Why do liberals claim that red states are poorer?

I have lived in Ca. for over 65 years. I have watched the invasion of the east coast liberals here and the total destruction of our State. Our number one education system became the worse in the nation under the Democrats. The Democrats have reduced funding to the schools three times in the last year and complain that the schools need more money. Yet, they continue to spend between 10 and 15 billion a year on welfare just for illegal aliens. They have taxed and regulated the major employers out of the State. We have a population of 30 million and yet 160 thousand households pay all the taxes. We have the largest welfare population in the country. We have more people on welfare here than are working. The average illegal alien household pay $8000 a year in taxes and consume over $35,000 a year in Government benefits. Where in the Constitution does it say we must provide free housing, free food, free education and free medical to those that have violated our border and are here illegally. From the FBI stats: 25 Americans will die today at the hands of an illegal alien from Mexico. 13 from out right homicide and 12 from an unlicensed, uninsured illegal alien driving drunk. There are consistently 250,000 wants and warrants for illegal aliens for child rape and child molestation. The stupid Congress and President keep talking about a path to citizenship for them. These dumb asses. The illegals have never asked to be citizens. They come here and take jobs from Americans and send the money back to Mexico. They don't want to be citizens and if they do achieve it they still hold dual citizenship. They want to make money here and go back. The Left wants "Gun Control". Go into the neighborhoods controlled by the illegal alien gang M-S13 and register their guns. That would be a good job for Maxine Waters since she has a vast amount of them in her district and does nothing.

The 10 states with the most poor people, in terms of absolute dollars, are:

Mississippi, Arizona, New Mexico, Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee.

That's nine red states and one blue state.

Now, when you take the "Supplemental Poverty Measure," which factors in cost of living, the 10 states with the highest poverty rates are:

California, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, Nevada, Mississippi, Texas, Arkanas

...which is three blue states, five red states, and two swing states.

That's because there are a lot of people in the biggest states - California, Texas, Florida, and New York - whose salaries would be perfectly adequate in Mississippi, but aren't enough to get by where they live.

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'

They seem to have abandoned logic and reason.

They are Advocates of a policy that empowers a strong federal government to enslave its people with the high tax burden incident to the support of extravagant and unnecessary social programs destructive to both the work ethic among the lower class, and the incentive to innovate and succeed among the working people .

**

A. they nevertheless are up there... even under those numbers B. they replaced how that is calculated... under the previous numbers, the south had a headlock on it... yet then they began figuring in issues like "who gets nutrients stamps" and states like California has plenty LOOSER policies on nutrients stamps so a greater proportion of the inhabitants gets them... in crimson states, that is commonly as low as they might bypass with policies on nutrients stamps and comparable courses... extremely, their conservative rules prefer the recent calculation standards... mutually as the previous count type grew to become into merely using type under poverty via the federal known, if I undergo in suggestions wisely EDIT: and we are no longer conversing state debt here, are we, yet poverty between the inhabitants, spectacular?

poor could have many meanings... average income in red states are lower...

average overall gdp is lower in most red states...

they simply don't have the money...

the U.S. has more debt than many African countries... does that mean that they are "richer"? or should we also look at how much money they bring in?

until they changed the poverty rates (so they are now favorable to red states) red states did dominate even those poverty rankings...

EDIT: GDP has nothing to do with tax rates...

these numbers are far from secret...

a two second good search will show the numbers I talk about, but overall I'm attacking your idea more than your numbers...and your idea is wrong...

In order for Democrats to help the "poor" and win elections is the need to keep them

poor and on goverment assistance. It makes no sense for them to help the poor

get job's because it would reduce the cut of gov cheese they get. Thus being poor

helps them win and get gov money.

Because of the numbers and math.

The numbers tend to tell lies a whole lot less than people.

P.S. California.... is the wealthiest of ALL STATES by GDP. Almost $2 TRILLION generated each year.

It may have a large number of poor people too.... but if you AVERAGE their incomes..... it should give you a pretty good idea of exactly HOW MUCH money those "lazy California liberals" have made in order to make both facts true.

So I guess you're under the impression that California is the ONLY state that is not a red state?

Look, I've been to almost every state--red and blue. The difference is so striking it's almost laughable that anyone would suggest that red states are well off.

In a pure dollars and cents game red staters do make less money on average, but cost of living is usually significantly lower in those areas too so it balances out.

The wealth of the state and their budget deficit or surplus has nothing to do with federal tax receipts nor poverty. California pays far more than the average state in per-capita federal taxes.