Ah, the lies of statistics. They sure are convenient. Exhibit A in evidence submission - New York City. The predominant income generators are bankers, almost overwhelmingly republican, yet NY is completely and wholly democratic. No matter how much money you contribute, you only get one vote. Next.
Assuming what you say is true, then how would you go about explaining the 27 of the 32 states that receive more than they contribute and just happen to be red states? And that's red as in Republican, not the other red.
Rather than make up numbers to suit your narrative, address the question with factual evidence, and suppose you keep your supposition to yourself.
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/02/do-welfare-recipients-mostly-vote.html Paul Krugman is in puzzlement, having observed that Red States get more welfare funding, while Republican voters oppose the welfare state. He portrays Republicans as âMoochersâ who are either hypocritical or too stupid to know their own best interest. But as we know, states do not vote, individuals do. There is only a paradox if Republican voters receive welfare at above average rates while voting against it. From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though Red state earn less than Blue states. Krugman reports no individual level data, so let me. The Maxwell Poll has detailed information about welfare use. The data is from 2004-2007. During this period in these polls a plurality of voters supported Democrats. I will graph the two-party vote, more data is at the end. Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties. You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats. It appears that once more common sense is right and the impression left by the New York Times wrong. Indeed, people who live off the government disproportionally support Democrats. Share of Recipients of each program that self-identified as supporters of Republican party in 2004-2007 Maxwell Poll: Gov. Subsidized Housing 12% Medicaid: 16% Food Stamps: 20% Unemployment Compensation: 21% Welfare or public assistance: 22% Disability benefits from government 25%
is anyone surprised that the foodstamp president and foodstamp party is elected by foodstamp takers and moochers? That is common sense to anyone but a leftist drone. The leftist on the top try to break down productive society. They feed out lines of crap The leftist Drones on ET repeat the lines of crap as if they are true.
How are the states determined to be "red' or "blue" in the first place? I am sure, no doubt, that there are many red states that - like blue states - receive welfare and government assistance. Poor people are everywhere. But I would guess that in states like Florida or Texas, that the assistance is largely directed to large metropolitan centers, where the overall political lean is democrat. Again, I'm speaking in general terms, and not at all saying that there aren't poor people who vote republican and take government hand outs. There most certainly are, and certain hand outs must be kept to protect society's unfortunate (regardless of political affiliation). I'm just offering that the chart above doesn't take any of this into account and is just trying to slant a political objective.
This whole aspect of calling people who receive government support as "moochers" is a bunch of horseshit. You guys really should get out more. Is a single mother supporting two kids by working two jobs and living in rent controlled housing - but still unable to pay all her bills without food stamps a "moocher"? Shame on you if you believe so. There are numerous examples of people who are simply poor - yet try hard to make ends meet every single day. Some people go hungry at the end of the month while they wait for their assistance check to hit their EBT card. They would GLADLY take a better income job if it would save them that, or having to look at their hungry children and think of this. If you call these people moochers, then you deserve the karma you get on the backside for your lack of compassion. Now, there ARE people out there playing Xbox because they are entitled to 99 weeks of unemployment, and they're "mooching" of their parents, their friends, whomever just to get a government check. I don't know what the percentage is. But don't be an ass (not calling anyone out in particular) to call them all moochers.
I said "and moochers"... I did not say they were all moochers. There are some people who righteously deserve help. Temporarily maybe more. But the dems have turned that 10 percent into 40 to 50 percent. I will not sit here and be P.C. about it. If I were trying to take down the status quo, I would be a democrat too. I have stated many times dems have cobbled together a coalitions of hate america radicals, minorities and people who suck off govt. Are they all bad people no. Are they all hard working productive americans.... clearly not. Some would prefer you work hard so they can stay home an play xbox. Finely: the dems are not the compasionate ones. You are being fooled by the thieves at the top. Compassionate people set up a system where people have opportunity and govt provides a small safety net. The larger the safety net the more you destroy people who worked for the opportunity - the more you destroy your "compassionate" society. The leftists at the top manipulate people by using arguments about compassion but they are really out for power. You can teach a guy to fish so he can compete with his neighbors. If works harder or smarter he can buy a house. Or you can come in... give them all outboards and let them destroy their fishery in a year or two on a equal basis. Giving stuff away is not compassionate if it makes people dependent... its nefarious.. and it is systematic. Most blacks in cities were a hell of a lot better off in America before the great society welfare give aways... even in spite of the discrimination they were experiencing. At least that is my opinion. Cities like D.C., New York and others had areas of town where black entrepreneurship thrived. Black kids had dads and they did not have to worry about every young black male being in jail, being shot, or being dealer. The men had to be productive and stick around to take care of their kids. The women could not just keep getting pregnant and let the men go and run around. What is called liberal compassion has created a sick nation. And its time we start pointing out it not compassion but planned systematic destruction of people for votes.