Quantcast

The GOP Is The Food Stamp Party

Wilde~MoonChild ™ 2012/11/13 20:14:45
Agree.  GOP~Food Stamp Party. Comment
Disagree. Comment
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos

It’s a well-known irony that states that tend to vote Republican—the party that constantly raves about the “makers” and trolls the “takers”—generally take in more tax money than they pay out.


The 10 highest tax-producing states have all been “blue states” over the last few presidential elections. Of the 10 lowest, eight are “red.” Even within states, Democratic-leaning counties tend to consume fewer services for the tax money they contribute than red counties do—even though Democratic areas generally include large urban populations.


While food stamp growth ballooned during the president’s first two years in office, from 2010-2011 it only increased by three percent as the recovery began to take hold.


Yet during the 2012 election, Newt Gingrich constantly referred to President Obama as “the food stamp president,” a term whistling with “welfare queen”-like racial overtones. Despite Gingrich’s racial connotations, the majority of Americans who use food stamps are white, and they increasingly live in Republican areas.


Bloomberg recently compiled U.S. Department of Agriculture data and found that, “70 percent of counties with the fastest growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.”


Democratic voters are increasingly supporting Republican voters. This is largely due to the lingering impact of the financial downturn, which has been exacerbated in red states and red counties with red policies. Republicans have been enacting austerity measures at state and local levels with unprecedented downsizing of public employees during the jobs crisis. Total governmental employment is down more than half a million since President Obama took office.


Many of these workers who lost their good government jobs are unemployed or forced to take wages so low that they still qualify for food stamps. In 2010, 41 percent of those who received food aid had jobs.


Blue states tend to take better care of the poor and also take steps to prevent poverty by spending more on education.


“By nearly every measure, people who live in the blue states are healthier, wealthier, and generally better off than people in the red states,” according to The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn.


Republican states not only benefit most from government support, their policies create the need for food stamps in the first place.

Read More: http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-gop-is-the-food-st...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • ruralntex 2014/02/13 16:51:43
    Undecided
    ruralntex
    Texas is a red state and we always pay more in taxes than we get back from the federal government
  • Beccy 2012/11/17 20:41:55
    Undecided
    Beccy
    +1
    Let me tell you. I am a social worker and the richer the family is the more they demand for their member who needs services.
  • Maria R 2012/11/15 03:54:47
    Disagree. Comment
    Maria R
    Try the facts. 5 of the 10 states voted for Obama. Most of the federal spending is on defense and wages or Social Security and Medicare related programs.

    http://247wallst.com/2012/08/...
    States That Get The Most Federal Money Posted: August 3, 2012 at 11:45 am
    In 2010, the federal government took the hundreds of billions of dollars it received in corporate, income and property taxes from each state and respent that money — and then some — on programs in each state. A review of federal data indicates that some states, considering their size and the taxes they paid, received a disproportionate amount of funding relative to the amount they put in each year.
    The states that receive the most money from the federal government each year are, generally, the most populous ones. In 2010, eight of the 10 states with the highest population received the most. California, the most populous state in the country, receives the largest share — more than a third of a trillion dollars. However, when accounting for population and the amount states pay in federal taxes, the breakdown looks very different.
    The states that received the most money from the federal government were identified using the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds report, which b...













    Try the facts. 5 of the 10 states voted for Obama. Most of the federal spending is on defense and wages or Social Security and Medicare related programs.

    http://247wallst.com/2012/08/...
    States That Get The Most Federal Money Posted: August 3, 2012 at 11:45 am
    In 2010, the federal government took the hundreds of billions of dollars it received in corporate, income and property taxes from each state and respent that money — and then some — on programs in each state. A review of federal data indicates that some states, considering their size and the taxes they paid, received a disproportionate amount of funding relative to the amount they put in each year.
    The states that receive the most money from the federal government each year are, generally, the most populous ones. In 2010, eight of the 10 states with the highest population received the most. California, the most populous state in the country, receives the largest share — more than a third of a trillion dollars. However, when accounting for population and the amount states pay in federal taxes, the breakdown looks very different.
    The states that received the most money from the federal government were identified using the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds report, which breaks out how much the federal government spent on various programs, grants and public employee salaries by state. We relied on data from the Internal Revenue Service to calculate the amount that states pay in income tax to the federal government. Based on these reports, 24/7 Wall St. identified the 10 states that received the most money from the federal government, relative to how much they paid in income tax.
    Some states, including Alaska and Virginia, received more than $15,000 per person from the federal government, even after subtracting the billions the state spent on income tax. This figure is nearly two-and-a-half times the amount received per person after taxes in states like Nevada, one of the poorest states in the country.
    It would be expected that states that receive more money from the federal government are in greater need. However, most of the 10 states with the highest federal spending per capita had a higher median household income than the United States average. In fact, the first-, third-, fourth- and fifth-wealthiest by this measure all received the most money from the government. Because of their wealth, these states spent the most per capita in income tax, but it is negligible compared to the vast amounts they received.
    A review of the data shows that some very large programs, including defense spending, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and farm subsidies, had major effects on how much money each state received, to the extent that individuals get far more per person than in other states. In some cases, it was several programs that affected the total amount the government spent on the state per capita, but in others, it may have been just one program.
    Often that program was defense spending. States like Virginia, Alaska, Maryland and New Mexico received the most money per capita in federal procurement spending, which includes things like Medicaid and NASA, but the majority of which goes to the Department of Defense. To give an idea of the amount of money the federal government poured into military bases and research centers in these states, the government spent approximately $7,300 per person on all programs in Nevada. It also spent approximately $5,000 per person on defense spending alone in Virginia.
    10 North Dakota--What is unusual is the large amount of money that North Dakota farmers received from the federal government — the state ranked second in agricultural assistance in the nation,
    9. Connecticutt--Connecticut received almost 50% more government funding per capita than the national average. In 2010, Connecticut was awarded $11.1 billion in military procurement contracts, giving the state the fourth-highest per capita federal defense expenditure — $3,351.88. The Constitution State ranked first for the amount of spending for direct payments other than retirement and disability on a per capita basis. A significant chunk of this amount — almost 60% — was spent solely on medical prescription drug coverage
    8. West Virginia--- A large portion of federal spending in West Virginia, almost 16%, was for Medicare benefits, slightly more than the national rate of 15.6%. West Virginia ranked first in the country for the percentage of people using this benefit at nearly 20%. West Virginians also received more federal spending per capita on retirement and disability benefits — which includes Social Security payments, federal retirement and disability benefits, and veterans benefits
    7.Alabama--- Alabama comes in second for the amount of spending per capita — $3,761 — on retirement and disability. The Cotton State also ranks seventh for procurement spending per capita, 78% of which was defense spending, and large parts of which also included the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. Most of this procurement spending falls under the section of Department of Defense spending
    6. Kentucky--- The federal government gave Kentucky more than $7,000 per person on direct payments, which included retirement and disability benefits, unemployment benefits and student assistance — all large programs. Medicare benefits accounted for nearly 57% of such payments.
    5. New Mexico-- New Mexico received the third-highest procurement spending per capita in the U.S. at $3,641.68. A significant component of this spending was under the category of non-defense agency spending for the Department of Energy. New Mexico received more federal funding from the Department of Energy than any other state, with an amount of $4.8 billion. This is due to the three nuclear weapons facilities located within the state. New Mexico also ranks seventh for the grant expenditures it received per capita. More than 60% of these grants were from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some 22.53% of the population was on Medicaid
    4.--Hawaii--- The Hawaiian Islands have 11 military bases,contributing to the country’s highest per capita federal expenditure from the Department of Defense in 2010. Along with a large number of military personnel on the government payroll, Hawaii also had the highest federal salaries and wages.
    3. Maryland-- Maryland had the fifth-highest federal spending per capita from the Defense Department — the state has 11 military bases. In addition, the state received more spending per capita in nonmilitary programs than any other.
    2. Virginia--- Virginia received more than $136 billion in federal funds in 2010. This state received more than 12% of the total Department of Defense procurement spending — the second-highest proportion in the country, behind California. The state received the highest per capita procurement funding and the third-highest per capita federal expenditures for salaries and wages.
    1. Alaska---No state in the U.S. received more money per person from the federal government than Alaska. One contributing factor is that the state had the second-highest figure for defense spending in 2010, at $7,337.59 per capita. The federal government also allocated a great deal toward wages and salaries
    (more)
  • john 2012/11/15 01:48:13
    Disagree. Comment
    john
    GOP hands out the food stamps the liberals spend them
  • joseph ... john 2012/11/15 21:35:51
  • g_byst joseph ... 2012/11/18 22:01:24
    g_byst
    The south has a much higher percentage of minorities. If you truly want to dig into this issue, it gets racial and ugly quickly. We have to recognize that our minorities make up a majority of the poor.
    There are plenty of poor whites as well, but a smaller number by population. This is all beside the point though. Food stamps are a highly regulated charity paid for with taxes. I personally believe it is inefficient and should be replaced by support of church operations that accomplish the same mission, but also serve the specific needs of the individuals.
  • joseph ... g_byst 2012/11/19 13:40:11
  • g_byst joseph ... 2012/11/20 21:22:33
    g_byst
    Yes, they can. We can. We can and we are ready. In fact, not only can we, but we are already doing it. You can always find an example of someone whining about how the burden is too great and offers that the government should step in with other people's money and do their work, but they are wrong. If they don't think they can help the poor, then they should go run their own lives and let others step up and take their place.
    You can throw wild figures like %10 of the population or suggest feigned outrage about some political ideology, but the truth is far more simple and obvious. God calls upon all His people to help each other and those that listen will.
    As for government, they will never replace us or our commandment to help each other. You may prefer to think that by paying taxes, your responsibility is being taken care of by some government beaurocrat, but it is not. They spend most of your taxes on themselves, then of what is left, they are very inefficient and rarely address the core issues the needy person has. God's people will, and they will be rewarded in spiritual ways for doing so. They don't need the government. We don't need the government.
    The government should stick to defending the country and negotiating treaties and international trade agreements. Let us be free and expose the true greatness of a free country.
  • joseph ... g_byst 2012/11/21 02:44:38
  • g_byst joseph ... 2012/11/21 17:15:21
    g_byst
    First of all, you are wrong. My local church has a massive support system that operates on a much larger budget than a mere $50k. Second, even the small churches have manpower that is worth more than that if you were to count their free work as if they were a government worker making an average wage, offered benefits and earning a pension.
    So don't aim so low. We can do far more help for the poor than a mere 50ks worth.
    More importantly, the money spent was all donated by like minded believers. No law was required or jail threatened for these people to help the poor. No tax was collected, no fines assessed, no bailout voted upon. These good people do good without having to be hired or being threatened with being fired. They are just good.
    In fact, I have volunteered to take our donations of food to a local distribution point so that others will be able to pass them out. I spent my own time and gas and was genuinely happy to do so. I expect no payment nor adoration. I know my reward is in the eyes of the needy as they eat a decent meal they had no hand in making, but will allow them to carry on another day as they struggle to help themselves out of poverty and encourage those around them.
    What have you done?
  • joseph ... g_byst 2012/11/21 19:09:46
  • g_byst joseph ... 2012/11/26 16:29:11
    g_byst
    Budgets will reduce, programs will be cut, SNAP will snap. There is no getting around the fact that the government you are counting so much on is wasteful and cannot stand under it's own weight of debt. I am not exaggerating what Churches can do. If anything, I am underestimating. Churches have been losing membership as atheism grows in the US and yet, those that remain are still capable of taking care of the poor far more than any government agency can imagine. I've seen it. I participated in it. It is very uplifting to be a part of such a great organization. You need to get to a Church and see for yourself.
    You need to come to the realization that Christ has more power in his little finger than the government can muster with every bone in its body.
  • joseph ... g_byst 2012/11/26 17:21:58
  • g_byst joseph ... 2012/11/27 20:43:44
    g_byst
    I will and often do, and I find a receptive audience in the most odd places. You can push me away, but you will soon find yourself surrounded by self-deluding fools that have no answers for you. Seek the truth in what I say and you will be enriched by it and your eyes will be opened.
  • joseph ... g_byst 2012/11/27 21:29:42
  • g_byst joseph ... 2012/11/29 21:05:44
    g_byst
    There is no "hike" to take. My goal is not yours. Don't you understand that God is calling for ALL his children, not just me and certainly not just you. You are simply begging the question. I am simply answering my new-found understanding. There is nothing more fulfilling than to see someone come to the truth for the first time, knowing that nothing will be the same again.
    I was once like you. You nor anyone else could tell me anything because I knew exactly what I believed and why. There was no personal God for me then. He was "a lack of understanding" to me. God may or may not have existed, I thought, but science would eventually discover how all these "miracles" actually happen.
    I was wide open to new ideas and yet completely empty inside. Morality was whatever I made it to be and no one "had the right" to tell me otherwise. If it wasn't logical, I dismissed it out-of-hand.
    Well, let me tell you one thing, there was never a more logical conclusion to come to than when I accepted Christ's grace and God's Love. More tomorrow....
  • joseph ... g_byst 2012/11/29 21:28:13
  • g_byst joseph ... 2012/11/30 21:11:35
    g_byst
    Thank you for the link.
    It was logic that brought me to Christ. Logic and faith.
    When I was young, I assumed that God was too convenient and man was too gullible. Given the nature of man, it would be easy to "manufacture" a belief system to support the values of the powerful or control the masses. It all seemed to make sense ... until I delved into the logic of it all.
    My father, being a scientist, commanded my attention to answer the core of my faith that God may not exist with the scientific process. My youth was spent studying religions and cults. I was looking for evidence of man creating God. I found it. I found it so many times it was hard to deny that most of the faiths of the world were man-made. I also found many claims that were simply coincidental, one-time events touted as miracles. This all supported my belief that God may not exist at all. My doubts grew. My faith waivered. I decided to live without God. I dared to deny Him.
    More Sunday ... stay tuned!
  • joseph ... g_byst 2012/12/01 08:37:48
  • g_byst joseph ... 2012/12/02 04:35:20
    g_byst
    I cannot wait until Sunday. Hearing back from you just reminds me of myself. If I could do anything right now, I would save myself the hell I went through searching for the truth when the answers were right in front of me the entire time.
    When I had nothing, no argument, not a clue, I could still try to diminish the messenger. I hurt a lot of people that were trying to help me, but I didn't care. I just didn't want to be reminded of my shortcomings nor the fact that no matter what I believed, I was still responsible for my decisions. They would haunt me if I chose poorly or be the catylist of great triumph should I choose well. I may not have known how I could reason morality or providing for others without God, but I didn't need them reminding me of that.
    In retrospect, of course, I did. I needed it more than anything else. I was lost in a disjointed logic that could not connect me to what I wanted to believe. At best, if I ignored the all the inconvenient evidence to the contrary, I could put my personal values in place of humanities and assume everyone else had similar values or would if they thought about it as much as I had.
    Oh what a fool I was. If only there were a rehab for fools that I could have gone to. Then it dawned on me, there was one! A Church!
    More to follow ...
  • joseph ... g_byst 2012/12/03 03:23:37
  • Wilde~M... john 2012/11/21 02:37:41 (edited)
    Wilde~MoonChild ™
    +1
    Not even close
  • Whips 2012/11/14 22:18:46
    Agree. GOP~Food Stamp Party. Comment
    Whips
    +2
    Repubs want it all and they refuse to share with anyone else. Greedy Hypocrites! No wonder they lost by a land slide!
  • Semper Fi 2012/11/14 17:56:56
    Undecided
    Semper Fi
    How about we just abolish the GOP? Wipe it off the face of the earth.. Put an end to it once and for all.. Why even have a two-party democracy?
  • BobbyOu... Semper Fi 2012/11/14 20:08:35
    BobbyOuroboros
    +3
    I kind of like the old GOP before it was taken over by a bunch of religious fanatics and tea-partyers
  • joseph ... Semper Fi 2012/11/15 21:33:28
  • Semper Fi joseph ... 2012/11/16 14:40:50
    Semper Fi
    Ha! Ha! I am not a Republican.
  • joseph ... Semper Fi 2012/11/16 15:00:19
  • Semper Fi joseph ... 2012/11/16 15:07:27
    Semper Fi
    So anyone right of center is a Republican, eh? I see. Now go piss up a rope.
  • joseph ... Semper Fi 2012/11/16 21:02:42
  • marcuss LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS 2012/11/14 17:52:59
    Disagree. Comment
    marcuss LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS
    +1
    Just look at the county voter outcome maps to get your answer. The blue counties in the country have the higher welfare recipients that is fact. The maps from this past election is also proof. Seems you LWNJs need to work more to provide for the lazy non working people. Get off your asses and get to work.
  • JP 2012/11/14 15:06:57
    Disagree. Comment
    JP
    +2
    I think that we should use affirmative action to evenly distribute federal jobs and welfare benefits according to our most recent census data. Then the evil racist white people that voted against Obama would only get roughly 72% of public employment and 72% of the public benefits and would be required to pay 72% of the tax burden.

    That'll show em!
  • Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2012/11/14 15:00:00
  • Popeye 2012/11/14 14:18:17
  • Wilde~M... Popeye 2012/11/14 16:55:40
    Wilde~MoonChild ™
    +1
    I don't see how an article can assume anything... It would have to state it, wouldn't it? I dont know maybe you see something I don't. If there's something I'm missing I'd like to hear it.
  • Popeye Wilde~M... 2012/11/14 22:06:39
  • Wahvlvke 2012/11/14 13:53:09
    Disagree. Comment
    Wahvlvke
    I had one grunch but the eggplant over there.
  • Lt. Fred 2012/11/14 12:11:14
    Agree. GOP~Food Stamp Party. Comment
    Lt. Fred
    +2
    The median African-American uses less welfare than the median white, because they're younger. Racists take note.
  • Andrew 2012/11/14 10:22:46
    Disagree. Comment
    Andrew
    +8
    First, the taxes paid in the 10 highest tax paying states! Were those taxes paid by Republicans or Democrats? The poster suggests that since those states voted "blue" that all the tax money came from Democrats? That is absurd!

    Second, food stamps are received by Whites, balcks, hispanics, indigeonous people and so how could that statement possibly be construed as "racist"? Only in the mind of a race baiter!

    Laslt, unless you know the political persuasion of all those who received food stamps, you cannot call the GOP the "food stamp" party.

    Barack Obama was called by Gingrich the "food stamp President" because under his watch, food stamp distribution ballooned by almost fifty percent. That is a fact regardless of who receives them or their political persuasion! However, this spin is typical of the convoluted thinking of Barry's apologists!!
  • Tpem 2012/11/14 07:48:54 (edited)
    Disagree. Comment
    Tpem
    +3
    That is like saying the Democrat party is the murder, rape, car theft, armed robbery states since more of that happens in the states/cities that Obama carried than in red states.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/03 00:27:09

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals