Given that Red states receive more Federal dollars than Blue states, and ‘“tax and spend” liberals actually subsidize the individualistic, pure, and hard-working lifestyle of our conservative countrymen,’ how long until Republicans stop giving free money to those leeches?
When hell freezes over, one would assume.
Are you counting, as “receive Federal dollars,” spending for military bases?
I mean, I certainly agree that to make this statement, you should count things like Head Start, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, Food Stamp and nutrition programs for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and school-lunch-style benefits. Those types of things are manifestly the sort of tax-and-spend liberal programs that are typically decried.
But I don’t agree with counting Indian reservations, military bases, federal research labs, or veterans’ spending.
So what were you counting?
Most GOP voters are Christian, would most Christians count things like food stamps and low income energy assistance as wasteful, while military bases aren’t?
Oh, please. Do you really think Jesus would have supported feeding people? :rolleyes: Oh, wait… Well, Jesus wasn’t a real Christian anyway. Total CINO.
(By the way, 90-year-old Florida man charged for feeding homeless people.]
In my experience? Yes.
But don’t even fucking think of laying a hand on their soash suh-cure-it-tah.
I’m sure it’s absolutely inappropriate to try to craft social policy on the basis of religion.
So… you WERE counting military bases?
Well, I only had time to look at WIC right now (it had the most accessible spreadsheet), but the highest percentage of population enrolled is California. That is followed by: Texas, Alaska, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, New Mexico, Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona.
The lowest percentage of population enrolled was in: New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Maine, Colorado, New Jersey (from lowest to highest).
So you have one “blue” state at the top, followed by a bunch of “red” states. At the “good end” you blue states and oil-booming ND.
I also found one cite that Mississippi has the highest federal per-capita Head Start spending (http://nieer.org/publications/mississippi-develop-experimental-preschool-education-program).
SNAP benefits are a bit more evenly spread red/blue from what I can tell from a quick glance - tilted a bit more towards red states on a per-capita basis.
LIHEAP doesn’t seem to reporting requirements nearly as good as WIC/SNAP and Head Start. I’ll see what I can find on school lunches.
ETA: More on SNAP here, http://www.ballotlogic.com/2014/08/food-stamps-ranking-states-snap-assistance-per-capita/
Oh good. I’m glad you’re pro abortion rights now.
You are under the mistaken impression that the current GOP is fiscally conservative.
Some of them, certainly. Sadly, one of the few issues that can still often get bipartisan support is wasteful military spending.
Regrettably, Johnny LA’s link doesn’t go into enough detail to differentiate essential military spending from “we should cut the budget as long as it doesn’t affect my district” horsecrap.
Personally I don’t think there’s anything wrong with opposing government handouts and taking them yourself. You have to play with the rules as they are, and not as you want them to be. If there was some way to opt out of both paying for and being eligilble for these benefits and you refused to do it while opposing them, then you might be a hypocrite. But if you’re paying for them you may as well get something back.
To think otherwise is ridiculous IMO. If anything (more below) it should be seen as a principled stand, that people would vote in favor of politicians who propose to end something that they gain from. We need more of that from the electorate.
But beyond that, the whole thing is just statistical jive.
There’s no reason to believe that the same people who oppose these programs are benefiting from them. There are no states which don’t have enough people voting for Democratic candidates to account for all the people receiving social benefits. (Not that I think they actually do, obviously, but the point is that it’s not like “Red States” are 100% red, and vice versa.)
Agreed completely. The charge never made much sense to me. I just wanted to try to provide a factual answer to the request, since the data actually is available.
I do find the Mississippi Head Start story a bit hypocritical, since part of the reason they take so much federal money per-capita is that they spend absolutely no state money on early-childhood education.
How very convenient for you. That you happen to believe for secular reasons what the church that guides your life wants you to think. Good luck, that.
There are, of course atheist people who are pro-forcing women to have unwanted children. There are atheists who believe pretty much everything, including in magic and “spirituality.”
By the way, are you anti-death penalty for secular reasons?
If a pro-choice atheist told you that they would continue to be pro-choice, even if inexplicably they converted to Catholicism, because they have non-religious reasons for being pro-choice, what would be your response to them?
I’d seek to explicate the reasons.
In other words, I’d try to understand what aspects of Catholicism the pro-choicer believed were compatible with being pro-choice.
And there are some, depending on what “pro-choice,” means. A faithful Catholic can certainly vote for a pro-choice politician, for example.