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.
how can you have a conversation with a person that is "conservative" and TP supporter 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 are so many points brought up in the article that its disheartening at times to think about them.
such as, how can we pay for medicare, social security, interest on the debt, and a DOD in the future?
excluding those just mentioned, we can cut out the rest of discretionary spending (approximately 13-15% of the budget) but it's doesn't solve the long-term funding issues.
do we just let people die?
do we stop paying on the debt and default (eg. argentina)?
do we slash our military and become isolationist?
we need some pragmatic decisions here and knee jerk liberal or conservative talking points.
to bad our educational system has so failed america that as a population we led around by our noses with those very talking points
how can you have a conversation with a person that is "conservative" and TP supporter 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 are so many points brought up in the article that its disheartening at times to think about them.
such as, how can we pay for medicare, social security, interest on the debt, and a DOD in the future?
excluding those just mentioned, we can cut out the rest of discretionary spending (approximately 13-15% of the budget) but it's doesn't solve the long-term funding issues.
do we just let people die?
do we stop paying on the debt and default (eg. argentina)?
do we slash our military and become isolationist?
we need some pragmatic decisions here and knee jerk liberal or conservative talking points.
to bad our educational system has so failed america that as a population we led around by our noses with those very talking points
You forgot to mention the Magna Carta and the mating habits of the Honey Badger.
Seriously though, you ping-pong around so much it would really help if you had a clearer thesis to discuss.
Far right wingers are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They live off of government handouts, yet **** and moan about others on them. They complain about freeloaders on society, but are the first in line to take a handout,..
Basically they love hand outs as long as they are receiving them and no one else. They are like immature children with a "all for me, none for you!" mindset.
On thing interesting in that article was the statement that some of the areas most dependent on government benefits are also the most Republican and anti-government. This fact puts to death the myth that the ''heartland,'' consisting of the central, relatively rural states, is morally superior to the rest of the country.
This chart show the ration of how much each state receives compared to how much it pays in taxes. A number over 1 means that it pays that more than they receive.
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.
Of the 25 more liberal states, 16 of them are paying more in taxes than they get back. Of the 25 more conservative states, only 2 can say that. 23 of the 25 more conservative states are having wealth redistributed to them.
Far right wingers are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They live off of government handouts, yet **** and moan about others on them. They complain about freeloaders on society, but are the first in line to take a handout,..
Basically they love hand outs as long as they are receiving them and no one else. They are like immature children with a "all for me, none for you!" mindset.
I asked my wingnut brother-in-law if he was getting SS yet. Of course, Medicare to he's entitled to it, why not?
I have to laugh and walk away. For the last 22 years I've known him he has been an early adopter of the Concord Coalition who spent his "tax days" in clown costums in front of the post office. It was amusing to watch him fall silent when the R majorities and R prez's didn't act on their fiscal conservative talking points.
So why the laughing on my part? The guy doesn't walk the walk. Between him and his wife they have pensions worth $1.5 to $2.5 mill. On top of that he made a small fortune with a small business over the last ten years.
When I try raising means testing of SS benefits he has a hissy fit and goes off on "welfare queens" and lazy porch monkeys.
On thing interesting in that article was the statement that some of the areas most dependent on government benefits are also the most Republican and anti-government. This fact puts to death the myth that the ''heartland,'' consisting of the central, relatively rural states, is morally superior to the rest of the country.
This chart show the ration of how much each state receives compared to how much it pays in taxes. A number over 1 means that it pays that more than they receive.
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.
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.
On thing interesting in that article was the statement that some of the areas most dependent on government benefits are also the most Republican and anti-government. This fact puts to death the myth that the ''heartland,'' consisting of the central, relatively rural states, is morally superior to the rest of the country.
This chart show the ration of how much each state receives compared to how much it pays in taxes. A number over 1 means that it pays that more than they receive.
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.
Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy in your post. Why? Because you make the assumption that "federal spending" is automatically code for "handouts."
Please tell that you understand that that's not the case, right?
Are you sure you understand what all federal spending entails?
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.
Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy in your post. Why? Because you make the assumption that "federal spending" is automatically code for "handouts."
Please tell that you understand that that's not the case, right?
Are you sure you understand what all federal spending entails?
I understand more than you think.
Think of the federal government as a big insurance company with an army. Most federal spending is in the form of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Then there is spending on military bases -- of which most of that is payroll, which is spent locally. There are also federal offices, and the people hired are local residents. That covers the vast majority of federal spending. So, it's not a fallacy at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
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)
In this example, if the owner was located in Manhattan, they had a Manhattan address to send the subsidy and thus the subsidy would be in the Manhattan basket as would the federal taxes that were paid. In any case, agra subsidies are small potatoes compared to SSA and Medicare.
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.
