Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
From a report filed on Fox Business on 3 August 2012 "States That Get The Most Federal Money" available here.
More generally, "Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In" according to a piece published in the on line version of Mother Jones available here.
And has anyone else noticed how closely maps of poverty in America match political maps--that is, red states have a lot of persistently poor people << LINK>> and << LINK2>> compared to <<LINK3>>?
So maybe before encouraging state governments to thumb their noses at .GOV --and risk a political realignment of historic proportions in 2016 (if not 2014)-- perhaps Americans who oppose more gun control could tell their elected representatives what they will support to help reduce violence against children in America rather than simply saying "no." |
Sigaba:
I am somewhat surprised at your post. In the past, my perception has been that you generally are not supportive of cherry picking" quotes, factoids etc. Your post prompted me to look at the recent census data.
I suspect the information about Alaska and the Red states is correct.
According to the US Census data, 23-25% of Alaska's population is native American. Native Americans receive a fair amount of money from the USG in a variety of forms, cash, tax breaks, cash for each child and tribal member. Between fishing and hunting rights, education medical, these "benefits add up to a fair amount of money. Is the the money given to the tribes part of the quoted statistics? I suspect you will discover that a majority "Native American Reservations" happen to be in Red states. I would be shocked to discover that any poitical party or fiction writer for an activist publication would present such figures for any reason other than push their own agenda. The Fed transfer a lot of money to Native Americans (in wash state, the Fed transfers about $2K per month per child for every child) but, as you know they can make it look like whatever they want through the miracles of creative accounting
Bringing children into while relevant in some aspects is simply an emotional ploy. Right now, Jan. 2013 the public debt is around 16.5 trillion with expectations of a trillion more each year for the next four years. The "Fair Share portion" of that debt for all the children 18 and under is approx. $250K. What will be the impact in terms of intended and un-intended consequences? Will quality healthcare decrease, will there be fewer Cops on the streets? These things are too numerous to count but, the impact on those 18 and younger may be substantial. Will more of them die because medical care is more scarce? Fewer firefighters & EMT's Will there be an upsurge in highway deaths because fewer Cops? You get the picture. The tragedies will not be covered by the Pols or MSM because they cant stir up the folks and get more votes or sell more stuff. I will guess that many more of the children (18 yo and younger) will die, and lead lives with fewer opportunities, more illness, taxes less freedom because of these budget machinations. The Pols, the leftists and the MSM will not cover any of these consequences because, that would be inconvienent.Or maybe, the Red States are full of uneducated Rubes that need the Left to "Convert them" much the same way those Europeans did to all those simple native populations during the Colonization period!
Noslack