MAGA: Red State Socialism

Most agricultural welfare in the U.S. somehow lands up in blue states once the checks are sent from the government -- or so it appears. Something is fundamentally wrong with how government agriculture money is allocated and distributed.

Source?
 
Source?

Let's take a look at a few articles...

Farm Subsidies for Nonfarmers May Continue as Lawmakers Deadlock Again
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/u...may-continue-as-lawmakers-deadlock-again.html

"There are no farms in the city of Columbus, the capital of Ohio. Yet nearly 500 people living there received about $1.1 million in farm subsidies last year.

They had plenty of company.

Far from the nations fields of wheat and corn, more than 18,000 people who live in the 54 largest American cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Washington, received about $24 million in farm subsidies last year, according to a report to be released Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington research organization.

Known as direct payments, the subsidies are given each year to farmers and farmland owners whether they grow crops or not."


(Gee all I have to do is own land and NOT farm it and I can get crop subsidies while living in the city. What a deal. More at above url)

Billionaires Received U.S. Farm Subsidies, Report Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/billionaires-received-us-farm-subsidies-report-finds.html

The U.S. has few farmers. So why does Congress love farm subsidies?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ers-so-why-does-congress-love-farm-subsidies/

Of course if you want to dig into the raw data all you need to do is go to the farm subsidy database at EWG.
http://farm.ewg.org/
 
Once again, let's look at the truth about Blue and Red states...

The concept that 'red' states are the 'moochers' is absurd. Let's eliminate military base spending, farm subsidies, and other non-welfare federal spending from the accounting.

The red states do not really want the military bases that were forced on them. These bases take up large tracts of land that are useful for other economic purposes and require local money spent on policing & other services because they tend to be high crime / low income areas. Let's put a large military base in NYC or Boston - and bulldoze all the existing homes. The displaced residents can survive on the 80%+ of large farm subsidies that are sent to the owners of corporate farms who reside in blue states (but is seen as red state money for some reason).

Let's focus on federal welfare spending--defined here as childhood nutrition programs, food stamp programs, WIC benefits TANF benefits, and other similar benefits.

This article from USA Today "New Yorkers lead pack in government benefits" compiled data showing which states had the highest per capita expenditures for every type of government-provided benefit and blue states top the list and red states made up most of the bottom 10.

Top 10 - Most dependent on government aid
1 New York
2 West Virginia
3 Rhode Island
4 Maine
5 Pennsylvania
6 Massachusetts
7 Vermont
8 Kentucky
9 Michigan
10 Connecticut

Bottom 10 - Least dependent on government aid
41 South Dakota
42 Nebraska
43 Wyoming
44 Idaho
45 Georgia
46 Texas
47 Nevada
48 Virginia
49 Colorado
50 Utah
 
The concept that 'red' states are the 'moochers' is absurd. Let's eliminate military base spending, farm subsidies,
Why? Do tax payers suddenly not eat those costs? Is corporate welfare no longer welfare because we don't historically call it that?
 
Let's take a look at a few articles...

Farm Subsidies for Nonfarmers May Continue as Lawmakers Deadlock Again
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/u...may-continue-as-lawmakers-deadlock-again.html

"There are no farms in the city of Columbus, the capital of Ohio. Yet nearly 500 people living there received about $1.1 million in farm subsidies last year.

They had plenty of company.

Far from the nations fields of wheat and corn, more than 18,000 people who live in the 54 largest American cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Washington, received about $24 million in farm subsidies last year, according to a report to be released Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington research organization.

Known as direct payments, the subsidies are given each year to farmers and farmland owners whether they grow crops or not."


(Gee all I have to do is own land and NOT farm it and I can get crop subsidies while living in the city. What a deal. More at above url)

Billionaires Received U.S. Farm Subsidies, Report Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/billionaires-received-us-farm-subsidies-report-finds.html

The U.S. has few farmers. So why does Congress love farm subsidies?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ers-so-why-does-congress-love-farm-subsidies/

Of course if you want to dig into the raw data all you need to do is go to the farm subsidy database at EWG.
http://farm.ewg.org/

Lot of links for a source to a single claim that 'Most agricultural welfare in the U.S. somehow lands up in blue states'

Can you just quote that part from your series of links.
 
Once again, let's look at the truth about Blue and Red states...

The concept that 'red' states are the 'moochers' is absurd. Let's eliminate military base spending, farm subsidies, and other non-welfare federal spending from the accounting.

The red states do not really want the military bases that were forced on them. These bases take up large tracts of land that are useful for other economic purposes and require local money spent on policing & other services because they tend to be high crime / low income areas. Let's put a large military base in NYC or Boston - and bulldoze all the existing homes. The displaced residents can survive on the 80%+ of large farm subsidies that are sent to the owners of corporate farms who reside in blue states (but is seen as red state money for some reason).

Let's focus on federal welfare spending--defined here as childhood nutrition programs, food stamp programs, WIC benefits TANF benefits, and other similar benefits.

This article from USA Today "New Yorkers lead pack in government benefits" compiled data showing which states had the highest per capita expenditures for every type of government-provided benefit and blue states top the list and red states made up most of the bottom 10.

Top 10 - Most dependent on government aid
1 New York
2 West Virginia
3 Rhode Island
4 Maine
5 Pennsylvania
6 Massachusetts
7 Vermont
8 Kentucky
9 Michigan
10 Connecticut

Bottom 10 - Least dependent on government aid
41 South Dakota
42 Nebraska
43 Wyoming
44 Idaho
45 Georgia
46 Texas
47 Nevada
48 Virginia
49 Colorado
50 Utah

Something is wrong with that list when they miss California with its huge number of illegals sponging off various benefits including, free birth in hospitals with a brand new US baby citizen to boot? All come with a bow. Now, that illegal alien mother and her baby is able to claim welfare benefits, food stamps, housing, etc. All courtesy of US taxpayers. California should be at the top of the list too with tens of billions in deficits every single year. They get Federal aid, of course.
 
Lot of links for a source to a single claim that 'Most agricultural welfare in the U.S. somehow lands up in blue states'

Can you just quote that part from your series of links.

Why don't you go use the link where you can search all the data by name, zip code, and state, etc. if you want to crunch all the data for yourself.

Or you can go read all the articles that support the information I stated. You demanded a "Source" -- I gave you multiple sources.
 
Once again, let's look at the truth about Blue and Red states...

The concept that 'red' states are the 'moochers' is absurd. Let's eliminate military base spending, farm subsidies, and other non-welfare federal spending from the accounting.


So all of spending except for what? Medicare and Medicaid?

The red states do not really want the military bases that were forced on them.

That will be news to all the Republicans lobbying for military pork.
 
Why don't you go use the link where you can search all the data by name, zip code, and state, etc. if you want to crunch all the data for yourself.

Or you can go read all the articles that support the information I stated. You demanded a "Source" -- I gave you multiple sources.

You said 'MOST' which means more than 50% - none of your links backed up that claim, it's not my job to fact check any claim you pull out of thin air.
 
You said 'MOST' which means more than 50% - none of your links backed up that claim, it's not my job to fact check any claim you pull out of thin air.

Sounds like you don't want to go read. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink"

Let's choose a random zip code in the middle of New York City where there is no farmland -- let's say 10001
https://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?s=yup&stab=US&zip=10001&z=See+Recipients&searchstring=&stab=AL

Can you explain the $200 Million plus in farm subsidies provided in this zip code?

Let's move to NYC zip code 10002.
https://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?s=yup&stab=US&zip=10002&z=See+Recipients&searchstring=&stab=AL

Can you explain the $300 Million plus in farm subsidies provided in this zip code?

I hope you are seeing the pattern here.
 
Back
Top