Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong use of ellipsis in title. Learn how to properly use and I might consider reading the thread and taking it seriously.
Cheers.
correct. i let my thoughts drift as I started the thread. tried to keep the tone down.
we are a nation of dichomties (or hypocrises?).
1- we want the cake but can't pay for it
2- we are selfish: i paid what the gov't said i should pay so i deserve what i'm getting and screw the younger generations
i've seen and heard the latter argument many times. john stossel did a piece on this a few years back. to listen to seniors...wow. they could care less at times about the ponzi scheme on which they rest and how it will impact their children, grandchildren, etc
I've destroyed that study around here a number of times.
1. It links payments for farm subidy to where the land is, not the owner.
(This is huge since the subsidy is credited to a rural state while the recipient that may live in Manhattan pays the taxes in NY)
2. It ignores the concept of public goods. So that fed money to put nuke missle silos in North Dakota are "federal spending" to ND for no other states benefit.
I will just stop there...only so much idiocy I can take some days.
as i already posted, NYtimes has an interactive graphical presentation of what many call the entitlement programs only - SSA, medicare, etc
it does not include all of the "other" categories that draw so much ire
I always have a problem with people being brandished hypocrits because they receive benefits from programs they oppose. If I oppose all government transfer of wealth programs and they cost me a total of three thousand dollars in taxes and I receive two thousand dollars in benefits from such wealth transfers I am still a thousand in the hole.
I will accept every benefit I can get from government even if I oppose the program. Just like I pay my taxes regardless of my feelings fror the programs they support.
The fact that government taxes individuals and forces them to participate in purchasing insurance and pension benefits does not mean that those who would prefer to save on their own and purchase their own insurance should turn down the proceeds should they need that insurance, they have paid for it.
However, it is indeed hypocrisy when one doesn't think one benefits from federal programs, while getting lots of income from federal programs, and then goes out to vote for people who want to slash those programs.
Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy in your post. Why? Because you make the assumption that "federal spending" is automatically code for "handouts."
Please tell us that you understand that that's not the case, right? You do understand that not all "federal spending" on states is solicited by the states, right?
Are you sure you understand what all federal spending entails?
Very disengenous for you to assert that federal spending as a percentage of tax receipts to conservative states is the result of people requiring additional handouts when you show absolutely zero proof that the net drain is the result of entitlements. Since when is federal spending relegated only to safety nets?
Once again you fail with your obsession with charts to make empty claims.
Good comments. I find it amusing that so many people make these sweeping generalizations about blue states and red states as if everyone in that state is of the same political leaning. It's a reflection on their weak position. For example, people ridicule Alabama quite often, but there are quite a few rocket scientists there. The entire state is not aligned with the typical stereotypes that you see on this board.
Exactly the same way you would have a conversation with a person that is liberal when they:
1- qualify the EIC and get a huge tax kick-back
2- sign up all of their kids (3) for taxpayer paid free school breakfasts and lunches
3- has a mother whose healthcare is entirely dependent on medicare
There is no connection between using government services and your political views.
i see the point but don't totally agree. i look at it as the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
instead of railing against a system you don't like and then holding out your hand, "we" should try to find common ground to fix the broken system.
electing someone that just wants to lower taxes and cut programs may not be the solution.
If the government is offering you money you should take it, these programs are often paid for by your tax dollars or indirectly through the increased costs of goods you purchase.
The TP platform is to eliminate the expenses which cause people to be dependent on these programs to begin with.
Unsure what you mean. By 'eliminate the expenses' do you mean cutting taxes? as in taxes reduce a person's income, thereby causing that person to be dependent on gov't intervention?
Good comments. I find it amusing that so many people make these sweeping generalizations about blue states and red states as if everyone in that state is of the same political leaning. It's a reflection on their weak position. For example, people ridicule Alabama quite often, but there are quite a few rocket scientists there. The entire state is not aligned with the typical stereotypes that you see on this board.
very true.
AL like many southern and appalachian states suffers though from many pervasive problems.
i am always reminded though of a rule i learned long ago:
there are exceptions to every rule
no statement, fact, stat, etc can encompass the full range of an issue but it's very easy to make a short sound bite a mantra or litmus test when the actually issue requires critical thought and hard decisions.
something that our society appears incapable at times of doing
Ironically, the states that get more benefits than pay less to Washington vote for anti-government candidates demanding more self-reliance. and fewer federal programs.
I often wonder how accurately you can assess this. For example you have very large portions of the Interstate in red states with low populations that will receive more per capita to maintain those roads. That by itself would drive up the "assistance" red states receive.
It's true that most of our systems, government and other, need tremendous reforms to move responsibly into our future. That's why it is so important to put aside ideologies and look at the data in light of the benefit to all.
As our Western culture spreads to developing countries, the ills of our society become more acutely obvious. We have to get over the idea that the earth is available to plunder -- there are just too many to all plunder what is becoming a smaller and smaller ratio of renewable resources to person.
Our first priority must be sustainability which considers not only our existing populations (all life, not just human), but those in our future -- if we are to have a future.
That is why we have to set aside emotion and opinion and follow the facts that can be proven, regardless of personal agendas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
