Poverty in the Red States
Posted by Moonage on 26 Jul 2005 | Tagged as: National Politics
Oddly enough, someone on The Motley Fool pointed out that most of the highest poverty rate states were red. And of course, tried to blame that on Bush. At first I felt compelled to point out that since 60% of the states voted red, it just meant 60% more states would be likely to be in "the top 10". I also felt compelled to chime in that if you counted it on the county level, which is where the data is obtained, all the states would have been red, and therefore dominated all 10 spots on "the Top 10".
I’ll even toss in some other fun facts with numbers here that are not on TMF since I can do graphs here and not there:
If you look at the Top 10 most populous states:
| California | k | 35,893,799 |
| Texas | b | 22,490,022 |
| New York | k | 19,227,088 |
| Florida | b | 17,397,161 |
| Illinois | k | 12,713,634 |
| Pennsylvania | k | 12,406,292 |
| Ohio | b | 11,459,011 |
| Michigan | k | 10,112,620 |
| Georgia | b | 8,829,383 |
| New Jersey | k | 8,698,879 |
In that case, six of the "Top 10" occupy the list, with nearly 1/3 of the entire population of the United States represented.
If you modifed the "Top 10" to include the actual numbers of people in poverty, it would look like this:
| California | k | 35,893,799 | 4,630,300 |
| Texas | b | 22,490,022 | 3,553,423 |
| New York | k | 19,227,088 | 2,730,246 |
| Florida | b | 17,397,161 | 2,209,439 |
| Illinois | k | 12,713,634 | 1,500,209 |
| Pennsylvania | k | 12,406,292 | 1,228,223 |
| North Carolina | b | 8,541,221 | 1,212,853 |
| Ohio | b | 11,459,011 | 1,191,737 |
| Michigan | k | 10,112,620 | 1,092,163 |
| Georgia | b | 8,829,383 | 1,059,526 |
That’ s 5 and 5. Considering 60% of the states are red, that’s a heavy tilt for the blues to have 5 in the Top 10. That’s a total of 11,181,141 blues in poverty, and 9,226,979 reds in poverty, of the "Top 10".
But the bottom line is, I can’t believe this guy is making the argument that the Republicans represent the poor and unfortunate.
That’s too hard for even me to swallow.
4 Comments »
on 26 Jul 2005 at 3:30 pm 1.--H
said …
I can’t believe you’re still reading that idiot.
So Bush is to blame for the poverty in Red states and also to blame by being cronies of rich Americans? or in his case, Bush is probably to blame for bad weather.
(I am lazy to dig the stats. but I read Democrats won in the most affluent pockets in the country, i.e.: Beverly Hills, Manhattan, etc.)
on 26 Jul 2005 at 3:58 pm 2.Moonage
said …
Trust me, I don’t read that idiot. I responded to a post by someone else and needed the original reference.
“I am lazy to dig the stats. but I read Democrats won in the most affluent pockets in the country, i.e.: Beverly Hills, Manhattan, etc.)”
That is not difficult to confirm. Kerry ( not Democrats in general, which led to the red vs blue comparison ), won in mostly URBAN areas. Most extremely affluent areas are in urban areas ( Beverly Hills, Manhatten, etc.. ).
Like I said, regardless of the demographics and how one chooses to spin them, the fact liberal Democrats are now decrying the Republicans as representing the poor and unfortunate is just bizarro to me.
( Don’t be such a stranger! )
on 26 Jul 2005 at 11:23 pm 3.--H
said …
Yeah, I’m probably the only Republican left in URBAN San Francisco, he,he, …. but you’d be surprised on how many Republicans are here. I got invitation from the San Francisco Young Republicans and on every gathering, there could be more than 100 people attending on weeknights.
I might have used the word “idiot” too harsh, but I had a bad day at work and got linked to that post without any warning (had you warned, I wouldn’t have bothered to click).
From how many years ago, that poster just is doing the same thing. Wasn’t he the one who was the most vocal in criticizing Bush/Cheney as the friends of the “haves” and what’s up now with the “have-nots”?
Remember we used to call responding to such posting style playing tennis with a wall?
p.s.: No, not being a stranger at all, just freaking busy! 2006 Planning time at work.
on 26 Jul 2005 at 11:41 pm 4.Moonage
said …
I hated to link that post, but I felt compelled to so people would understand where I’m coming from. With most people I respect, I give credit for the lead.
No problem on the “idiot” comment. At least, for once, I wasn’t the target of the adjective! (CE’s gotten even less cordial since you’ve been away. )
Need to find some way to ease up on the work! I wish I could say I’m loafing at work here lately, but unfortunately, that would be fibbing!