You haven’t demonstrated that conservatives as a homogenous bloc receive more than they give in taxes. Your evidence is that blue states pay more than they receive. I will give you a simplified scenario that will show you that you are making claims that you cannot back up with that evidence.
First, assume that everyone in this example is a loyal partisan.
Let’s say there are 20 people in Bluestate. 12 are Democrats. 8 are Republicans. They vote in two D senators, elect a D governor, etc. Those 12 Ds pay a total of 12000 dollars in taxes. The 8 Rs pay 18000 in taxes.
Let’s also say there are 20 people in Redstate. 12 are R. 8 are D. They elect only Rs. The 12 Rs pay a total of 12000 in taxes while the 8 Ds pay 8000.
To recap. Bluestate pays 30000 in taxes. Redstate pays 20000. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say that anyone who pays 1000 in taxes breaks even. In other words they get out exactly what they pay in. The 8 Rs in Bluestate are then paying for any benefits the Ds receive in Redstate. As you can see I have created a scenario which aligns perfectly with your evidence, but fails to support your broader claim.
I am not saying that this is the case and of course real life is 1 trillion times more complex than this. Since you rely on data that lacks any sort of nuance and instead turns individuals into crude aggregates, I too must resort to simple means of refuting your claims.
No I don’t support secession as of this moment. I do believe that secession should be allowed in some way so it can serve as a check on abuses by the federal government, but I would think it should require the suport of a large portion of the population of the state, county, or municipality in question.
I am satisfied that is the case, and the statistics support that conclusion. That you remain unpersuaded in the face of cold, hard math does not impeach my cites.
Helping your neighbor involves, er, helping your neighbor. Sending your money to a bureaucracy that then doles out money without addressing the symptoms of poverty helps no one. But then, it’s not designed to. These programs have always been about buying votes, not helping people.
Liberalism has always been about crusades to solve the problems of large groups, combined with casual indifference to individual suffering.
The source is me. I figure things out. It’s not like it’s hard in this case.
You’re right that Republicans are bad at giving money to the poor. That’s because government is a terrible mechanism for doing so. Obviously a rich country should insure that no one among us starves, but let’s not call it helping thy neighbor. It’s a neutral thing. While it keeps people from starving, it also destroys their pride and their ability to care for themselves.
I’ve seen it in action. There are small towns, especially in the red states, where most of the people are on welfare and anyone who shows ambitions of rising above their station in life are treated with hostility. It becomes a culture. Republicans aren’t just making shit up when they talk about a culture of dependency. It’s real.
Except for all others that have ever been tried. Relying on private charity to help the poor is like treating cancer with morphine and you know it. Relying on the business sector is like treating cancer with curare. LBJ’s War on Poverty, OTOH, might well have succeeded had not the Vietnam War drained the funding.
Hungry people don’t have much pride to begin with. To paraphrase the French radical Marat, what good is a political party to a man with nothing to eat?
Wouldn’t worry about that too much. Give them something to eat, and trust them to sort out their emotional problems at some later date.
Oh yeah, that was the problem, it was underfunded. Well now it’s funded to the moon with eligibility expanded greatly under Obama. Are people learning more self-reliance yet?
You’re right that private charity is inadequate. There is no real solution, as the war on poverty has demonstrated. However, those few who do rise above, they usually did because someone gave them a hand up personally. A church, a neighbor, a caring relative, sometimes even a stranger. Or perhaps even a greedy businessman who saw potential in the person.
The “give people help” part of the War on Poverty was a good thing. The “don’t be ashamed, you’re entitled to help” part of it was a very, very bad thing. Stigmas exist for a reason. And the removal of the stigma against receiving help was politically motivated, it wasn’t based on compassion.
I have conceded your claim that blue states are net payers of taxes while red states are net takers. That’s doesnt support your claim that conservatives are net takers and liberals are net payers. I’m sorry if you cannot discern the difference between the claims due to your robotic partisanship.
Even in red states, poor people vote Democrat. Will is right, it’s not conservatives who are the net receivers.
Look at the exit polls for any election in any state. Income is a pretty good predictor of voting habits. Taxpayers vote Republicans, benefit receivers vote Democrat.
I conceded this point. I don’t know why I bother posting in Elections. It’s like wading in a pool of Rachel Maddows with the attention spans of goldfish.
If you can’t tell the difference between a capitalist and a slave owner idk what to tell ya BG.