What's wrong with this thinking?

[LDB]

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

 

[Turtle]

That why this all makes sense.
Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

 

[layoutshooter]

That why this all makes sense.
Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

Why are those states getting back more? Is that the fault of state or federal policies? What "kind" of monies are they? The article does not mention whether or not that is "welfare" money, as in entitlement money, or "other" money. All it talks about, unless I missed something, is "raw" dollar stats.

What does that article have to do with the idea that FAR too many people in this country believe that they are entitled to other people's wages and benefits that they did not earn? Then, when they receive the wages that some one else earned, in the form of benefits that they did not, many complain about it.

 

[Turtle]

Man that's a lot of questions in rapid-fire succession. Like a little kid who has just learned to ask, "Why?" Many of your questions can be answered with a little research, but I'll give it a cursory go.

Why are those states getting back more? Is that the fault of state or federal policies?

Both. But it's also, in the words of Paul Ryan, “Americans were known and admired everywhere for their hopeful determination to assume responsibility for the quality of their own lives; to rely on their own work and initiative. . . . But over time, Americans have been lured into viewing government . . . as their main source of support; they have been drawn toward depending on the public sector for growing shares of their material and personal well-being. The trend drains individual initiative and personal responsibility.”

What "kind" of monies are they? The article does not mention whether or not that is "welfare" money, as in entitlement money, or "other" money. All it talks about, unless I missed something, is "raw" dollar stats.

The "kind" of monies is "other people's money," that's what kind it is. It's Food Stamp-type straight-up welfare, and it's government spending on various social programs. It's also all federal government spending, in relation to how much those states pay the federal government in taxes. And since entitlement money is by far the largest chunk of federal spending, the states who receive the most of it receive the highest percentage of it.

What does that article have to do with the idea that FAR too many people in this country believe that they are entitled to other people's wages and benefits that they did not earn? Then, when they receive the wages that some one else earned, in the form of benefits that they did not, many complain about it.

Uhm, the article is the illustrated epitome of that very idea.

 

[layoutshooter]

"The "kind" of monies is "other people's money," that's what kind it is. It's Food Stamp-type straight-up welfare, and it's government spending on various social programs. It's also all federal government spending, in relation to how much those states pay the federal government in taxes. And since entitlement money is by far the largest chunk of federal spending, the states who receive the most of it receive the highest percentage of it."


ALL government spending is other people's money.

I was looking at the states on the list. Many of those states, have large percentages of the land within their borders owned by the feds. Many are in areas where there has been spending on hurricane relief/protection. Several have Indian reservations (concentration camps) within their borders.

Also, several of the states in that article receive a lot of Pittman/Robinson monies, which are federal dollars but it is a voluntary tax, requested directly by those who pay it, as opposed to the mandatory taxes the general population are forced to pay.

It also is apparent that the author has a "bias" when he writes, as most do. The references to Rush and the Tea Party and "rugged individualism" and the context of those references, show that bias to be from what some would call "left wing" by today's standard.

Those numbers do not reflect spending that is forced on the states. Funding to maintain federal assets within those states. Emergency relief. The numbers only show that more dollars go in than out. That does not "prove" the reliance on welfare or dependence on federal dollars. It also does not "prove" that the dollars that are going into states are entitlement dollars or what percentage of the dollars that go in are.

Sorry I was so "rapid fire" in the first post, I was on my way out the door to take the truck in for tires and wanted to get my thoughts/questions out before I forgot.

 

[Turtle]

]ALL government spending is other people's money.

I know. That was my point.

I was looking at the states on the list. Many of those states, have large percentages of the land within their borders owned by the feds. Many are in areas where there has been spending on hurricane relief/protection. Several have Indian reservations (concentration camps) within their borders.

Federally owned lands are not in the tax-paid/tax-received equation. Neither is Indian Agency land, or emergency disaster relief.

Also, several of the states in that article receive a lot of Pittman/Robinson monies, which are federal dollars but it is a voluntary tax, requested directly by those who pay it, as opposed to the mandatory taxes the general population are forced to pay.

Neither is the Pittman-Robinson money isn't figure in the equation, either, as it is kept in a separate account from general taxes and is administered by the Secretary of the Interior.

It also is apparent that the author has a "bias" when he writes, as most do. The references to Rush and the Tea Party and "rugged individualism" and the context of those references, show that bias to be from what some would call "left wing" by today's standard.

The author's bias doesn't change the numbers, which came originally from Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, and confirmed by the GAO.

Those numbers do not reflect spending that is forced on the states. Funding to maintain federal assets within those states. Emergency relief. The numbers only show that more dollars go in than out. That does not "prove" the reliance on welfare or dependence on federal dollars. It also does not "prove" that the dollars that are going into states are entitlement dollars or what percentage of the dollars that go in are.

The numbers are what they are. Like I said, a little research can't hurt. Look at them and decide for yourself what they "prove." One thing it does prove, unquestionably, is the conservative states that complain the longest and loudest about big government and government spending are the largest recipients of that spending. Make of that what you will.

Sorry I was so "rapid fire" in the first post, I was on my way out the door to take the truck in for tires and wanted to get my thoughts/questions out before I forgot.

Not a problem. It just struck me as funny.


[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

 

[layoutshooter]

That article did not break down the spending or it's sources.

Is it possible that it is as a result of the consequences of high unearned entitlement spending that that there is a backlash against it?

Some things don't make sense. ND and SD have the lowest unemployment numbers and unfilled high paying jobs. It would seem, at least on the surface, that there is a disconnect with those numbers, assuming that none of the other reasons for federal spending are counted.

 

[KickStarter6]

Kentucky has a democrat governor named Steve Bershear and honestly he's not too bad IMO. He's sorta more in the middle than left and that's where my personal beliefs are as well.

 

[layoutshooter]

Kentucky has a democrat governor named Steve Bershear and honestly he's not too bad IMO. He's sorta more in the middle than left and that's where my personal beliefs are as well.

It would be interesting to know what you consider "middle". (not picking on you) There is nothing "middle" about any social program, they, by there very nature, are all "left".

 

[davekc]

What does make sense is we are surrounded by "freeloaders" no matter where one might be at.

 

[KickStarter6]

It would be interesting to know what you consider "middle". (not picking on you) There is nothing "middle" about any social program, they, by there very nature, are all "left".

By middle I mean I see both sides of an opinion the best I can. Social programs that I'm in favor of personally is first and foremost benefits for troops, Medicare although not in it's current format, public libraries, helping children with cloths and shelter, and work programs and training for workers whose jobs were sent over seas or are no longer the viable industry it once was. I tend to be a physical conservative and on social issue more liberal. For instance if gay people wanna get married that's okay with me. We have separation of church and state so therefore IMO it shouldn't be an issue. Abortion while if I were the father of the unborn child I would fight tooth and nail against it as I do not agree with it, I do not have the right to tell others how to live. Free birth control for women would be nice from what girls I've grown up with and are friends with say. Free ER visits would be nice but not the entire system free. Just my view on a few of the hot button topics.

Great thing is anyone can disagree with me 100% and I still support their right to because this country is awesome.

 

[davekc]

You mean we used to have separation of church and state. I think most are ok with birth control, they just don't want to pay for someone else.

 

[layoutshooter]

By middle I mean I see both sides of an opinion the best I can. Social programs that I'm in favor of personally is first and foremost benefits for troops, Medicare although not in it's current format, public libraries, helping children with cloths and shelter, and work programs and training for workers whose jobs were sent over seas or are no longer the viable industry it once was. I tend to be a physical conservative and on social issue more liberal. For instance if gay people wanna get married that's okay with me. We have separation of church and state so therefore IMO it shouldn't be an issue. Abortion while if I were the father of the unborn child I would fight tooth and nail against it as I do not agree with it, I do not have the right to tell others how to live. Free birth control for women would be nice from what girls I've grown up with and are friends with say. Free ER visits would be nice but not the entire system free. Just my view on a few of the hot button topics.

Great thing is anyone can disagree with me 100% and I still support their right to because this country is awesome.

It is great that we can discuss this stuff.

I do have to say that the major shift to the "left" has really taken hold if you believe that much of what you speak of above is "middle". Since MOST of what you talk about are "unearned" benefits paid for by other than those who benefit from them. That is, by definition, redistribution of wealth.

 

[Ragman]

You mean we used to have separation of church and state.

 

[layoutshooter]

What happens when the state becomes the church, or worse, does away with them?

 

[Pilgrim]

What happens when the state becomes the church, or worse, does away with them?

We're witnessing the beginning of that process with the Obama administration's attacks against the Catholic church.

 

[layoutshooter]

We're witnessing the beginning of that process with the Obama administration's attacks against the Catholic church.

Not only the Catholic Church.

 

[KickStarter6]

It is great that we can discuss this stuff.

I do have to say that the major shift to the "left" has really taken hold if you believe that much of what you speak of above is "middle". Since MOST of what you talk about are "unearned" benefits paid for by other than those who benefit from them. That is, by definition, redistribution of wealth.

I understand they're unearned benefits but I some unearned benefits are good because they can help people get out of the hole or the bad situation they're currently in. I don't wanna hold people's hand and tell everyone should all have the same chances in and that everyone is a winner, but I do think kids deserve a library. All kids intercity and rural alike, learning and getting the thirst for knowledge can get people out of the slums or out of the trailer park. A few of the other ones are from personal experience like the free ER visits. I worked full time but did not have health coverage, torn a rotator cuff in my left shoulder and went to the ER because I couldn't function. That was an expensive trip to the ER after the X-ray and MRI that was ran.

 

[layoutshooter]

I understand they're unearned benefits but I some unearned benefits are good because they can help people get out of the hole or the bad situation they're currently in. I don't wanna hold people's hand and tell everyone should all have the same chances in and that everyone is a winner, but I do think kids deserve a library. All kids intercity and rural alike, learning and getting the thirst for knowledge can get people out of the slums or out of the trailer park. A few of the other ones are from personal experience like the free ER visits. I worked full time but did not have health coverage, torn a rotator cuff in my left shoulder and went to the ER because I couldn't function. That was an expensive trip to the ER after the X-ray and MRI that was ran.

You should pay that back. Watch the movie, "Cinderella Man" then get back to me.

You had a rough patch. That is tough. I get it. When I was YOUNGER than you I had a wife, who was pregnant. I paid 100% of health insurance for her. I was out of work at the time. It is time for people to step up, carry their own weight and stop looking for help. It is FAR better to do it on your own. There is seldom ANY need for government when people decide it is time to take control of their own lives.

 

[KickStarter6]

You should pay that back. Watch the movie, "Cinderella Man" then get back to me.

You had a rough patch. That is tough. I get it. When I was YOUNGER than you I had a wife, who was pregnant. I paid 100% of health insurance for her. I was out of work at the time. It is time for people to step up, carry their own weight and stop looking for help. It is FAR better to do it on your own. There is seldom ANY need for government when people decide it is time to take control of their own lives.

It was a rough this true but because of said injury I couldn't work to be able to pay it off. Then got more bills due to not working blah blah the same old story everyone has heard before. That being said while yes now I'm getting out of that hole I've been in for the past 5 years, but help along the way instead of bill collectors calling and getting rude with me and slandering my character 20-30 times a day you start to get that victim mindset that the entire world is out to get you.


Can't buy a car to get back and forth to work due to the insurance on a young male is so ridiculously expensive. From 19-24 I tried being out there with no help and just me but when "it feels" everything is set against you before you start it's hard not to feel disenfranchised, at those moments you look for help and liberals "say" they'll help, makes a world of difference to your mind set. But for the record I've never applied for any form of assistance but the idea that it's there is nice.