to door.
Federal regulations? A lie because they use special symbols to denote the separation of chapters.
The economy? Historical stats are a lie since 1947 in order to make Trump look bad.
The distinction of red vs. blue states? Falsified to make the red states look bad.
The stock market? A scam created to steal money from people,
People who buy and sell stocks during a recession? Scumbags who are anti-American.

The two of you oddly similar in your childlike approach to discourse/debate/discussion.

You gonna cry?

 

[djdilliodon!]

So the Democrat takers are all in the Republican states?

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

And is that even the correct way to frame the question?

www.theatlantic.com

And the study doesn't say that 60% of recipients are Democrat, it says that 60% of Democrats from the study have received aid, and 52% of Republicans from the study have received aid. Not a resounding difference, and the lifetime participation rates are even lower:
"Despite conservatives’ opposition to many poverty programs, there is virtually no difference in the lifetime participation rate of conservatives (40%), liberals (42%) and moderates (42%) in these programs. Also, conservatives are more likely to have gotten Social Security and Medicare (34% vs. 27% for liberals and 25% for moderates)"

So we're looking at a 2% difference in lifetime participation rates for programs.
Which circles us back to the big disparity in the states that are "red" takers and the states that are "blue" givers.

One theory that has been posited here is that the numbers have been rigged to show blues states as red in order to make them look bad.

47% to 34%, come on man you should know when it comes to social security you can’t get it unless you pay into it . Medicare is similar but you can get it if your spouse paid into it or you meet select disability requirements etc. welfare you just gotta be broke to get that or make under a certain amount. My main argument in all of this has nothing to do with political party, it’s solely based on welfare should only be a temporary thing, never should it be a lifestyle. Children are how it becomes a lifestyle, even if there is a 5 year limit on an adult, you have kids then you get it for them. Then they turn 18 and the cycle continues etc. I don’t care if democrats or republicans are the sole beneficiaries to welfare, mofos needs to get off their *** and get a job. For those who are really disabled and can’t work, different story imo. I support that, I have no issue with my tax dollars going to that.

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

A state like texas though

These bullshit "net taker states" clickbait never consider all federal money that goes to those states and almost never discuss where the money actually goes.

Rob and his alter-ego here aren't interested in looking at the details, just using some Atlantic (LOL) headline as his big "gotcha!".

Those clickbait articles and anybody who tries to use them to frame any kind of argument are both extremely dishonest and misleading and should be ignored.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

47% to 34%, come on man you should know when it comes to social security you can’t get it unless you pay into it . Medicare is similar but you can get it if your spouse paid into it or you meet select disability requirements etc. welfare you just gotta be broke to get that or make under a certain amount. My main argument in all of this has nothing to do with political party, it’s solely based on welfare should only be a temporary thing, never should it be a lifestyle. Children are how it becomes a lifestyle, even if there is a 5 year limit on an adult, you have kids then you get it for them. Then they turn 18 and the cycle continues etc. I don’t care if democrats or republicans are the sole beneficiaries to welfare, mofos needs to get off their *** and get a job. For those who are really disabled and can’t work, different story imo. I support that, I have no issue with my tax dollars going to that.

“There is virtually no difference in the lifetime participation rate of conservatives (40%), liberals (42%)”
But the big picture is the taker states should be following their anti-welfare mantra, and taking less than they give.

Walk the walk, so to speak.

And yes all programs do have limitations. From TANF, to SNAP, etc, they all have time limits.
Medicare is generally for people who are old, regardless of work history. Medicaid is generally for the young, regardless of work history.

I’m all for reducing the jobless rate to zero. But that doesn’t happen by telling people to “get a job”, especially when workers outnumber jobs by a LOT, and when there are so many workers not qualified for so many jobs.
It’s a much bigger issue, and one we can’t seem to solve and never will, especially with politics.
When one party argues that a living wage is too high and that people should only get healthcare if they can afford it, success is doomed from the start.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

So the Democrat takers are all in the Republican states?

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

And is that even the correct way to frame the question?

www.theatlantic.com

And the study doesn't say that 60% of recipients are Democrat, it says that 60% of Democrats from the study have received aid, and 52% of Republicans from the study have received aid. Not a resounding difference, and the lifetime participation rates are even lower:
"Despite conservatives’ opposition to many poverty programs, there is virtually no difference in the lifetime participation rate of conservatives (40%), liberals (42%) and moderates (42%) in these programs. Also, conservatives are more likely to have gotten Social Security and Medicare (34% vs. 27% for liberals and 25% for moderates)"

So we're looking at a 2% difference in lifetime participation rates for programs.
Which circles us back to the big disparity in the states that are "red" takers and the states that are "blue" givers.

One theory that has been posited here is that the numbers have been rigged to show blues states as red in order to make them look bad.

So an extremely biased magazine posts numbers that you like...seems like a legit way to get facts

 

[djdilliodon!]

“There is virtually no difference in the lifetime participation rate of conservatives (40%), liberals (42%)”
But the big picture is the taker states should be following their anti-welfare mantra, and taking less than they give.

Walk the walk, so to speak.

And yes all programs do have limitations. From TANF, to SNAP, etc, they all have time limits.
Medicare is generally for people who are old, regardless of work history. Medicaid is generally for the young, regardless of work history.

I’m all for reducing the jobless rate to zero. But that doesn’t happen by telling people to “get a job”, especially when workers outnumber jobs by a LOT, and when there are so many workers not qualified for so many jobs.
It’s a much bigger issue, and one we can’t seem to solve and never will, especially with politics.
When one party argues that a living wage is too high and that people should only get healthcare if they can afford it, success is doomed from the start.

If it’s there to take and people are paying into federal taxes, why not take it? I’m sure if you put forward hey you can opt out of x amount of federal tax you can give up welfare, some states may actually do it lol.

I’m glad you brought up the “they need to get a job but there aren’t any”. There are jobs, they just feel they are too good for them. Let them do the jobs all the illegals do. Let them clean up some highways, there are many things they can do. I’ve seen the mentality first hand in NYC working on big projects in places like east NY, queens bridge projects and many others. Talking to dudes hanging out at 1030 am and me asking them “bro why ain’t you at work lol”. They will tell you with total honesty “I don’t wanna work ”. Some will make the excuse no one will hire them but when you ask when is the last time you put an application in for a job they respond “never” . Granted not all of them are like this but for those who aren’t im sure we can find something for them to do .

 

[djdilliodon!]

These bullshit "net taker states" clickbait never consider all federal money that goes to those states and almost never discuss where the money actually goes.

Rob and his alter-ego here aren't interested in looking at the details, just using some Atlantic (LOL) headline as his big "gotcha!".

Those clickbait articles and anybody who tries to use them to frame any kind of argument are both extremely dishonest and misleading and should be ignored.

Believe me I’m fully aware, the trick to arguments like this is to not make it political. To concentrate on what’s at hand which is the lazy people who make welfare as a way of life. Doesn’t matter what their political affiliation is, it’s that those people need to get a job or be prepared to eventually fend for themselves

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

So an extremely biased magazine posts numbers that you like...seems like a legit way to get facts

The numbers are based on what the GAO and the US Census Office provides.
If you think they are false, then look up the numbers. .

I haven't see anything in any publication that disputes the numbers presented (across many different websites), which lends them even more credence.
You seem to know different, so go ahead and show us how the numbers were changed due to "bias".

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

The numbers are based on what the GAO and the US Census Office provides.
If you think they are false, then look up the numbers. .

I haven't see anything in any publication that disputes the numbers presented (across many different websites), which lends them even more credence.
You seem to know different, so go ahead and show us how the numbers were changed due to "bias".

So you're good with the Atlantic as a nonbiased source...explains a lot