Rural conservatives want more farm spending, but everything else either came from Democrats, often things they didn’t want, or are just a result of how the federal formulas work, such as with road spending.
You see, the Democrats are willing to help the less fortunate no matter what political party they belong to.
Misplaced generosity-pretty ugly phrase when talking about other people.
Spending on food for hungry children = “damn those freeloaders!”
Spending on things Republican constituencies don’t need = “damn your misplaced generosity!”
Who has less unemployment? Red states. Self sufficiency rocks, doesn’t it? Well, unless you need dependent people to win votes that is.
It’s less than one percentage point difference. 7.84% to 8.77.There are more total people out of work in red states than blue.
6,680,400 to 6,032,500
Source.
If self sufficiency rocks, why do the red states take so much more?
Is welfare bad only when it goes to members of the other party?
One percentage points is statistically very significant. Blue states are shedding jobs, and talent. One reason Democrats have started to compete better in places like Virginia and North Carolina is because blue staters are fleeing there and haven’t yet given up their political affiliations.
If blue states have higher unemployment, then why do red states receive more food stamp assistance? Must be the unemployed in blue states are more self reliant than red states.
Most likely, it’s because of the 10 states with the highest number of non-payers of income tax(remember the 47%), eight are red states.
Here.
Those red states suck at the government’s teat much more than the blue. Look at this map. Sure, there are some aberrations from the rule, but red states are on the whole leeches on the nation.
And the jobs created by that influx of government money is the very best kind of self sufficiency.
Let’s talk about this, and specifically focus on your assertion that what I call assistance actually destroys a human being’s ability to care for themselves. I’m going to pose a hypothetical benefactor of social security, a program I believe to be very necessary for Americans.
In my hypothetical, we have a 16-year-old boy. Smart and ambitious, this boy takes a job at McDonalds, plays multiple sports at his high school, and has big dreams for the future. Unfortunately, his father dies, and his grandmother (who suffers from Alzheimer’s) moves in so that our hypothetical boy and his mother can care for her.
Social security survivor’s benefits come in, and our hypothetical boy saves them for college. He then goes to college, gets a great education, and works to achieve his dreams.
Is he a taker? Has a public assistance program crippled his ability to succeed for himself? I hope not; I just described Paul Ryan’s early life, and he’s been very successful. In some ways, I’d attribute his success to a program that enabled him to succeed. Without money for college, might he be where he is today? Or might he be stuck in a dead-end job, through no fault of his own beyond bad luck?
Another example, closer to home: my car, an old used car on its last legs, died two days after I accepted my first full-time job out of college. Had it died perhaps a few months earlier, I would have been out of luck. No paycheck to buy a new car, no transportation. Now, in my case I’m sure I could have gotten a loan, or help from my family, so I’m exaggerating the issue. But many people, especially our most vulnerable citizens, do not have that luxury. No parents? Tough luck, no job. Bad or non-existent credit? Sorry. A veteran from Iraq with no job history and no car? Good luck, soldier.
One of the biggest public assistane programs in US history was the GI Bill, enabling veterans from World War 2 to go to college, an option their parents and grandparents never had. I’d argue that our middle class is built on top of that decision, educating an enabling a whole generation of young men. Were they takers? Was their ability to succeed crippled by assistance? Of course not.
I can’t decide whether this is sad or funny.
It always amazing me how many Joe the Plumber types that are struggling to pull in 45K a year think they’re just a clogged toilet away from making 250K a year. That is because they somehow fail to realize that 250K is a whole freaking lot more money than 45K, and when you actually make 250K a year, instead of making 45K and imagining making 250K, the experience is really different from what you think it is and a few hundred extra bucks a year in taxes is nothing.
I think I was kind of surprised myself when I realized that 125K a year is really a WHOLE LOT more than 100K a year in terms of lifestyle and discretionary income then a few years later I was surprised again when I realized that 150K year is a WHOLE LOT more than 125K a year. And surprised again when I realized that 175K is a WHOLE LOT more that 150K. And If I ever make 250K I’ll be surprised again.
Even at my current lower middle-class by Republican standards income of 175K a year I could easily pay a few extra thousand in taxes a year even though no one is looking for me to do that. And if I have to “tighten my belt” because of the extra tax burden that won’t mean going without food or missing a mortgage payment…at most, it might mean booking a standard suite instead of a deluxe on my next cruise.
Actually, if I make 250K I won’t have to pay ANY more in taxes. If I make 260K I’ll have to pay the higher percentage on 10K only, which comes out to about 300 but you DO realize that you only pay the extra percentage on your income over 250K, the first 250K is taxed at the same rate as everyone else.
And it’s really really sad that some hard core Republicans are letting themselves be driven from middle-class down to grinding poverty by buying into the Mitt Romney Quiverfull crap and having 15 kids on that 45k income.
I fail to see how you paying less taxes drives me down into poverty.
QFT
:eek: Is that really the Republican’s number for lower middle class?
Heh. Do I know you? RCCL-3;NCL-1;PG-1 
I’m surprised that so many are misinformed about this.
That’s current policy. Many posters here are calling for Clinton-era tax rates across the board, which would cost a $175,000/yr taxpayer a lot of money.
It would cost me $1000 or so, maybe a little more.
Well, there was the WSJ graphic about how the proposed (health care plan? tax increases? lack of tax cuts?) would affect a sample selection of America, and every sample seemed like they added an unnecessary zero. The lowest income they showed was around $85,000 a year .. in retirement income! $8500 is more like it.
I’m still not convinved that someone didn’t doctor it to add extra zeroes, but yes, if the WSJ is any guide, they seem to think the average household makes mid $100K.
During the last presidential campaign the GOP defined middle class higher than that.
Off by a factor of 2. The retired couple were taking in $180k/year.
[shrug] Whatever works.
Relating that to post #1344: It is perhaps the case that, in flat reverse of some common assumptions, it is the Countryside that sucks down the taxes the City contributes. On net, that is.