It's not even a contest here. Hands-down red-state economies are far more dependent on funding from the federal government than blue states. People in red states enjoy greater returns on their federal-income tax — and that federal funds make up a greater portion of their state's revenue.
So when Trump supporters rail and cry about people receiving public assistance, they're referring to their own populations, whether they're aware of it or not.
With their many governmental demands, I will say Republicans are the more Government Dependent Americans.
Farmers vote R, but they cannot even keep their farms operating without subsidies.
Military people vote R, but they cannot even eat without government feeding them.
Defense industry types vote R, but they cannot even stay in business without big fat government contracts.
Anti-gays vote R, but they cannot block gays without government putting up obstacles for them.
Slam dunk, IMO.
Anti-abortionists vote R, but they cannot get their laws to ban abortions without government.
Who is Really Government Dependent?
Our observation: The less-than-500 counties that Hillary Clinton carried nationwide encompassed a massive 64 percent of America’s economic activity as measured by total output in 2015. By contrast, the more-than-2,600 counties that Donald Trump won generated just 36 percent of the country’s output—just a little more than one-third of the nation’s economic activity.
Hmmm, I wonder when liberals will grow some balls then, and support ending social welfare programs then, hmm?
OK, so which political party should be called "the party of the rich"?
As far as leadership is concerned both parties are the party of the rich. As for constituents Republicans generally support policy which favors the wealthy and Democrats generally support policy which favors everyone else.
Hmmm, I wonder when liberals will grow some balls then, and support ending social welfare programs then, hmm?
Hmmm, I wonder when liberals will grow some balls then, and support ending social welfare programs then, hmm?
In the 2006 midterm election, seniors split their vote evenly between House Democrats and Republicans. This time [2010], they went for Republicans by a twenty-one-point margin. The impact of that swing was magnified by the fact that seniors, always pretty reliable midterm voters, were particularly fired up: nearly a quarter of the votes cast were from people over sixty-five. The election has been termed the “revolt of the middle class.” But it might more accurately be called the revolt of the retired.
The real sticking point was health-care reform, which the elderly didn’t like from the start. . . Misinformation about “death panels” and so on had something to do with seniors’ hostility. But the real reason is that it feels to them as if health-care reform will come at their expense, since the new law will slow the growth in Medicare spending over the next decade. It won’t actually cut current spending, as Republicans claimed in campaign ads, but between now and 2019 total Medicare outlays will be half a trillion dollars less than previously projected. Never mind that this number includes cost savings from more efficient care, or that the bill has a host of provisions that benefit seniors—most notably the closing of the infamous drug-benefit “doughnut hole,” which had left people responsible for thousands of dollars in prescription-drug costs. The idea that the government might try to restrain Medicare spending was enough to turn seniors against the bill.
OK, so which political party should be called "the party of the rich"?
Keep kidding yourself. Income inequality - the official boogie man that demorats claim to want to slay is alive and well in both blue and red states.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/us-states-with-the-highest-levels-of-income-inequality.html
What am I kidding myself about exactly? Yes, income inequality exists on a state as well as county level. What is your point?
States are free to enact income redistribution programs and to have very progressive income taxation rates.
Like what exactly?
All of the big ticket items that deeply effect economics are controlled at the federal level: Income tax, corporate income tax, estate tax, SS, Medicare, Medicaid.
Of those which you listed I pay only Medicare premiums. I also pay state sales tax and, indirectly (via rent), property/school taxes.
You can pay zero at the state level and it still isn't a game changer. To tackle income inequality will require a massive change in wealth distribution from the federal government.
The federal "safety net" programs already account for 19% of federal spending and nearly double that if you add in PPACA subsidies and Medicaid spending. What "massive change in wealth distribution" do you propose be made?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?