"It's a fact there are more welfare recipients that are registered Democrat, than Republican."

Love to see where you gathered up that "fact"...and I'm guessing it doesn't include the trillions in corporate and farm welfare, which probably almost all goes to Republicans, and likely costs many factors of ten more than what goes to single moms and poor kids...

Let's see your citation for your "fact"...I think you might find that the "blue" states pay far more into the welfare system, and that the "red" states receive far more than they pay in...which, not surprisingly, is exactly the opposite of your "fact"...

Fish on...

Todd

I dont have a citation for it, doubtful you have one that would say otherwise.

I shouldn't have used the word fact since I base it on my personal knowledge and observations of knowing plenty of welfare recipients. Growing up in East Oakland, working in foster care and group home systems and having about 10-12 family members that are on some sort of public assistance and have been for quite some time.

I apologize, I was out of line

I would love to say the Dems are all good and the GOP is all bad, but I cant. I am not being Centrist, I am just making the ugly observation of checks and balances on both sides... at least for the things I love about my country.

I just think throwing obese, mid west, christian and other conditions under the bus as "the root of the problems in this country is far too acceptable... and I am none of these... but if it was skinny, far east, Hindu getting tossed around, there would be a candle light vigil.

I find it super interesting how everyone says the "wealthy" folks vote their pocketbooks and support the GOP, yet the 20 wealthiest people I know (Microsoft, local) are all staunchly in favor not only of Obama but most of his agenda...

So it's not as simple as voting your pocketbook. It seems that how you grew up matters a lot too -- as most of these folks made their money this generation, not trust/inheritance?

I'm citing Goode's World Atlas by Rand McNally.

What's your source?

Since you didn't do your homework you receive an F for FAIL.

Poverty, '08:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/The...en&-_sse=on

Red states, '08:
http://2008election.procon.org/files/electionimages/map3.jpg

Democrats tend to favor social welfare which provides a minimal stipend to poor moms with kids.

Republicans tend to favor corporate welfare which goes to already rich businessmen and agribusinesses.

I capitualate: Republicans must be smarter. They get the bigger welfare checks.

Sg

http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/red-state-blue-state-welfare-state-subsidizing-state/

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_E/threadview?m=tm&bn=24619&tid=1856042&mid=1856042&tof=8&frt=2

http://www.topalli.com/blue/

The "Blue" states have been subsidizing the "Red" states for damn near forever...we here in Washington are picking up the tab for the fat, uneducated, divorce loving, right wing religious zealots all over the country...

Fish on...

Todd

http://americanreality.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/red-states-are-welfare-states/

"So, the next time all you angry right-wing ideologs start railing against what you perceive to be Obama’s socialist agenda, please remember that it is you who are largely dependent on it. It is you who collect the majority of the money that is paid out through the entitlement system you are crazy enough to want to destroy. It is you whose wages are so repressed by the corporate masters whose asses you kiss on a daily basis that could not survive without the kindness of the liberal elites who reside in the donor states. Ironically, the welfare states of this nation are its red ones."

Takes five minutes on Google...maybe four.

Fish on...

Todd

If the red states seceded, they'd be members of the Third World overnight...and junior members, at that.

Fish on...

Todd

KK-

To a point, I have to agree, however, there are redneck Taliban types under rocks wherever you tread, but in varying degrees, depending on the secular educational opportunities afforded that particular nation.

The American South has a third-world agrarian based society, long held in place by it's ruling elite-- the large land owners (former plantation owners), which is the essential model of government desired by the rest of America's economic elite.

The features of this model include having only the most basic public education system allowed by law, a retrograde tax system, a weak middle class, and a deeply entrenched socio-economic and educational disparity between the wealthy and the dirt-poor. It's the exact definition of Oligarchy and almost feudal in it's structure.

Other prime examples of this class structure are found in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, but particularly Mexico, where over 90% of the national infrastructure is owned by twelve families. Through this control, they can have the government by the short & curlies, in that with the flick of a pen or switch, can cripple the national economy and so force any wage or working condition, tariff or trade decision, or subsidy they so desire.

Where you see the Taliban types are usually in these countries where the ruling elite is so distanced from the populace that these local laws don't apply to them because of their power. Such as in Saudi Arabia where the wealthy send their children abroad to the world's best colleges and academies, while Achmed Q. Camelfukker, (or alternately, Billy Lee Wifebeater) is lucky to be taught "righty-tighty, lefty-loosey," and so grows up to be a reactionary fukwit that believes anything they're told, especially if it comes in a handsome, leather bound book with gold leaf lettering on the cover, or from the nearest bunny-eared idiotbox, blaring the mantras of the elite's power structure such as FOX or Al-Jazeera.

Comparing FOX to Al-Jazeera is a pretty big stetch for me, but I guess that is just my point of view.

I don't recall that Al-Jazeera has gone to court and argued...and won...on the contention that its right to free speech protects its ability to not tell the truth in its "reporting", as FauxNews has done.



"“The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: spj.org).

A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.

http://www.civilianism.com/gate/2009/06/fox-news-gets-court-ok-to-lie/

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station’s pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was “a false, distorted, or slanted” story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre’s claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict."

Fish on...

Todd

The right wing whack job response, as usual, will be to avoid the fact that Fox admits it lies in its coverage, and knows it, by the usual technique of claiming that everyone does it, so it must be OK...

Fish on...

Todd

I think the Righties are behind this REVO craze, too

I reel my Revos with my right hand...but not because I saw how to on Fox

Fish on...

Todd

The correlation between red state and poverty is also relative to two major components of our economy, ports and industry. Of course states with little industry and low populations are hitting poverty levels and coastal states and those with sufficient industry are going to be where the educated are going to work, where economic crisis will hit the least.

You really cant blame these states for falling short when so much of Americas manufacturing and other industries that brought stability to these regions has been moved to foreign lands. One of the reasons for red states turning blue in the last presidential election was based on Obamas sermon on NAFTA reform and bringing manufacturing back to the US.

Look at the numbers of welfare recipients in some of the blue states compared to red and the percentage of change http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/25/us/20090126-welfare-table.html

Percent of households with cash public assistance income -
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per...sistance-income

You can point your finger at the obese wal-mart crowd all you want but there are plenty of hipster douche-bags sucking off the government too.

The very people that those poor red staters vote for are the ones responsible for their poor economic well-being, leading to them being the leading suckers of the government teat...if they'd stop voting for people who screw them every time, they'd probably have a better chance of digging themselves out.

Fish on...

Todd

...'course, they're "leaders" like to tell them it's always someone else's fault...the liberal elite, those brown folks from south of the border, Islamo-fascists, and environmentalists...and since they're not only poor and unhealthy, but uneducated, too, they like hearing that it's always someone else's fault...and continue to vote in those who are actually at fault.

They're like quail voting for bird dogs.

Fish on...

Todd

I agree,

It works both ways, there are plenty of sellouts on both sides, be it the liberal guise of foreign relations and human rights or the conservative platform of ethics and morality. They are both selling out the US for monetary gains, they merely offer up what reasoning makes you feel better about it.

Politicians are doing the exact thing the American voter needs to do, play the parties against themselves to achieve what the is best for the common citizen, and stop with the assumption that one party is going to lead them to the promise land.

Does anyone else find it a bit strange that when the patience of the American people is hitting its limit in regards to the current economic climate, they offer up some sort of distraction?

Hey look over there, gay marriage!

Oh look over here, gays in the military!

While people busy themselves with the red / blue fight, the campaign promises continue to lapse, the economy continues to fall.

Keeping people desperate and distracted by political scrimmages is the best way for government to retain control over the masses instead of vise versa.

Have to agree.

We have much bigger issues facing this country right now than gay rights.

Namely, ending outsourcing to re-establish our shattered manufacturing base.

...not to mention offshoring that deprives the Treasury of far more money than any retarded social program that the parties are usually wrangling over...

Fish on...

Todd