Red State Moochers

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:36 am

Despite all the cries we hear around here about socialism and how the poor are stealing other people's money, here is a list of 10 red states who are getting back a lot more money from the federal government than they are paying in!

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/20/10_red_states_that_mooch_off_the_federal_government_partner/

That's OK though, because they're Red States!!!!   Rolling Eyes

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Hawk on Sun Sep 21, 2014 3:19 pm

Those states are predominately "Appalachia". LBJ had those states in mind when "The War Poverty" began.

What do they have now to show for it?

scratch


.

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7948
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Sun Sep 21, 2014 3:43 pm

News Hawk wrote:Those states are predominately "Appalachia". LBJ had those states in mind when "The War Poverty" began.

What do they have now to show for it?

Nothing with Republican leadership!!  Wink  That's the point of the article!!

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Hawk on Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:07 pm

News Buzzard wrote:
News Hawk wrote:Those states are predominately "Appalachia". LBJ had those states in mind when "The War Poverty" began.

What do they have now to show for it?

Nothing with Republican leadership!!  Wink  That's the point of the article!!

Most of the Southern states fight our wars; if they accept Federal money for military bases, that should not enter the calculus as your "moochers".

But actually, you've described The Evil that is Socialism.

Twisted Evil

Socialism forces democratically-elected politicians to go against their fiscally-conservative principles.  (And why we have RINOs instead of conservatives in elected offices).

Socialism is inconsistent with Democracy!

No


.

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7948
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:53 am

You have no clue what socialism really is! The people in these 10 poor states are suppressed by low wages and therefore not generating enough tax revenue to cover the amount of money the feds send to them, so not only do we subsidize the corporations with their tax breaks, we subsidize the states where they pay only minimum wage. It's a win-win for the corporations, and the Republican politicians only have to blame Obama for everything!!

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  WHL on Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:20 am

All I can do is shake my head at your posts, NB. You are the one with no clue about the real world. You must have worked for the gov. during your career.
avatar
WHL
Admin

Posts : 6031
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  Outerlimits on Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:28 am

News Buzzard wrote:Despite all the cries we hear around here about socialism and how the poor are stealing other people's money, here is a list of 10 red states who are getting back a lot more money from the federal government than they are paying in!

What exactly is the problem News Buzzard?

The rich supporting the poor.

Isn't that the most perfect, liberal utopia scenario imaginable?

It's clear that some states are more in need than others, so why do you have a problem helping out those who are less fortunate than yourselves?

Aren't liberals all about compassion and helping people?

It’s not really about helping the poor is it?

You want rich people to pay more taxes as to redistribute wealth to poor minorities who vote Democrat. What you are complaining about is you really don’t want that same wealth redistribution to go to the poor in red states who vote Republican.
avatar
Outerlimits

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:44 pm

I don't have a problem with it, but I find it ironic that the biggest loudmouths in the arena of government spending are the very same people who are getting twice as much money back from the federal government than they're sending in. I think the feds should send Bobby Jindal dollar for dollar and we'll see how long it takes for him to start crying. I don't know how much more whining he can do!! Rolling Eyes

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  Outerlimits on Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:03 pm


There is nothing "ironic" about it. Inner cities use the most social services ($) in both red and blue states.

Red states though get a bunch of money for military (most bases are in red states), New Mexico is high on the list because of Los Alamos. Many red states also receive subsidies for farming that benefit all Americans via lower cost food. Red states tend to be larger requiring more money being spent on roads per person.

Just name a few examples.

Comparing total dollars spent from red states to blue states is a political tool for the simple minded.
avatar
Outerlimits

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:06 pm

Speaking of simple minded, perhaps you should read the article again. You might learn something the second time through!!!

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  Outerlimits on Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:35 pm

I really didn’t need to read it again because I read it last year in the Times when Paul Krugman (a hero of yours I’m sure) wrote it.

The difference is, I understand it. You either don’t are you are perpetrating the lie.

Paul Krugman, having observed that Red States get more welfare funding, while Republican voters oppose the welfare state. He portrays Republicans as “Moochers” who are either hypocritical or too stupid to know their own best interest.

But states do not vote, individuals do.

From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though those from Red State earn less than Blue states.

The Maxwell Poll has detailed information about welfare use
.
60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats.

It appears that once more common sense is right and the impression left by the New York Times wrong.

People who live off the government disproportionally support Democrats.

Given that Krugman is aware of the Gellman-Paradox, he should have reported the individual level data first instead of wasting everyone’s time with state-level aggregation that we already know is wrong. Instead he acknowledged that state level data is probably wrong, then goes ahead and relies on the wrong method anyway, since it produces the results he wants.
avatar
Outerlimits

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Mon Sep 22, 2014 3:25 pm

The article clearly makes a case that blue states are much less dependent on the federal government than red states, and by the way, you can't hold a candle to Paul Krugman. Since the start of the recession, and even going back much further, he has been spot on about everything and you have been completely wrong. I'm still waiting for the bond crisis and runaway inflation you and the other conservatives have been predicting for years now. The USA responded to the recession with a model closer to Krugman and our unemployment rate is now 6.1%. Europe responded with a scorched earth austerity model closer to what you favor and their average unemployment rate is about 11%. The Supply Side Economics philosophy you love so much is a complete failure, and you're telling me that Paul Krugman is wrong? The guy only won the Nobel Prize For Economics!! Do you have one of them laying around?? (I doubt it)

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  Outerlimits on Mon Sep 22, 2014 3:55 pm

It's just too easy to blow the lib "red state moocher" myth out of the water


During the last few years, a key liberal talking point has been "red state welfare." The argument is that the states that get more from the federal government than they pay in taxes tend to be red states, whereas the states that give more to the federal government than they pay in taxes tend to be blue states. This "red state welfare" hypothesis falls completely apart when we look at the data.
The so-called top 10 "red states" on welfare are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Virginia, and Kentucky.
The purportedly bottom 10 "blue states" not on welfare are New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado.
To show how mindless this liberal proposition is, the "red state welfare" argument appears to be entirely based only on how each state voted in the most recent presidential election. This results in entirely junk science.
First off, states that are either "haves" (i.e., give more to the federal government than they receive) or "have-nots" (i.e., get more from the federal government than they give) do not just arise overnight. State finances take decades to develop as either "haves" or "have-nots," so looking at only a single election is meaningless. Rather, we need to look at how a state has voted over several decades to obtain any relevant insights.
Furthermore, it's equally nonsensical to just consider how a state votes for the president. We also need to look at how each state votes for its senators, representatives, and even governors. Given how Congress has the "power of the purse," this is core to assessing how a state's welfare status relates to its Democrat versus Republican voting record. And this is where the "red state welfare" hypothesis disintegrates.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html


Statistically, poor people vote democrat and statistically democrat voters also use more social services money and are much more likely to be on welfare. That is just the way it is News Buzzard.

Conservatives are the ones with compassion, not liberals. Liberals are all about saying things to look good, while demanding someone else fund their wish list of giveaways. Your argument that conservatives are just "bad people" is old, wrong, and most of all, hypocritical. After all, it's liberals who whine someone ELSE must be required to pay for their pretend generosity. When they are actually finding out that they're required to do what they demand be done, they get angry, like you do.


avatar
Outerlimits

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:18 pm

You didn't blow anything out of the water. Nine out of the top ten highest income states all voted for Obama. The only exception is Alaska.

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  Outerlimits on Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:00 pm

States do not vote, individuals do.

Decades have past and our factories remain idol because current and past Administrations have not protected good American jobs at home. Progressive policies increase taxes and restrictions on businesses particularly manufacturing and farming.

The Coal industry in the Mid Atlantic Red States has taken a hit because the EPA has target the mining Industry. Manufacturing and farming in the Southern and mid-west states have been targeted by progressive groups. I could go on but what is the point? NB probably isn’t even reading this part, he reads the first sentence, gets his tail feathers ruffled and responds with parroting gobbley gook talking points from left wing blogs. Blah, blah, blah Republicans are evil and Obama won the election yada yada yada we need to raise taxes on the rich we need a safety net for everyone and the rich should pay, pay pay. It’s actually pathetic how the Democrats have turned into the “That’s not fair party”. Don’t they know jealousy can consume?

Anyway the southern states were far poorer than the northern states and were Democrat controlled for 100 years. Since the Republicans are gaining power in the South, those states are climbing versus the traditional economic power states of Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania and California. California was a rich Republican state and now that they are Dem run, they are falling.
avatar
Outerlimits

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:52 pm

You're still wrong, through and through, and you better check on California again. It's in great shape since Ahnold left!!!

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Hawk on Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:55 pm

News Buzzard wrote:You have no clue what socialism really is!

I lived in a Socialist country for 2½-years. The best you can offer is to have lived in a New York City project.

No


.


_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7948
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  red_hill on Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:51 pm

News Hawk wrote:
News Buzzard wrote:You have no clue what socialism really is!

I lived in a Socialist country for 2½-years. The best you can offer is to have lived in a New York City project.

No


.


NB, I think he has you beat Cool

NH, where did you live? I would like to hear more.

Most "isms" in their pure form have their merits. When they become bastardized, and bent as unintended by the originators, they fail the people.


red_hill

Posts : 303
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:50 am

He says he lives in a lot of places! Rolling Eyes He still doesn't know what socialism is if he thinks this is a socialist country.

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Hawk on Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:37 pm

News Buzzard wrote:He says he lives in a lot of places! Rolling Eyes He still doesn't know what socialism is if he thinks this is a socialist country.
New York City projects are an example of Socialism-creep.

European Socialist countries are broke—especially the various European countries where I was stationed.

Where are We (the people) headed?

or...

What is Obama's "wealth redistribution", except robbing "We the People".

scratch


.



_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7948
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Hawk on Tue May 05, 2015 6:00 pm

News Buzzard wrote:You have no clue what socialism really is!

Socialism has been completely known for many years:



.

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7948
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Tue May 05, 2015 6:21 pm

News Hawk wrote:European Socialist countries are broke—especially the various European countries where I was stationed.

I'm curious as to why you were never stationed in Vietnam? Most folks back then joined an alternate service to avoid the Draft! I never got drafted and my classification is still 1A!

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Kerry got the requisite three Purple Hearts, and Left Viet Nam...

Post  News Hawk on Tue May 05, 2015 9:14 pm

News Buzzard wrote:
News Hawk wrote:European Socialist countries are broke—especially the various European countries where I was stationed.

I'm curious as to why you were never stationed in Vietnam? Most folks back then joined an alternate service to avoid the Draft! I never got drafted and my classification is still 1A!

Even the US Coast Guard served in Viet Nam.

The best draft number to have was the one found by Barak Hussein, as it showed Obumble was born in the last century, and too old to draft.

Evil or Very Mad

.

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7948
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  News Buzzard on Wed May 06, 2015 9:35 am

Everyone who remembers that period knows that thousands of young men joined the Navy or the National Guard to avoid getting drafted, because almost everyone who got drafted spent at least 12 months in Vietnam. If you joined one of the other branches you had a shot at avoiding Vietnam. I was in the Draft lottery in 1970 and got a number in the 280 range, and they only got up to about 125 that year. I still have my classification card and 1A status. There is no doubt that at least 90% of us eligible for the Draft didn't want to be drafted, because almost everyone who went to Vietnam either came back in a box or out of their minds!

So don't try to BS me because I lived through that, the same as you!

I think they should re-institute the Draft, because the war mongers might not be so enthusiastic about going to war with Iran. It's easy to go to war when it is being fought by someone else's kid!! No

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  WHL on Wed May 06, 2015 2:03 pm

For the war mongers it would still be somebody else's kid. It wouldn't matter.
avatar
WHL
Admin

Posts : 6031
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Red State Moochers

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum