Over half of US counties residents rely on gov’t assistance for at least 25% of income; guess how they vote?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 42
  • Views: 633
  • Politics 

It's easy to assume many of the people who depend on federal assistance vote for the party that wants to cut that assistance, and I'll make that same assumption that there's probably a lot of that, but many people in these areas who aren't on government assistance vote for the party that will cut that assistance because they see themselves as makers and so many of these people as takers, and they resent them. While these cuts would be disastrous for many of the people receiving the assistance, it would also be detrimental to the economies of these areas, but I get the feeling many of the "makers" would happily accept less overall economic growth if their personal income went up.
 
I'd be interested in seeing the data excluding Social Security and Medicare. Including those entitlement as "government assistance" means any area with a lot of oldsters gets boosted in the rankings. I haven't heard either party campaign on cutting entitlements and I doubt the recipients view themselves as being on government assistance as much as receiving benefits they've paid for throughout their working careers.
 
I'd be interested in seeing the data excluding Social Security and Medicare. Including those entitlement as "government assistance" means any area with a lot of oldsters gets boosted in the rankings. I haven't heard either party campaign on cutting entitlements and I doubt the recipients view themselves as being on government assistance as much as receiving benefits they've paid for throughout their working careers.
Candidates may not campaign on cutting Social Security and Medicare, but those who campaign on “balancing the budget” and “fiscal responsibility” are doing precisely that.
 
It's easy to assume many of the people who depend on federal assistance vote for the party that wants to cut that assistance, and I'll make that same assumption that there's probably a lot of that, but many people in these areas who aren't on government assistance vote for the party that will cut that assistance because they see themselves as makers and so many of these people as takers, and they resent them. While these cuts would be disastrous for many of the people receiving the assistance, it would also be detrimental to the economies of these areas, but I get the feeling many of the "makers" would happily accept less overall economic growth if their personal income went up.
I believe all of them see themselves as makers.

The right is very short sighted regarding how the government helps the overall welfare and economy.

I recall, when I was conservative, an idea to get the government out of transportation and make all roads toll roads. Just imagine that actually happening and the impact on the poorest people and the economy.

People need to understand where the government money is spent and how it helps people and society in general.
 
I'd be interested in seeing the data excluding Social Security and Medicare. Including those entitlement as "government assistance" means any area with a lot of oldsters gets boosted in the rankings. I haven't heard either party campaign on cutting entitlements and I doubt the recipients view themselves as being on government assistance as much as receiving benefits they've paid for throughout their working careers.
No one talks about it because it isn't popular, but many in the government want to cut entitlements, just look at the proposed budgets over the past 8 years.
 
I'd be interested in seeing the data excluding Social Security and Medicare. Including those entitlement as "government assistance" means any area with a lot of oldsters gets boosted in the rankings. I haven't heard either party campaign on cutting entitlements and I doubt the recipients view themselves as being on government assistance as much as receiving benefits they've paid for throughout their working careers.
This is probably the answer. I suspect that statewide it would still be similar but you would see more Urban counties and therefore more blue counties making the list.
Surprised that there are that many blue counties Northeast of Raleigh. Not sure how they can gerrymander that. I know Eastern North Carolina used to be a big Democratic stronghold but don't know why the southeast flipped and the Northeast stayed.
 
I'd be interested in seeing the data excluding Social Security and Medicare. Including those entitlement as "government assistance" means any area with a lot of oldsters gets boosted in the rankings. I haven't heard either party campaign on cutting entitlements and I doubt the recipients view themselves as being on government assistance as much as receiving benefits they've paid for throughout their working careers.
The 2025 Presidential Transition Project that was written by more that two dozen trump administration officials proposes changes to Social Security that would reduce benefits for most people.


The same document proposes moving Medicare away from traditional Medicare to private-sector plans and reducing the regulations that govern them. That's great news if you happen to be an insurance company, but not so great if you are a person. It also proposes changes that would increase prescription drug costs for seniors and huge cuts to Medicaid.


It's no wonder that the party proposing these cuts doesn't want to talk about them.
 
This is probably the answer. I suspect that statewide it would still be similar but you would see more Urban counties and therefore more blue counties making the list.

Surprised that there are that many blue counties Northeast of Raleigh. Not sure how they can gerrymander that. I know Eastern North Carolina used to be a big Democratic stronghold but don't know why the southeast flipped and the Northeast stayed.
Not sure about the northern counties but,



A brilliant political analyst, Johnson foresaw the consequences of his civil rights legislation on the day he signed it into law. He is said to have remarked: “We’ve lost the south for a generation.”
 
It's easy to assume many of the people who depend on federal assistance vote for the party that wants to cut that assistance, and I'll make that same assumption that there's probably a lot of that, but many people in these areas who aren't on government assistance vote for the party that will cut that assistance because they see themselves as makers and so many of these people as takers, and they resent them. While these cuts would be disastrous for many of the people receiving the assistance, it would also be detrimental to the economies of these areas, but I get the feeling many of the "makers" would happily accept less overall economic growth if their personal income went up.
Most of these are rural counties. I would be willing to bet if you asked most of those "makers" who they resent for taking government assistance the majority would identify urban populations (and maybe specifically urban minorities) not the people around them in their rural counties.
 
I believe all of them see themselves as makers.

The right is very short sighted regarding how the government helps the overall welfare and economy.

I recall, when I was conservative, an idea to get the government out of transportation and make all roads toll roads. Just imagine that actually happening and the impact on the poorest people and the economy.

People need to understand where the government money is spent and how it helps people and society in general.
Roads are a great example of a socialist policy in the US that is very popular. Roads in rural areas often cost more to build and serve fewer people. I suspect that most of the highest-cost-per-mile-traveled roads are in rural areas for the benefit of people who oppose government spending and socialism.
 
Roads are a great example of a socialist policy in the US that is very popular. Roads in rural areas often cost more to build and serve fewer people. I suspect that most of the highest-cost-per-mile-traveled roads are in rural areas for the benefit of people who oppose government spending and socialism.
Drive around Eastern North Carolina and marvel at all the non-interstate four lane highways built to make sure all those hog and turkey trucks can roll unimpeded to the processing plants.
 

I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so I can't see the details. Does the article clarify what is meant by "Federal and State support"? In the past, articles have included federal funding for military facilities, which clearly isn't among the items that people are, or should be, concerned about.
 
Social Security Disability by county

 
Back
Top