Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.[W:963:1176:1448]

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

There are also many deep blue cities, inside these deep red states, that contain many of those on the dole. The major cities (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin) in Texas are largely run by demorats.

And your claim is shockingly easy to refute. You did no research to find out whether your claim is true. How do I know this? Because (with a very few exceptions), high poverty rates are more likely to be found in RURAL areas, not urban areas. Just look at the map below which shows poverty rate by county:



Anyone with half a clue about American geography can see right away that except for a VERY few major cities, the worst poverty is to be found in rural areas of America. Of course, that's not what right-wing talkers will tell you, so that's why you thought poverty was much worse in the cities. They said it, you believed it, and you didn't check to see if they were lying to you.

But they were. And you believed them.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

LOL nice evasions. which party's platform caters to those who want government handouts

which party snarls that the "Rich need to pay more taxes"

We don't need to answer which party's voters are the biggest teat sucklers, we merely have to make a rational assumption that each PARTY knows the NATURE of their voters. Since your beloved Dem party is the one that caters the most to income redistribution, it is obvious that the DEMOCRATS themselves see their Party as the one most hospitable to those who are on the dole

You say "Dems are most hospitable to those who are on the dole".
Any Dem would say, "Dems are the ones who want poor people to get out of poverty so they WON'T be on the dole".

And you know what? We're pretty good at it, if one looks at the map of poverty in America by county. Not just by state, but by county:



AGAIN, TD, we've got LOWER percentages of our people in poverty...and Southern red states have the HIGHEST percentages of people poverty. Dems want people out of poverty. The GOP says, "Screw 'em, let them stay in poverty". And so you have the highest rates of poverty in red states, particularly the rural South.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

your stupid state analysis fails for two reasons (and its been tried before you got here)

1) it assumes that red states are all red voters

2) many states are back and forth-blue and red. Ohio for example-GOP Governor, split senators-voted Obama in 2012

You didn't even try to read, much less understand my post - if you had, you'd know better than to make your accusation #1. You're not honestly debating - you're trolling. I'm done with you on this thread.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Bingo.. thats my point. Marginal tax rates were LOWER than they were in the 1950's... the top rate was only 39.6% Yet the effective tax rate was higher. Thats because Elder Bush raised taxes NOT by raising the marginal tax rates (as Obama and the dems currently want to do).. but by getting rid of the tax loopholes etc that benefited only certain of the wealthiest.

And thus after Bush took the fall for raising taxes.. (when what he really did was get rid of unfair, crony loopholes etc) Clinton got to prance around that he balanced the budget when it was the increase in revenue from Bush, combined with republicans cuts during Clinton, that actually balanced the budget.

And I am not laying all the blame on liberals for our tax structure...never once have I done that. But the fact is.. there isn't much effort on the part of the democrats to end the special tax loopholes and treatments etc. You were able to get through the ACA.. and the stimulus bill... so lets not kid ourselves about what republicans "allowed us to do"..

The fact is that its much better politically for Obama to cry for increased taxes on the rich in the form of increased marginal rates which get liberals like you all hot and steamy...While Obama. knows full well that his wealthy political supporters will continue to pay low taxes through special loopholes, tax breaks and deductions.

I've said many times that I admire Bush 41 - he was a good president (though he'll always share some of the stain from Iran Contra)...and I've also said many times that I give him more credit for the 90's economic boom than I do Clinton. And Clinton bears much of the blame for the departure of so much of our manufacturing base since he ignored Ross Perot's warning about that "giant sucking sound". That, and Clinton signed on to the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which means he owns it, even though it passed the Republican-controlled Congress by veto-proof margins.

But there's one thing I have to disagree with you about - the Dems did try to get rid of loopholes, and were prevented from doing so by the Republicans. I distinctly remember how the Dems tried to end the tax break that corporations get for outsourcing manufacturing to overseas...and I know you must remember that for almost the entire length of Obama's presidency, the GOP stance has been to approve nothing, absolutely nothing, that results in one additional dollar of tax revenue. So...no, the blame for this one lay squarely upon the GOP.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Actually but the funny thing is that history DOES show that cutting spending reduces the deficit. The last time we approached a balance budget was after the republicans and Clinton came to the balanced budget act. Spending definitely was cut then and the result was a balance budget (along with the fact that elder Bush had already raised taxes if you will)...

As I've said before, I give Bush 41 more credit than Clinton for the 90's economic boom. But NO, we did not significantly cut spending to reach those balanced budgets:

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.[W:1176]

Liberal conspiracy? Naw... liberal confusion? Yeah, I can go with that..

First of all, things like natural resources, ethnic and social culture, political stability and history might just play a factor in how wealthy a nation is.. don't you think.

Yeah, except for the fact that we see the same results REGARDLESS of that list of factors you listed.

Hey.. maybe some third world nations are third world because they used to be formerly colonies of those first world, big government strong regulation countries? Gee.. maybe being bent over and raped by their former masters.. (big government, high effective taxes) might have something to do with being third world...

NAAHHH.. cause everyone knows that big government is benevolent right...

I never said that big government is AUTOMATICALLY benevolent. I'm simply saying that while having a big government is not a guarantee of first-world status, the LACK of a big government guarantees that a nation will NOT be a first-world nation.

Tell me.. if big government is truly the answer.. then why is it that the little ole United states.. which definitely doesn't have the big government, high taxes and everything you say they need to be successful...

WHHHAAAAAAATTTTTTT????? You're claiming America does NOT have 'big government'? Here's a clue for you, guy - what's the world's biggest employer - as in, the one with the most employees? Is it Wal-Mart? No. Is it the People's Liberation Army? No. Is it McDonald's? Not even!

It's the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE...with 3.2 million employees. And that's before we even begin to get to all the regulatory agencies we have like OSHA, FDA, CDC, NIH, NOAA, EPA, and all the other alphabet agencies (and China has FAR fewer of those than we do).

We don't just have a big government - we've got the BIGGEST. We DEFINE 'big government', guy - NOBODY'S government is as big as ours!

Why do we then lead the world economically and socially when it comes to freedom?

In addition to the fact that we have the three essentials of big government, high effective taxes, and high regulation, you mean? America has a whole host of advantages...but without those three essential factors, even we would not be where we are today.

Hey.. right now one of the most up and coming countries.. soon to rival the United States.is VERY big government, high tax, high regulation countries. Namely China.. where the government tell s you how many children you can have, what you can earn, where you can live, and regulates every part of business activity... AND.. you get to breath the noxious air produced.

You should study China more - because while China does indeed tell you those first three, they do NOT "regulate every part of business activity" - their business sector is significantly less-regulated than our own...or haven't you noticed anything in the news about problems in China like worker suicides (to the point where one Apple factory had to put up nets to catch those jumping out of windows), child labor, and several different types of poisoning? And have you noticed the news just recently about the quite-frankly dangerous levels of smog in Beijing? You would not find those levels of smog ANYWHERE in a first-world nation, because first-world nations have sufficient regulation to prevent such incredible levels of smog to build up. Their epic smog is a prime example of what happens when capitalism is not regulated.

No, China is quite capitalist now - even the respected (and quite conservative) think tank Cato Institute says so. And if you Google around, you'll find many who say they're more capitalist than America. It sure seemed that way in my trips to Hong Kong and Shenzen.

So.. When do you advocate that we turn into a big government country like China?

No, I'd rather America stay as the socialized democracy that we certainly are. I don't want to be as capitalist as China.

Or maybe, just maybe, the conservative ideal of limited government, responsible taxation, and responsible regulation might have some advantages....

Well, since I've clearly demonstrated above that no, we do NOT have 'limited government', perhaps you should look around and find what nations DO have 'limited government'.

Like I said, there's three factors that are essential to (but do not guarantee) a nation's first-world status: big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation. China has big government (though not as big as ours by a long shot), low effective taxes, and weak regulation. They're not going to be a first-world nation for a long time to come.

 

[scatt]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

And your claim is shockingly easy to refute. You did no research to find out whether your claim is true. How do I know this? Because (with a very few exceptions), high poverty rates are more likely to be found in RURAL areas, not urban areas. Just look at the map below which shows poverty rate by county:

View attachment 67160950

Anyone with half a clue about American geography can see right away that except for a VERY few major cities, the worst poverty is to be found in rural areas of America. Of course, that's not what right-wing talkers will tell you, so that's why you thought poverty was much worse in the cities. They said it, you believed it, and you didn't check to see if they were lying to you.

But they were. And you believed them.

Rural counties, or large population counties (democrats)?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

You say "Dems are most hospitable to those who are on the dole".
Any Dem would say, "Dems are the ones who want poor people to get out of poverty so they WON'T be on the dole".

And you know what? We're pretty good at it, if one looks at the map of poverty in America by county. Not just by state, but by county:

View attachment 67160951

AGAIN, TD, we've got LOWER percentages of our people in poverty...and Southern red states have the HIGHEST percentages of people poverty. Dems want people out of poverty. The GOP says, "Screw 'em, let them stay in poverty". And so you have the highest rates of poverty in red states, particularly the rural South.

Nonsense. the war on poverty has been an abject failure. and as others have noted, the cost of living is not taken into account for those poverty statistics. Dems want people to be dependent on government to justify the big government programs Dems push. what sort of people are poor in the rural south?

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

You say "Dems are most hospitable to those who are on the dole".
Any Dem would say, "Dems are the ones who want poor people to get out of poverty so they WON'T be on the dole".

And you know what? We're pretty good at it, if one looks at the map of poverty in America by county. Not just by state, but by county:

View attachment 67160951


AGAIN, TD, we've got LOWER percentages of our people in poverty...and Southern red states have the HIGHEST percentages of people poverty. Dems want people out of poverty. The GOP says, "Screw 'em, let them stay in poverty". And so you have the highest rates of poverty in red states, particularly the rural South.

Nonsense. The pattern in the map is obvious. The nation never fully recovered from the devastation of the civil war.

PS Those Republican southern states were a very solid Democratic block for 100 years. They changed parties when the Democratic party moved to be more liberal in the late 1960's and 1970's - excluding them from a voice in the party. Now the Republicans have done the same thing to the liberals / moderates that were in their party.

 

[MTAtech]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Nonsense. The pattern in the map is obvious. The nation never fully recovered from the devastation of the civil war.

PS Those Republican southern states were a very solid Democratic block for 100 years. They changed parties when the Democratic party moved to be more liberal in the late 1960's and 1970's - excluding them from a voice in the party. Now the Republicans have done the same thing to the liberals / moderates that were in their party.

The charts above is from the people at Voteview, who use data on Congressional voting to measure political positions and polarizations. As you can see, Northern Democrats haven't moved much since 1960. Southern Democrats have become more liberal (as the conservative Democrats shifted to Republicans) but Republicans have become much more conservative.

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

The charts above is from the people at Voteview, who use data on Congressional voting to measure political positions and polarizations. As you can see, Northern Democrats haven't moved much since 1960. Southern Democrats have become more liberal (as the conservative Democrats shifted to Republicans) but Republicans have become much more conservative.

It seems that your “point” is a diversion from my observation. The observation was rather simple. First, the map shows a poverty pattern. Rural southern state counties tend toward higher poverty levels than the rest of the nation. Second, this cannot be attributed to the policies of either the Republican or Democratic parties as these states were a very solid Democratic party voting block and then shifted to being a pretty solid Republican voting block. Is the pattern the Democratic Party legacy? Is it’s persistence the Republican party policy? NO and NO obviously.
The underlying cause is that the agrarian southern state economy was ravaged by the Civil War. The successful plantation businesses were destroyed and those who were slaves living on the plantations were turned out to start from scratch. The Reconstruction Era did little to restart the economy and enable those who had few economic tools to engage. We tend to teach our children our family traditions. We pass on our knowledge and skills. My Grandfather was a scientist; my mother and father were scientists; my wife and I are scientists; our children are scientists. What knowledge then did the post-civil war era have to teach? What skills did it have to pass on to its posterity? It has taken many generations for knowledge and skills to migrate into the void. The map shows that the underlying problem persists and has not been identified and addressed effectively by any local, state, or federal government actions.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Rural counties, or large population counties (democrats)?

How well do you know your U.S. geography? Look at the map again, and look at where New York City and Boston and even Newark and Chicago are - and how's the poverty level there? Now look Down South in the counties in the rural area - how's the poverty there?

 

[scatt]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

How well do you know your U.S. geography? Look at the map again, and look at where New York City and Boston and even Newark and Chicago are - and how's the poverty level there? Now look Down South in the counties in the rural area - how's the poverty there?

The rural counties in the south or the democrat counties?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Nonsense. the war on poverty has been an abject failure. and as others have noted, the cost of living is not taken into account for those poverty statistics. Dems want people to be dependent on government to justify the big government programs Dems push. what sort of people are poor in the rural south?

Guy, just because the cost of living in a place might be less doesn't mean that the people aren't POOR - anyone who's ever spent much time in a third-world nation knows that!

FYI, the cost of living might be less...but it ain't that much less. The gas might be twenty or thirty cents less per gallon (like it is here in MS as compared to WA), and the rent might be a couple hundred dollars less, most of everything else - from clothes to cars to the food in the supermarket - is close to the SAME price.

And you ask what sort of people are poor in the rural South? Gee...playing the race card again? If you'd look at that map of poverty - and if you've got a decent knowledge of American geography and the American population - you'd see that there's a LOT of poverty in the Appalachian mountains, in WV and eastern KY, in northern Lousiana, in the top 2/3 of MS outside the Delta, in much of rural GA and southwest AL...

,,,and you know what all these regions have in common? They're very WHITE...the percentages of minorities in these areas is generally low...and in some, really low.

So stop playing the race card - it doesn't work.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

It seems that your “point” is a diversion from my observation. The observation was rather simple. First, the map shows a poverty pattern. Rural southern state counties tend toward higher poverty levels than the rest of the nation. Second, this cannot be attributed to the policies of either the Republican or Democratic parties as these states were a very solid Democratic party voting block and then shifted to being a pretty solid Republican voting block. Is the pattern the Democratic Party legacy? Is it’s persistence the Republican party policy? NO and NO obviously.
The underlying cause is that the agrarian southern state economy was ravaged by the Civil War. The successful plantation businesses were destroyed and those who were slaves living on the plantations were turned out to start from scratch. The Reconstruction Era did little to restart the economy and enable those who had few economic tools to engage. We tend to teach our children our family traditions. We pass on our knowledge and skills. My Grandfather was a scientist; my mother and father were scientists; my wife and I are scientists; our children are scientists. What knowledge then did the post-civil war era have to teach? What skills did it have to pass on to its posterity? It has taken many generations for knowledge and skills to migrate into the void. The map shows that the underlying problem persists and has not been identified and addressed effectively by any local, state, or federal government actions.

On a related matter, I once pointed out all the ways in which the standard of living is measurably better in blue states than in red states, and that this meant that blue-state governance was better than red-state governance...and I was promptly schooled about the correlation/causation fallacy by a strong conservative.

So I thought about it for a long time...and realized that he was right that I made a logical fallacy. I then realized that the lower standard of living in red states wasn't due to conservative governance...but was instead due to the fact that people in rural areas are more likely to be conservative than people in urban areas, and so the politicians they choose will generally be more conservative.

And this is not limited to America. As one travels around the world, one finds that generally speaking - and after allowing for the social mores and norms of the nation in question - the people in rural areas of those nations do tend to be more conservative, with all that implies, and the people in urban areas do tend to be more liberal. Look at almost any nation you like, and you'll find that people in urban areas tend to be better-educated and less intolerant of others (since in urban areas one is exposed to more ideas that are different and people that are different than in rural areas).

So - generally speaking - the problems of America's people in rural areas aren't because they're conservative - it's because they live in rural areas. The matter of the Deep South is somewhat of an anomaly in that unlike most such areas of the world, we not only had the Civil War, but (perhaps more importantly) we also had Jim Crow, which only deepened and strengthened the racial divide here. And just as the election of a black man as president in South Africa did not mean that they had worked their way out of endemic racism, the endemic racism here in the South is still here...and it will go away only very, very slowly.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Nonsense. The pattern in the map is obvious. The nation never fully recovered from the devastation of the civil war.

PS Those Republican southern states were a very solid Democratic block for 100 years. They changed parties when the Democratic party moved to be more liberal in the late 1960's and 1970's - excluding them from a voice in the party. Now the Republicans have done the same thing to the liberals / moderates that were in their party.

We never recovered from the racism in the South because of Jim Crow, which only more deeply embedded the racism in the South.

But look at eastern KY, almost all of WV, and NM and AZ: KY was a border state, WV was in the Union, and NM and AZ didn't even exist as states yet.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

The rural counties in the south or the democrat counties?

Oh, good grief, guy - do you know NOTHING of the South? How about doing some actual research and find out for yourself how those counties voted. It's not hard - all you have to do is Google it.

But then, I know I'm wasting my time with you, because there's no amount of EVIDENCE that will convince you of anything that you don't want to believe.

 

[scatt]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Oh, good grief, guy - do you know NOTHING of the South?

Yeah, the south is filled with big city counties.

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

On a related matter, I once pointed out all the ways in which the standard of living is measurably better in blue states than in red states, and that this meant that blue-state governance was better than red-state governance...and I was promptly schooled about the correlation/causation fallacy by a strong conservative.

So I thought about it for a long time...and realized that he was right that I made a logical fallacy. I then realized that the lower standard of living in red states wasn't due to conservative governance...but was instead due to the fact that people in rural areas are more likely to be conservative than people in urban areas, and so the politicians they choose will generally be more conservative.

And this is not limited to America. As one travels around the world, one finds that generally speaking - and after allowing for the social mores and norms of the nation in question - the people in rural areas of those nations do tend to be more conservative, with all that implies, and the people in urban areas do tend to be more liberal. Look at almost any nation you like, and you'll find that people in urban areas tend to be better-educated and less intolerant of others (since in urban areas one is exposed to more ideas that are different and people that are different than in rural areas).

So - generally speaking - the problems of America's people in rural areas aren't because they're conservative - it's because they live in rural areas. The matter of the Deep South is somewhat of an anomaly in that unlike most such areas of the world, we not only had the Civil War, but (perhaps more importantly) we also had Jim Crow, which only deepened and strengthened the racial divide here. And just as the election of a black man as president in South Africa did not mean that they had worked their way out of endemic racism, the endemic racism here in the South is still here...and it will go away only very, very slowly.

Very well said. Part of the misleading thought process is that the data is % of population. Rural counties have relatively low populations. Thus they may show up as "problem areas" when in fact the density of poverty in an area experiencing urban blight may be higher. None the less the very slow comeback from the Civil War and its aftermath should be a focus point for us if we are to meaningfully enable people with "a hand up". It is something that we can identify and work on that will have a positive impact on wealth distribution in America.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Guy, just because the cost of living in a place might be less doesn't mean that the people aren't POOR - anyone who's ever spent much time in a third-world nation knows that!

FYI, the cost of living might be less...but it ain't that much less. The gas might be twenty or thirty cents less per gallon (like it is here in MS as compared to WA), and the rent might be a couple hundred dollars less, most of everything else - from clothes to cars to the food in the supermarket - is close to the SAME price.

And you ask what sort of people are poor in the rural South? Gee...playing the race card again? If you'd look at that map of poverty - and if you've got a decent knowledge of American geography and the American population - you'd see that there's a LOT of poverty in the Appalachian mountains, in WV and eastern KY, in northern Lousiana, in the top 2/3 of MS outside the Delta, in much of rural GA and southwest AL...

,,,and you know what all these regions have in common? They're very WHITE...the percentages of minorities in these areas is generally low...and in some, really low.

So stop playing the race card - it doesn't work.

the only person who constantly whines about race is you.

now lets try some honesty

WHICH PARTY CATERS to the Poor

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

We never recovered from the racism in the South because of Jim Crow, which only more deeply embedded the racism in the South.

But look at eastern KY, almost all of WV, and NM and AZ: KY was a border state, WV was in the Union, and NM and AZ didn't even exist as states yet.

The situation in Eastern KY and WV is relatively new. These were not poverty areas until after 1950 (roughly). They were successful coal mining economies. Unfortunately, they were "company towns" - single industry economies with low education and low skill labor expectations. Infrastructure for diversifying into other industries did not develop and the mountainous terrain was not particularly attractive to large scale manufacturing facilities. First , low cost / low sulfur Western Coal displaced their product and then our national utilization of coal declined (especially as steel production moved out of the US). It is a different problem than the recovery of the Confederate States. It is a problem that can be pretty definitively defined and consequently it should be possible to design a solution - albeit a different one than might be appropriate for rural southern state counties.

The NM AZ thing is yet a third situation. (I know something first hand about it having lived in NM for 20 years. And even though I live in Colorado now, I am currently a consultant to a project that is designed to "urban renew" a decaying part of Albuquerque). Populations in those counties are very low so a high % figure can be rather misleading. Even so NM does have a problem (more so than AZ). NM has very little large private industry to employ people. It also has next to no investment banking infrastructure to stimulate new business development. It is exceptionally dependent on National Laboratories and military installations in the state. These plus income that it gets from Permean Basin oil wells - that were drilled in the 1930's so that they don't employ many people today - are the only reason that the state government is tenable. About 1/3 of the state is Navajo or Pueblo reservations. They are isolated as "autonomous nations".

 

[Logicman]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

 

[MTAtech]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

View attachment 67160983

[sarcasm] Thank you for your well thought out and persuasive argument.[/sarcasm]

 

[MTAtech]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

The situation in Eastern KY and WV is relatively new. These were not poverty areas until after 1950 (roughly). They were successful coal mining economies. Unfortunately, they were "company towns" - single industry economies with low education and low skill labor expectations. Infrastructure for diversifying into other industries did not develop and the mountainous terrain was not particularly attractive to large scale manufacturing facilities. First , low cost / low sulfur Western Coal displaced their product and then our national utilization of coal declined (especially as steel production moved out of the US). It is a different problem than the recovery of the Confederate States. It is a problem that can be pretty definitively defined and consequently it should be possible to design a solution - albeit a different one than might be appropriate for rural southern state counties.
...

I am not an expert about this area but my understanding is that they were indeed company towns that mined coal. The workers weren't paid well and had to pay the company for shelter and food and goods from the company store. Doing so usually exhausted the worker's entire paycheck. Thus, the workers lived hand-to-mouth -- the beneficiaries were the coal companies.

After coal there was not in demand, for whatever reason, more poverty arose.

I really don't know what devastation after the Civil War has to do with poverty today. Atlanta was completely destroyed and now is one of the most in-demand places to live. Florida wasn't developed at all and now has large cities and a growth in population, along with a thriving tourism and citrus industry. The point being that one can't still blame the Civil War for poverty in the South.

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

I am not an expert about this area but my understanding is that they were indeed company towns that mined coal. The workers weren't paid well and had to pay the company for shelter and food and goods from the company store. Doing so usually exhausted the worker's entire paycheck. Thus, the workers lived hand-to-mouth -- the beneficiaries were the coal companies.

After coal there was not in demand, for whatever reason, more poverty arose.

I really don't know what devastation after the Civil War has to do with poverty today. Atlanta was completely destroyed and now is one of the most in-demand places to live. Florida wasn't developed at all and now has large cities and a growth in population, along with a thriving tourism and citrus industry. The point being that one can't still blame the Civil War for poverty in the South.

As we have examined the map in these discussions we seem to have found three "poverty belts". 1) the old agricultural south - Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the piedmont regions of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, 2) the Appalachia coal mining area, and 3) the Mexico border counties in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. And we have postulated three causes that seem to "make sense" with the superficial sort of examination that can be sustained in a political forum such as this one. What does Florida have to do with this discussion? It has a few pink counties on the map but nowhere near the density of the other regions.

As I pointed out above. The map is very misleading if you are trying to identify poverty concentrations (people below the poverty level per square mile). The map shows % of population living in poverty. That parameter accentuates rural counties with low populations. Parts of Florida may have very high poverty concentration but low % because the population of the county may be high. It does suggest some very interesting targeted strategies that could have a meaningful impact though. What would happen if the Federal Government created incentives for Apple (for example) to build its next facility in West Virginia (instead of the affluent part of Texas that it is considering)? Do it enough and maybe the region would get enough economic attractiveness to become self-sustaining?