Possible Election Fraud in Progress

[userque]

The USA Today article provided the FACTS.

Like I said, states with smaller populations will obviously use fewer benefits.

In order to compare states, you have to do it on a per capita basis.

This is logical.

Anyone reading this can judge for themselves.

But so far, you've provided no per capita data to refute the AP data.

You don't like it, but it is what it is. Blue states support Red states.

 

[gwb-trading]

Like I said, states with smaller populations will obviously use fewer benefits.

In order to compare states, you have to do it on a per capita basis.

This is logical.

Anyone reading this can judge for themselves.

But so far, you've provided no per capita data to refute the AP data.

You don't like it, but it is what it is. Blue states support Red states.

So explain to us -- why farm subsidies paid to people living in blue states somehow count as "welfare" for red states. An comparison should only include federal welfare spending--defined here as childhood nutrition programs, food stamp programs, WIC benefits, TANF benefits, and other similar benefits.

Trying to include farm subsidies, military spending, and other federal non-welfare spending as "welfare" is absurd --- and only is done in a political attempt to try to portray red states as "takers".

Let's explore farm subsidies a bit more as an example...

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/

Let's explore this farm subsidy database a bit...

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?

 

[userque]

So explain to us -- why farm subsidies paid to people living in blue states somehow count as "welfare" for red states. An comparison should only include federal welfare spending--defined here as childhood nutrition programs, food stamp programs, WIC benefits, TANF benefits, and other similar benefits.

Trying to include farm subsidies, military spending, and other federal non-welfare spending as "welfare" is absurd --- and only is done in a political attempt to try to portray red states as "takers".

Let's explore farm subsidies a bit more as an example...

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/

Let's explore this farm subsidy database a bit...

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?

The money/benefits paid to the states, come from the states. Farm subsidies included.

Blue states pay more than they take, per capita.

Red states pay less than they take, per capita.

It's that simple.

Whatever the Blue states get from the government, they paid into the government, plus they cover the Red state's shortfall.

It is what it is.

Those are the facts set forth in the AP piece.

If you have facts refuting this:

Blue states pay more than they take, per capita.

Red states pay less than they take, per capita.

I'd like to see them.

 

[exGOPer]

So you fully admit there are more welfare recipients in blue states than red states. Also the average money per recipient in blue states is greater than red states.

Take some time, learn the facts.

We can debate policy related to welfare -- only if there is reasonable agreement on the documented facts regarding it.

Percentages, do you understand?

Also I admitted nothing, I pointed out why this criteria is wrong.

 

[exGOPer]

So explain to us -- why farm subsidies paid to people living in blue states somehow count as "welfare" for red states. An comparison should only include federal welfare spending--defined here as childhood nutrition programs, food stamp programs, WIC benefits, TANF benefits, and other similar benefits.

Trying to include farm subsidies, military spending, and other federal non-welfare spending as "welfare" is absurd --- and only is done in a political attempt to try to portray red states as "takers".

Let's explore farm subsidies a bit more as an example...

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/

Let's explore this farm subsidy database a bit...

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?

Conservatives tend to be less educated and have shit jobs, that's why they are more on welfare, your rationalizations aren't needed.

 

[userque]

Conservatives tend to be less educated and have shit jobs, that's why they are more on welfare, your rationalizations aren't needed.

It is what it is.

 

[gwb-trading]

Conservatives tend to be less educated and have shit jobs, that's why they are more on welfare, your rationalizations aren't needed.

Good luck with your assertions --- let's look at the data.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/welfare-recipients-by-state


Raw numbers, percentages, etc. -- it's all at the above url.

 

[userque]

Good luck with your assertions --- let's look at the data.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/welfare-recipients-by-state


Raw numbers, percentages, etc. -- it's all at the above url.

Again, Blue states cover their welfare needs, AND they have to pay to support Red states.

Again, Blue states have a greater population than Red states, regardless:

Blue states cover their welfare needs, AND they have to pay to support Red states.

 

[userque]

Boys and girls, welfare money ultimately comes from the states, per tax payer.

Blue citizens pay more, per capita, than Red citizens. @exGOPer explained why moments ago.

Blue states support themselves AND have to help the Red states.

Like it or not. It is what it is.

 

[exGOPer]

Good luck with your assertions --- let's look at the data.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/welfare-recipients-by-state


Raw numbers, percentages, etc. -- it's all at the above url.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/