More maps

[MGKrebs]

Blue states = rich
Red states= poor

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00270&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.92903677495E7|dh=1.4467775812124997E7|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-1159354.4733499996|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=381:403:204:380:369:379:368|g=01000US|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=040|mn=6.5|mx=48.2|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Percent|pr=1|th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00075&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=01000US&-_dBy=040&-_sse=on&-_lang=en

Red states = more poverty
Blue states = less poverty

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00279&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.92903677495E7|dh=1.4467775812124997E7|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-1159354.4733499996|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=381:403:204:380:369:379:368|g=01000US|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=040|mn=8185|mx=28766|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Dollars|pr=0|th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00270&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=01000US&-_dBy=040&-_sse=on&-_lang=en

My point is (I think) that the stereotype of big cities filled with welfare cheats bleeding the rest of the country dry is BOGUS. It is just not true.

The vast majority of poor people are rural.

This map is even more dramatic. Look at page 6.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-19.pdf

I don't know what to make of it as far as why people vote a certain way (my own stereotyping). I'm only trying to dispel the myth of Democrats being dependant on welfare queens. Dems try to help those less priveleged and those that can get abused by powerful interests, and we get tarred with trying to put everybody on welfare. Not sure how we expect to pay for it. It's the repubs who always end up having to borrow to pay for their wars and tax cuts.

 

[Larry Gude]

This gets more interesting every day...

I don't know what to make of it as far as why people vote a certain way (my own stereotyping). I'm only trying to dispel the myth of Democrats being dependant on welfare queens. Dems try to help those less priveleged and those that can get abused by powerful interests, and we get tarred with trying to put everybody on welfare. Not sure how we expect to pay for it. It's the repubs who always end up having to borrow to pay for their wars and tax cuts.

I'm having a parallel discusion with my brother and he's trying to make the same argument; Red states are the home of government dependancy and blue states are the home of fiscal responsibility. Are you my brother?

The point has been made in here several times over the last three years that the GOP is spending way to much money and blowing up the national debt.

They end up getting a pass on the war but the medicaid expansion and the department of homeland defense thing are both outrageous in terms of conservative government policy. So, yes, there are problems.

Those are both Democrat-esque, not some metamorphasis that now make, together with across the board tax cuts and a strong military...a GOP left of left.

I mean, we're not liberal like the Senators from Massechusetts or anything, right?

 

[Pete]

The longer the democrats pour over red and blue maps, exit polls and search under every rock for someone else to blame for their problems the closer they are to becoming exstinct.

Look to Terry McAuliffe and the hate and fearmongers. They actually did what I thought was the impossible, made people sympathetic to Republicans.

 

[ylexot]

Blue states = rich
Red states= poor

Red states = more poverty
Blue states = less poverty

Wow! Those are some really broad generalizations that are not supported by the facts you presented. Good work. You must have some deep ruby colored glasses...or would those be democrat blue glasses?

One thing I am curious about regarding the poverty line...is it a nationwide level, or is there an adjustment factor based on the cost of living? I'm guessing it is the former which makes the stats completely useless. Someone under a nationwide "poverty line" in...lets say WV would probably survive. However, someone making the same amount of money in...lets say NYC would starve to death very quickly because the cost of living in NYC is astronomical compared to the cost of living in WV.

BTW - next time, please put links instead of the five-mile-long address that we have to cut and paste.

 

[SurfaceTension]

My point is (I think) that the stereotype of big cities filled with welfare cheats bleeding the rest of the country dry is BOGUS. It is just not true.

The vast majority of poor people are rural.

Hardly....While a greater PECENTAGE PER STATE in many Red States are higher, the GREATER NUMBER appears to reside in the Blue States. WV has a very high rate, but it has 316,000 below the poverty line while CA, with a lower rate, has over 4,700,000 (15x) below the level. (numbers from the last link). I'll leave it to you to tally up all the states.

 

[MGKrebs]

One thing I am curious about regarding the poverty line...is it a nationwide level, or is there an adjustment factor based on the cost of living? I'm guessing it is the former which makes the stats completely useless. Someone under a nationwide "poverty line" in...lets say WV would probably survive. However, someone making the same amount of money in...lets say NYC would starve to death very quickly because the cost of living in NYC is astronomical compared to the cost of living in WV.

I thought of this too, but I thought that it would strengthen my argument even further. Therefore, the stats are only useless if one is trying to defend something they don't show.

 

[MGKrebs]

I'm having a parallel discusion with my brother and he's trying to make the same argument; Red states are the home of government dependancy and blue states are the home of fiscal responsibility. Are you my brother?

The point has been made in here several times over the last three years that the GOP is spending way to much money and blowing up the national debt.

They end up getting a pass on the war but the medicaid expansion and the department of homeland defense thing are both outrageous in terms of conservative government policy. So, yes, there are problems.

Those are both Democrat-esque, not some metamorphasis that now make, together with across the board tax cuts and a strong military...a GOP left of left.

I mean, we're not liberal like the Senators from Massechusetts or anything, right?

Yup. I think one could make the argument that these guys aren't even really conservatives. Personally, I think they are fascists, but I know I can't use that word- too loaded- so I will say "corporatists". Which would be a government run for the benefit of big corporations.

 

[MGKrebs]

Hardly....While a greater PECENTAGE PER STATE in many Red States are higher, the GREATER NUMBER appears to reside in the Blue States. WV has a very high rate, but it has 316,000 below the poverty line while CA, with a lower rate, has over 4,700,000 (15x) below the level. (numbers from the last link). I'll leave it to you to tally up all the states.

You may be right, I don't know. I should have phrased that differently, because I'm not going to add up all those states to find out. It's not necessary in order to make my original point. Besides, we get a hint on page 4 here:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-19.pdf

It's broken down by region:

NE 5,214,372
Midwest 6,971,020
South 13,065,294
West 6,492,178

So, we can argue about where the borders are, or Illinois, or California, but look at the South. No question the South is red, right? The South kicks a** when it comes to poverty. And I don't think the South is full of big cities packed with welfare queens.

 

[ylexot]

I thought of this too, but I thought that it would strengthen my argument even further. Therefore, the stats are only useless if one is trying to defend something they don't show.

As I stated before, the stats you presented do not support the point you are trying to make. I'm glad you agree that the stats are useless.

 

[MGKrebs]

As I stated before, the stats you presented do not support the point you are trying to make. I'm glad you agree that the stats are useless.

"One thing I am curious about regarding the poverty line...is it a nationwide level, or is there an adjustment factor based on the cost of living? I'm guessing it is the former which makes the stats completely useless. Someone under a nationwide "poverty line" in...lets say WV would probably survive. However, someone making the same amount of money in...lets say NYC would starve to death very quickly because the cost of living in NYC is astronomical compared to the cost of living in WV."

Right. Cost of living in NY being higher should mean higher level of poverty compared to the "average". Cost of living being less in WV should mean lower poverty level. But that is not what we see. Despite NY being more expensive, there is a LOWER poverty rate. Which means that the people in WV are REALLY poor.

Bust that stereotype! It's OK.

Are these poor, rural voters Republicans because they think the federal money their state gets is bad and they want it to stop? Or do they think that Repubs will end OTHER states federal money? Or do they just not think about it and vote Repub because they don't want to change horses in the middle of an endless war?

 

[ylexot]

"One thing I am curious about regarding the poverty line...is it a nationwide level, or is there an adjustment factor based on the cost of living? I'm guessing it is the former which makes the stats completely useless. Someone under a nationwide "poverty line" in...lets say WV would probably survive. However, someone making the same amount of money in...lets say NYC would starve to death very quickly because the cost of living in NYC is astronomical compared to the cost of living in WV."

Right. Cost of living in NY being higher should mean higher level of poverty compared to the "average". Cost of living being less in WV should mean lower poverty level. But that is not what we see. Despite NY being more expensive, there is a LOWER poverty rate. Which means that the people in WV are REALLY poor.

Bust that stereotype! It's OK.

Are these poor, rural voters Republicans because they think the federal money their state gets is bad and they want it to stop? Or do they think that Repubs will end OTHER states federal money? Or do they just not think about it and vote Repub because they don't want to change horses in the middle of an endless war?

Wow! That is the complete opposite of what I said. Let's assume that the "poverty line" is some arbitrary number (let's say $20k per year) all across the country. Now let's consider two people (one in NY, other in WV) each making $19k per year (below the poverty line). In WV where the cost of living is low, that $19k may be a livable wage and that person is not "REALLY poor". In NY where the cost of living is high, the $19k per year is NOT a livable wage and that person IS "REALLY poor".

If you can't understand this extremely basic concept, there is no hope for you. I've dumbed down the explanation as much as I can.

 

[MGKrebs]

Wow! That is the complete opposite of what I said. Let's assume that the "poverty line" is some arbitrary number (let's say $20k per year) all across the country. Now let's consider two people (one in NY, other in WV) each making $19k per year (below the poverty line). In WV where the cost of living is low, that $19k may be a livable wage and that person is not "REALLY poor". In NY where the cost of living is high, the $19k per year is NOT a livable wage and that person IS "REALLY poor".

If you can't understand this extremely basic concept, there is no hope for you. I've dumbed down the explanation as much as I can.

I'm going to have to concede this particular point to you. My previous post didn't make sense.

But I am STILL defending the original point: Red states are poorer, and receive more federal money than blues states. I am trying to figure out why that is.

Whether or not a particular person is just above or just below the technical "poverty line", I don't think we would dispute that they are poor. The poverty line for a family of three is $13,410 (year 2000 I believe). And as someone else has said, there are many forms of "social programs that assist their lives", not just welfare.

That assistance may be military base construction, or farm subsidies, or ADA money, but it all boils down to the same thing: Many, many people in "red" states are dependent on government spending (especially federal) for their livelihoods. Why are they "red"? The myth is that people who are dependent on the government are Dems.

 

[ylexot]

Whether or not a particular person is just above or just below the technical "poverty line", I don't think we would dispute that they are poor.

I don't care if somebody is "poor". That's going to happen unless you want to have a massive redistribution of wealth. I do care if someone can't survive.

I just think that if we are going to help the poor, we need to do it in a smart way. I (and I would also say most conservatives) have no problem with helping people that are having a tough time. However, I don't want to help people that are going to take advantage of that generosity. That was the whole point behind the welfare reform under Clinton.

Now, how do we do that? First, get rid of the nationwide poverty line. I've already shown that it does not yield an accurate picture of the problem. The government already knows the cost of living everywhere in the country (it's taken into account for my salary). It should be fairly easy to determine a localized poverty level. Once you have that, you can get a much better picture of the problem. You can't fix the problem until you understand the problem.

Oh, and the cost of living stuff also applies to the minimum wage. The minimum wage in NYC is not a livable wage, but it might be in WV. Frankly, I'm against the minimum wage, but if they are going to do it, they should at least do it right and adjust it based on locality.