Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism)

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
User avatar
Juan_Bottom
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism)

Post by Juan_Bottom »

http://www.smashmonster.com/ode-to-the- ... eral-teat/
As I look here, it appears that the Conservative States are literally supported by the Blue ones. They get more back in federal funds than they pay in.

There are quite a few tea partiers who come from states that are quite happy to suck at the Federal teat. Of course, many people have known for years that Blue States tend to support Red States financially. There are a few exceptions (such as Texas), but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. If you want to cut from the Federal budget so badly, cut it from your state first I say. Let’s look at a few great examples of Tea Party hypocrisy.

Before I get to the congressmen, let’s look at Haley Barbour, Mississippi governor and well-known big mouth. This is the guy who thought FEMA did a bang-up job after Katrina. This is the guy who is trying to grease the presidential wheels for himself by claiming he balanced his state’s budget. This is the guy whose state ranks #1 at taking way more money from the Federal government than his state puts in. This is a classic Welfare State – taking money from the blue states to “balance its budget.” If we cut that largesse – and just gave Mississippi and Good Ole Boy HB back what they put in, we would save $7 billion a year.

Now let’s move on to Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who is becoming the poster boy for destroying social safety nets. I mean, where is Sarah Palin and her talk of death panels? You want to kill off old people, just make them buy private insurance with vouchers (this has to be the funniest and most absurd idea in the history of dealing with spiraling medical costs – what a boondoggle for insurance companies!). And if you want to kill off poor people let corrupt states like Mississippi that ranks last in the nation for education figure out how to help their sick. I mean, if they can’t figure out how to educate someone beyond an 8th grade reading level, how are they going to figure out paying for cancer treatments?

If we took Wisconsin’s Federal subsidies that go beyond what the state puts into the kitty, we’d save another BILLION dollars a year. Wow, I’ve already cut 8 billion a year!

I’ll cut about another 40 billion thus:

Big mouth Joe “Liar” Wilson and Jim DeMint of South Carolina can give back $7 billion and change a year. What the hell? Are we subsidizing tobacco?

Steve King of Iowa (holy moly this guy is a real charmer – who actually votes for someone like this?) can give back the extra $2 billion his state gets – likely for farm subsidies so we can all get fatter on corn and potatoes.

Rand Paul of Kentucky? No, it can’t be? Another welfare state with one of the biggest tea party big mouths representin’ in Congress? Yup. $7 billion a year. Give it back.

Marco Rubio and a bunch of other tea party whiners from Florida can give back the extra $10 billion a year they get.

Alabama’s rep Robert Aderhold self-identifies as a tea partier while his state rakes in an extra 10 billion than they pay in every year.

None of this takes into account just how big the percent of the money in the federal coffers comes from states like New Jersey, New York, California, Massachusetts…yes, for decades the blue states have subsidized red states. NO MORE.

Of course there are some exceptions – District of Columbia takes beaucoup bucks – mainly to support Federal programs – from the IRS to the CIA to the Department of Defense. It’s expected because it is the seat of the Federal Government. But Iowa? Kentucky? South Carolina? Give us our money back. Let us spend it on states that don’t whine about taxes and like having bridges that don’t collapse, cities with sufficient law enforcement, and citizens with roofs over their heads.

Some might argue – that’s not fair to the people of those states who will be harmed. I agree. We could do something Republicans love, a voucher system. Let’s use Mississippi again as an example since it’s such a miserable, poorly managed state. You could use some of the saved money to give people “get out of Mississippi free” cards. If you are at the poverty level – or let’s say 2-3 times the poverty level since, face it, the poverty level number is so low you couldn’t live on dog food at it – you get a Voucher – worth say $10K – to move to a better state. We’d still save a lot of money. They would likely fare better in states that are better managed.

Frankly, in the end, if people don’t want the Federal government spending money, those people should not get extra Federal money. Fair is fair.

Oh, and if they shut down the government I hope they make sure no one’s cleaning the toilets on Capitol Hill. Let them stew in it while they hash out a so-called budget.



PS – forgot to mention Alaska – 2 billion a year more – thanks for the check, Sarah.
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/census_states.aspx
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/ ... ensus-data
http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-s ... x-dollars/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/1 ... ississippi
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/201 ... ral-taxes/
Over the last year, tea party groups across the country have staged rallies and pressured politicians to protest big government and demand reduced public spending.
It would appear that Conservatives take money from us and then redistribute it amongst themselves. And then they b*tch about government spending.
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by thegreekdog »

I'm not entirely sure you (or the person you quoted) read the link you provided:

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/census_states.aspx

EDIT:

Government Expenditures on the Blue States "Subsidizing" the Red States:

New Jersey - $14 billion (9th) or $1,663 per person (18th)
New York - $45 billion (2nd) or $2,301 per person (4th)
California - $64 billion (1st) or $1,730 per person (15th)
Massachusetts - $14 billion (10th) or $2,122 per person (5th)
Image
User avatar
Phatscotty
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Phatscotty »

It doesn't matter what party the politician comes from....under the system we have, each state pays in a certain amount every year. Of course, where else would you expect the gov't to spend the money? In fact most of it is spent in the states. The gravity of the situation is that as much as taxpayers pay in, they are well within their rights for trying to get as much of that money back as possible (taxation....representation).

I understand this system will never work out perfectly, as it is just one negative aspect to our current taxation system which allows politicians to punish or reward special classes or groups or individuals or corporations etc with pork and butter.
User avatar
Juan_Bottom
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Juan_Bottom »

thegreekdog wrote:I'm not entirely sure you (or the person you quoted) read the link you provided:
I read all the links, but the link above the quote is the match. I simply posted a bunch of relative links that supported the premise of the thread. The same Tea Partiers that believe our government's expenditures to be unsatisfactory are also the ones that are burdening the system the most.
User avatar
Night Strike
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Night Strike »

If it's the fault of the Tea Partiers, why is the federal government forcing states to take federal money even though they've tried to turn it down?

Also, many of the red states have had vast areas of their territory stolen by the federal government in the form of national parks and protected areas. How much of that federal money goes to those types of expenses?

I vote we cut virtually all aid and mandates that the federal government holds over the states. That would solve everybody's problems.
Image
User avatar
GreecePwns
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by GreecePwns »

Hey if a state doesn't want federal aid, fine. It follows the same logic as the "if someone wants to pay more in taxes" idea.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Phatscotty
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Phatscotty »

GreecePwns wrote:Hey if a state doesn't want federal aid, fine. It follows the same logic as the "if someone wants to pay more in taxes" idea.
it's kind of hard to turn something down that you already paid for.

reduce the tax level to try to match the amount the state would pass up, you got yourself a deal.
User avatar
GreecePwns
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by GreecePwns »

Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Hey if a state doesn't want federal aid, fine. It follows the same logic as the "if someone wants to pay more in taxes" idea.
it's kind of hard to turn something down that you already paid for.

reduce the tax level to try to match the amount the state would pass up, you got yourself a deal.
The governor of Texas attempts to turn down federal aid routinely.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Night Strike wrote:
I vote we cut virtually all aid and mandates that the federal government holds over the states. That would solve everybody's problems.
Yeah.. let's do away with child labor laws, anti pollution restrictions, fair banking laws, agricultural inspection, etc.


yep, that would solve everything... pretty much like it was in 1920. :roll:
User avatar
Phatscotty
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Phatscotty »

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
I vote we cut virtually all aid and mandates that the federal government holds over the states. That would solve everybody's problems.

yep, that would solve everything... pretty much like it was in 1890.
FREEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Image
User avatar
Mr_Adams
Posts: 1987
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Mr_Adams »

Are we counting towards the taxes paid by the state all the tax revenue generated by corporations centered in New York, Illinois and such, which are only blue states because they have been taken over by the unions which mob any productive city? If big companies moved their HQ's to Mississippi, suddenly Mississippi would be making much larger contributions to the country's tax income, but then the parasitic unions would follow, the state would turn blue, and "LOOK! Blue state supporting red state again!!!"

What would be more appropriate would be: Do red PEOPLE pay more? or blue PEOPLE?

The whole argument is based on collectivism. We are about individuality here in the US.
Image
spurgistan
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by spurgistan »

Mr_Adams wrote:Are we counting towards the taxes paid by the state all the tax revenue generated by corporations centered in New York, Illinois and such, which are only blue states because they have been taken over by the unions which mob any productive city? If big companies moved their HQ's to Mississippi, suddenly Mississippi would be making much larger contributions to the country's tax income, but then the parasitic unions would follow, the state would turn blue, and "LOOK! Blue state supporting red state again!!!"

What would be more appropriate would be: Do red PEOPLE pay more? or blue PEOPLE?

The whole argument is based on collectivism. We are about individuality here in the US.
I'm just gonna ignore the crazy in the 1st paragraph, because your first question sounds like you finally took a breath, or something. Remember to breath, please.

For one thing, I do kinda find the blue states versus red states thing a bit didactic. We're a purple country, folks.

But to perpetuate the paradigm, it shouldn't matter how much we pay, per capita. If red states tend to receive more in federal assistance than they produce in tax revenue, even compared to us queers in the blue states, (which they do), and yet their political leadership rails against federal spending being mostly dedicated to "urban issues," it's kind of hypocritical, doncha think?

Also, TGD, check tax revenue in the states you mentioned. I'm assuming you won't list gross revenues for California? Because that would be unfair.
Also,

Also, red people and blue people? teehee.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
User avatar
Mr_Adams
Posts: 1987
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Mr_Adams »

spurgistan wrote:
Also, red people and blue people? teehee.
Yes, red people are red in the face over the stupidly excessive spending. The blue people talk themselves blue in the face as to why they "deserve" more benefits.

And of course you will ignore the point made that liberal voters swarm to productive areas to take advantage of the available resources.
Image
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by thegreekdog »

Juan_Bottom wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I'm not entirely sure you (or the person you quoted) read the link you provided:
I read all the links, but the link above the quote is the match. I simply posted a bunch of relative links that supported the premise of the thread. The same Tea Partiers that believe our government's expenditures to be unsatisfactory are also the ones that are burdening the system the most.
Okay, except they aren't. The links you provided after the quote do not support the premise of the thread in any way. In fact, as I've illustrated very clearly for you, the states that your friend identified as "supporting" the Red States are actually in the top half of states that take money from the federal government.

Perhaps you're doing a little pimpdave thing here, I don't know. But, if you are trying to be serious, here it is again. The states listed below are the states identified in the "article" as states ostensibly supporting the Red States. All of them take more money from the federal government, per person, than most of the other states in the US.

New Jersey - $14 billion (9th) or $1,663 per person (18th) - New Jersey, as a state, takes the 9th most from the federal government and the 18th most per capita. This is more than half of the states in the US take.
New York - $45 billion (2nd) or $2,301 per person (4th) - New York, as a state, takes the 2nd most from the federal government and the 4th most per capita. This is also more than half of the states in the US take.
California - $64 billion (1st) or $1,730 per person (15th) - California, as a state, takes the most from the federal government and the 15th most per capita. This is also more than half of the states in the US take.
Massachusetts - $14 billion (10th) or $2,122 per person (5th) - Massachusetts, as a state, takes the 10th most from the federal government and the 5th most per capita. This is more than half of the states in the US take.

Simply put, the data does not support your premise.

Perhaps your premise should be, instead, that Red States shoudn't take any money from the federal government. I would agree with that premise.
Image
User avatar
SirSebstar
Posts: 6969
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:51 am
Location: SirSebstar is BACK. Highscore: Colonel Score: 2919 21/03/2011

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by SirSebstar »

mm can someone help me out here.
If one area states they 'support' the other guys, does that entitle them to say so/demand more say so/ demand retribution/ demand lower taxes/whatever..?

the north and routh of italy springs to mind, belgio between the frensh and vlemisch groups, the Nehterlands with the randstad versus the outerlaying area's
you are one country, one group of people, deal with the problems at hand instead of being a populistic demagogue who while crying out things like freedom, equality and responsibility is readely tearing down everything build before him in terms of safeguard for things like freedom, equality and responsibility .

maybe its just me, but nothing good can come of this
Image
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by thegreekdog »

SirSebstar wrote:If one area states they 'support' the other guys, does that entitle them to say so/demand more say so/ demand retribution/ demand lower taxes/whatever..?
No. All citizens and companies in the United States pay taxes based on rates which are based on their income regardless of which state they live in.
SirSebstar wrote:the north and routh of italy springs to mind, belgio between the frensh and vlemisch groups, the Nehterlands with the randstad versus the outerlaying area's
you are one country, one group of people, deal with the problems at hand instead of being a populistic demagogue who while crying out things like freedom, equality and responsibility is readely tearing down everything build before him in terms of safeguard for things like freedom, equality and responsibility .
Some people on the conservative side of things have been increasingly vehement about secession. It has been considered (whether seriously or not I don't know) in states like Arizona and Utah (I think). Some conservatives would argue that when the federal government continuously spends more money than it takes in, when interest on the national debt is an increasingly large percentage of GDP, and when no serious cuts are made to spending, that it is time to leave the union. Populist demagoguery? Maybe, but there is a valid point in there somewhere.
Image
User avatar
SirSebstar
Posts: 6969
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:51 am
Location: SirSebstar is BACK. Highscore: Colonel Score: 2919 21/03/2011

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by SirSebstar »

no it isn't.
there is no valid point to turn your back once you have it good.
Look at the euro, brittain did not want to participate, as was their right, but they are suffering for it, and will continue ti suffer for it.
It may seem wierd, but the the bigger you are the stronger you stand. Unless ofcourse some idiot demagoge is killing the cohesion to further his own nihilistic agenda
Image
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by thegreekdog »

SirSebstar wrote:no it isn't.
there is no valid point to turn your back once you have it good.
Look at the euro, brittain did not want to participate, as was their right, but they are suffering for it, and will continue ti suffer for it.
It may seem wierd, but the the bigger you are the stronger you stand. Unless ofcourse some idiot demagoge is killing the cohesion to further his own nihilistic agenda
You're assuming, of course, that Americans believe they "have it good." While it is certainly true that the United States was the world economic leader, signs are pointing to this no longer being the case. The United States dollar will soon no longer be the reserve currency. Unemployment is at a record high and has shown no sign of improvement. Universal healthcare remains unavailable, even with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The government remains committed to spying on its own citizens thanks to the continued enforcement of the Patriot Act. United States companies have and continue to move operations overseas due to high corporate tax rates and the availability of cheap labor in other countries. And foreign interests own the rights to the majority of our federal debt.
Image
User avatar
SirSebstar
Posts: 6969
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:51 am
Location: SirSebstar is BACK. Highscore: Colonel Score: 2919 21/03/2011

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by SirSebstar »

thegreekdog wrote:
SirSebstar wrote:no it isn't.
there is no valid point to turn your back once you have it good.
Look at the euro, brittain did not want to participate, as was their right, but they are suffering for it, and will continue ti suffer for it.
It may seem wierd, but the the bigger you are the stronger you stand. Unless ofcourse some idiot demagoge is killing the cohesion to further his own nihilistic agenda
You're assuming, of course, that Americans believe they "have it good." While it is certainly true that the United States was the world economic leader, signs are pointing to this no longer being the case. The United States dollar will soon no longer be the reserve currency. Unemployment is at a record high and has shown no sign of improvement. Universal healthcare remains unavailable, even with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The government remains committed to spying on its own citizens thanks to the continued enforcement of the Patriot Act. United States companies have and continue to move operations overseas due to high corporate tax rates and the availability of cheap labor in other countries. And foreign interests own the rights to the majority of our federal debt.
americans may believe they have it 'bad'. Thats does not make it so relative to the rest of the world. I'll grant you though, that it is difficult for any state to deal with its own minorities, weather those be race or economics or gender based..
Image
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by thegreekdog »

SirSebstar wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
SirSebstar wrote:no it isn't.
there is no valid point to turn your back once you have it good.
Look at the euro, brittain did not want to participate, as was their right, but they are suffering for it, and will continue ti suffer for it.
It may seem wierd, but the the bigger you are the stronger you stand. Unless ofcourse some idiot demagoge is killing the cohesion to further his own nihilistic agenda
You're assuming, of course, that Americans believe they "have it good." While it is certainly true that the United States was the world economic leader, signs are pointing to this no longer being the case. The United States dollar will soon no longer be the reserve currency. Unemployment is at a record high and has shown no sign of improvement. Universal healthcare remains unavailable, even with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The government remains committed to spying on its own citizens thanks to the continued enforcement of the Patriot Act. United States companies have and continue to move operations overseas due to high corporate tax rates and the availability of cheap labor in other countries. And foreign interests own the rights to the majority of our federal debt.
As most, if not all, people are, we're self-absorbed and it's all relative.
americans may believe they have it 'bad'. Thats does not make it so relative to the rest of the world. I'll grant you though, that it is difficult for any state to deal with its own minorities, weather those be race or economics or gender based..
Image
User avatar
Juan_Bottom
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Juan_Bottom »

thegreekdog wrote:
Okay, except they aren't. The links you provided after the quote do not support the premise of the thread in any way. In fact, as I've illustrated very clearly for you, the states that your friend identified as "supporting" the Red States are actually in the top half of states that take money from the federal government.
The premise is that Red States get more than they give, that wasn't meant to be a blanket statement for all red states as because one or two could take care of itself. I just meant to draw the eye to the ones that do (virtually all of them). So yeah that was bad English and I apologize. However in fairness the Red States absolutely are the top half and then some when one crucial conservation is factored in: the total dollars that each state has paid in, before federal dollars come back.
thegreekdog wrote:the states that your friend identified as "supporting" the Red States are actually in the top half of states that take money from the federal government.
But for the most part they don't take more than they pay in. Or much more money than they pay in. Sure they get a ton of money back, but they also pay in a ton of money. But the Red States by and large actually take much more than they give. Here's some much clearer facts:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html
Take a look at the total reversal of the state's ranking when total taxes paid are taken into consideration. There are 33 states (and the District of Colombia) that are getting more money back than they are paying in. Obviously this kind of religious spending cannot be sustained. Thus, this country must rid itself of Socialist Conservatives in order to prosper once again.
User avatar
Mr_Adams
Posts: 1987
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Mr_Adams »

Juan_Bottom wrote: But for the most part they don't take more than they pay in. Or much more money than they pay in. Sure they get a ton of money back, but they also pay in a ton of money. But the Red States by and large actually take much more than they give.

As I pointed out earlier, this is because the blues flock to states with strong economies, which makes them blue. Image

even thought the states who receive more in taxes than they get are against the redistribution, the people who are against the redistribution, generally, do not.

Also, how much of what Arizona "receives" is included amongst the Native American reservations? They are part of the state, but they aren't. They are a sovereign nation, but they are Americans (in most cases). It's a load of bull crap, and it costs us millions.
Image
User avatar
Juan_Bottom
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Juan_Bottom »

Mr_Adams wrote: Also, how much of what Arizona "receives" is included amongst the Native American reservations? They are part of the state, but they aren't. They are a sovereign nation, but they are Americans (in most cases). It's a load of bull crap, and it costs us millions.
Hi. Mixed-Indian descendant here. Do go on?
User avatar
Mr_Adams
Posts: 1987
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Mr_Adams »

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote: Also, how much of what Arizona "receives" is included amongst the Native American reservations? They are part of the state, but they aren't. They are a sovereign nation, but they are Americans (in most cases). It's a load of bull crap, and it costs us millions.
Hi. Mixed-Indian descendant here. Do go on?

Hi. Same. Go down in the grand canyon to the town of Havasu Pai. They receive federal money, and have a great tourist industry, and it is one of the worst slums I've ever been through. But people still go, because a 5 hour hike is more than worth the sight of that beautiful waterfall falling between canyon walls 1/4 mile down is more than worth it. Just one example.
Image
User avatar
Juan_Bottom
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Red States get more than they give (because of Socialism

Post by Juan_Bottom »

Isn't that why they receive federal money though? Because they are under the poverty line? A lot of these Red State's have one important struggle or another. Education being the prime example.

My grandmother told me a story. On her reservation there was nowhere to work. The Feds came through and built a bunch of new modular homes for the Indians who lived there. But most of them still had no jobs. So the homes were used like campers or cabins. Five years later it was a blighted area again. Then they built a college there, and things improved. But the Natives still don't have a hospital of their own, or anything in the way of fire protection. Likewise Health Care and Medicaid is a huge cost for everyone nowadays, and all Indians should receive free care under treaty. Of course Congress never gives enough money for that, but that is one big expense that I would like to see here.
NA's also have a huge turnout for elections, yet +14% of their votes are cast out in each presidential election. All-in-all we don't take care of them like we should and then we don't count their votes of accountability.



Also, what are the odds of us meeting? We should start a clan.
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”