Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.
Juan_Bottom wrote:This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.
Because the federal government sets arbitrary lines of what is poverty, among other things. A person in nearly all of the conservative/red states can get by on less than $30,000 per year, while that money probably can't even pay rent in a micro-apartment in many liberal areas. Yet both people would be labeled as being just above poverty in both areas because of the federal government's one-size-fits-all policies.
It would be really nice if you actually did a bit of investigating before throwing out such claims.
According to you any big city is "liberal" and rural areas are not, but the truth is very, very different. And... as Woodruff says, poverty is very real. Its also quite real where I live now, all over northwestern PA. AND.... it was real out in CA, and in several other states where I have lived. About the only place where you could honestly say only deadbeats went hungry was in Alaska.. and that was not in Anchorage or Fairbanks, either. Out in the small towns, you could still fish, collect berries, etc, etc, etc. Here, even living right on the woods, even being a skilled hunter (NOT me, of course
), its not all that easy... the fish are full of toxins, geese and ducks require special stamps and gear. Berries are getting bulldozed by gas drillers....
About 80% of our elementary school kids are eligible for reduced or free school lunches, but most of those have at least one parent who works at least part-time.