Economically, Why Are Red States So Far Behind?

The wealthiest countries have impressive social programs, high taxes and large governments. Qatar, Luxembourg, Norway, Brunei and Hong Kong all have strong government control.

 

The problem with American capitalist dogma, is that there is an assumption that poverty is unwanted. In a truly capitalist society, poverty is necessary. Assuming that society isn't full of jerks, social programs are needed to to care for these economically deprived people. Consequently, a successful capitalist society must have social programs. Trying to end social programs ruins the capitalist system because of the false belief that a necessary part of society can be eliminated. The richest countries have social capitalist systems that strike a healthy balance between socialism and capitalism -- a fact hat disturbs American capitalistas.

 

All but Hong Kong are basically monarchies. Hong Kong is not even its own country

 

Our gdp dwarfs all those countries combined.

You wanna try again?

 

The anti-communitarian, anti-American cult thrives on airy-fairy ideological dogma. They snivel at the proven, pragmatic example provided by all the most successful nations on the planet, preferring to pleasure themselves with their pubescent pipe-dream, Aynrandistan.

Fiction affords escape, but when the author of their potboiler pulp scripture came up against stark reality, she was quick to grab for her Medicare and Social Security benefits - for whom she could thank FDR, LBJ and the decent American people.

 

No need.

I'm going by gross domestic product (GDP) based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita.

 

Good point.

 

Can you provide evidence of your post. Doing away with social programs will
strengthen capitalism by the fact that more people will be working instead of
sitting on their haunches receiving their 'government funded poverty" money.

Ending social programs will instill the need to help one another instead of
saying the government will take care of it, which it shouldn't.

 

I fixed it for you.

Now it describes the left wing socialist crowd to a Tee.

 

This is a crock of revisionist history. fdr virtually destroyed the advancement of
the US with his policies. Nothing he did worked. The only time unemployment
dropped was when the Republican held House and Senate made him cut
spending in 1938. The next year unemployment shot back to 19% because
he managed to get his policies and spending back. Late 1938 he did what
no other president has ever done. He created a depression in a depression.
Had it not been for WWII and his death there's no telling how bad the US
would have become. fdr was a horrible president.

Eisenhower was a joke and allowed the economy to continue it's downhill
trend. JFK had the sense to cut personal income taxes to 70% which led to
an economic boom until lbj wasted it on his totally unnecessary social failure.

 

I don't think he's been to Mississippi lately; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kI_rAFuKA

 

Does that include ending social programs for the rich as well; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb0UNRl-paQ?

 

oi oi oi. This is all rehash.

1. Correlation does not equal causation.
2. "increased unemployment" is a GOP tenet? Get real. Neither is "lower wagers for working Americans". That's gross hyper-partisan bs, or just an exteneded failure to understand the other side.

The author of the article clearly doesn't understand a lick of how economies or politics work. Congress writes all the laws - if you're even going to try to match economic shifts with politics, match it with who controls Congress.

Probably because economic measures like gdp/capita change slowly. People often cite Sweden as proof that socialism is good for the economy, of course forgetting that earlier in the 20th century it was actually far better off economically and was (at more than one point) #1 (measured in GDP per capita). In the 1930s, for example, it was recognized as having the world's highest standard of living, and was the first country to come out of the depression. That great wealth doesn't just evaporate overnight when a country shifts to socialism (a shift itself which isn't overnight), but Sweden certainly has fallen a few notches down since it did.

pfft, the experts say this - but let's ignore the experts!


This article is just more amateur "analysis", which is the correlation=causation crud.

 

I counter by stating that Social-Marxism is just another form of slavery no different than what Democrats and their plantations. Of course like Russia all wealth was centralized, while the people were forced to live in horrible conditions and fear. This is your idea of utopia 1984 style.

 

Many of those great European social welfare states are broke. Look at Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy and now France. Europe have been warning us not to go down the same road, but when did Liberals ever listen to anyone? We advanced under Roosevelt and Ike because our factories were about the only ones around. Most of Europe's and Asia were destroyed.


Europe Is Warning Us
Socialist promises of an equality of result are imploding before Europeans’ eyes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269146/europe-warning-us-victor-davis-hanson

 

Of course it would. Do you have a problem with that?

 

Oh, I don't doubt it. The same clowns also blame heavy welfare use in the south on minorities, but it doesn't explain a state like Kentucky which has very few minorities, and yet there's heavy welfare use. They don't want to accept the reality that conservatism is an absolute failure, so minorities are an easy scapegoat.

 

The US didn't advance under fdr. He practically ruined the US. WWII and his
death were the best things to happen during his reign of disaster.

 

How many Blue States have balanced budgets? How many Red States have cities like Detroit filling bankruptcy? How many Red States vs Blue States are bankrupt or in massive debt?

I think the OP's premise and the precious article is total (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Red states have the highest poverty rates and they take more federal tax dollars than they contribute.

Stop voting Republican.

 

Poorest state in the Union, but did you listen to the people? They were dirt poor, but they didn't want handouts. They were willing to work for what they have. Now lets look at what they said in rich state New York City. Were they willing to do the same thing? Then you have one there with 5 kids with 4 different women. Who do you think I look up to more?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arOGHY27JwI

 

See my post below yours. The blue states subsidize the red states. Remember that the next time you talk about the blue states being bankrupt, eh?

View attachment 29680

 

The reign of disaster started before Roosevelt ever got into office. I think a lot of Roosevelt. Millions of people are still benefitting today because of what he did. While some things he did might have slowed the recovery, no person with a heart could sit back and see what was happening to the American people and did nothing.

 

Yet Mississippi ranks second when it comes to taking more federal tax dollars than they contribute

 

So they are doing what Blue states do. Just keep running up debt, not worrying who is finally going to have to pay it off. Let not forget, some of those Blue states that are doing well, have Republican governors, even though the state voted Blue. Ohio is an example of that.