• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Geography of Government Benefits

Rhapsody1447

Skeptical Optimist
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
707
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I love these interactive maps.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the deep red regions appear to be more remote and rural parts of the country. Can't see any dark red place on the map, really, where I'd like to live.
 
And this is BEFORE Obama even took office. Who knows where it's at today.

The Geography of Government Benefits - Interactive Map - NYTimes.com

View attachment 67122995

Do you have any theories as to why that's the case? What are you trying to imply?

Could it be that people are living longer now and collecting benefits awhile before passing away?

Could it also be that we've lost a lot of good paying manufacturing jobs as companies have moved those jobs overseas to take advantage of lower wages, little or no limits or regulations on how much they can pollute, almost nonexistant regulations on worker safety, not having to provide job benefits such as insurance, retirement, etc. Basically, as Americans make less money due to losing those better paying jobs, it makes the percentage of income from government benefits rise in comparison.

If we could bring those better paying jobs back over here the comparison would head back in the other direction rather quickly.
 
What's up with Maine?
 
It's a pretty mixed bag. It's nice to see an illustration that shows poverty knows no partisan lean.
 
It's a pretty mixed bag. It's nice to see an illustration that shows poverty knows no partisan lean.

Thats true but this map doesn't show that, you're making that assumption based on stereotypes for how people vote or think based on what states or counties they live in. What this map shows, is not population or politics, but simple it breaks down by county. A county could have 30% of its 2,000 people on gov't aid and be colored darker than a county which has 20% of its 100,000 people on gov't aid.
 
And this is BEFORE Obama even took office. Who knows where it's at today.

You seem to say this as if some kind of outrage is should be had, but, on it's face, I don't know why you are expecting that.
 
What's up with Maine?

And southern Missouri, and parts of Arizona and New Mexico--although I suspect some of that is tribal territory.

Also a wide swath through appalachia and a polka dot pattern in Alabama, Missippi, Tennessee and Kentucky. All areas that have had generational poverty for approximately 2 centuries.

Surprise, northern Michigan is in worse shape than the Detroit metro area.

Off topic but I noticed that the Western US has gigantic counties when compared with the eastern and Midwest US. I wonder what impact that has with fewer taxing bodies to administer.
 
You seem to say this as if some kind of outrage is should be had, but, on it's face, I don't know why you are expecting that.

I'm not necessarily crying outrage, it just shows a negative trend. I don't know what current % of National Income is government benefit programs but I bet it's higher than it was in 2009. There is no pretending this is positive indicator for the country or the economy.
 
I'm not necessarily crying outrage, it just shows a negative trend. I don't know what current % of National Income is government benefit programs but I bet it's higher than it was in 2009. There is no pretending this is positive indicator for the country or the economy.
It doesn't show any trend. It is one statistic plus your assumption of where things are now.

Obama has not significantly expanded welfare programs. The problem is, more people than ever before qualify to be on welfare. And that's a product of the government, the market, and the people not adjusting fast enough to a rapidly changing world. Neither party is the cause or the solution.
 
It doesn't show any trend. It is one statistic plus your assumption of where things are now.

Obama has not significantly expanded welfare programs. The problem is, more people than ever before qualify to be on welfare. And that's a product of the government, the market, and the people not adjusting fast enough to a rapidly changing world. Neither party is the cause or the solution.

Of course it shows a trend. Did you click the link? Hell they have a box titled "Guide to Key Trends". The Great Recession most definitely bumped that number higher, that is what my "assumption" was. I'll see if I can dig up the actual number for you. Obama has expanded "welfare programs". The ARRA alone included $82.2 billion in aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees.
 
Thats true but this map doesn't show that, you're making that assumption based on stereotypes for how people vote or think based on what states or counties they live in. What this map shows, is not population or politics, but simple it breaks down by county. A county could have 30% of its 2,000 people on gov't aid and be colored darker than a county which has 20% of its 100,000 people on gov't aid.
Yeah, CT has extremely poor cities by national standards, but they're within counties with wealthy suburbs.
 
This map implies that poverty is mainly a rural problem, but of course the cities are pretty bad too.
 
You're right re the trend rhapsody. My bad.

According to that chart income support and unemployment amount to a little over 3% of income. That's not that much, IMO, especially considering that the numbers were taken during a recession.

Social Security and Medicare cost the most, but that increase only makes sense given the increasing number of old people in this country in relation to the population as a whole.
 
Back
Top Bottom