News

**AC488** I got no balls User ID: 488 09-19-2012 08:59 AM

Moochers Against Welfare

Many readers of The Times were, therefore, surprised to learn, from an excellent article published last weekend, that the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts?

The article made its case with maps showing the distribution of dependency, but you get the same story from a more formal comparison. Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

Now, there’s no mystery about red-state reliance on government programs. These states are relatively poor, which means both that people have fewer sources of income other than safety-net programs and that more of them qualify for “means-tested” programs such as Medicaid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinio...lfare.html

yeah3

**WhenWillitEnd**

WhenWillitEnd Wrote:

Ahriman Wrote:
SaltWaterTaffy Wrote:
The problem with that is that 21 of the 33 states who take more federal money than they pay in are so-called "Red States" who voted for McCain in 2008.

People elect politicians who talk about smaller government, but they are WIDE open for federal money to come in to their state at much higher rates than they pay in. WV and Mississippi, to name two, get $2.70something for every dollar they pay in federal tax.

NJ and Connecticut, by contrast, only get back $.70something for each dollar they put in.

They give lip service to a smaller federal government, but what would happen if the federal government took away their pork?

I wish the politicians would get up there and explain why the "blue states" are subsidizing the "red states". It would be interesting to watch.

Because Republicans are smarter.. duh

But seriously, i agree with you, that is f*cking retarded, why pay money to the federal government just so it can be granted back to the States (after bureaucrats siphon off a few bucks) ... you just illustrated my point exactly..

So no, there is no problem with my original point addressed by your post, in fact you just reinforced my point..

All social services should be administered by state and local governments and raise their own revenue to pay for those services, get it or do you need more e'splainin'?

AC488 Wrote:

Moochers Against Welfare

Many readers of The Times were, therefore, surprised to learn, from an excellent article published last weekend, that the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts?

The article made its case with maps showing the distribution of dependency, but you get the same story from a more formal comparison. Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

Now, there’s no mystery about red-state reliance on government programs. These states are relatively poor, which means both that people have fewer sources of income other than safety-net programs and that more of them qualify for “means-tested” programs such as Medicaid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinio...lfare.html

We already heard, stupid. You progressives are seriously dense.

There is no problem with social services, they should just be administered at a state level.. FFS learn to think critically

**JF Priest** · **JF Priest** Subscriber User ID: 47416 09-19-2012 06:19 PM **Posts: 23,872**

nothing... But Barry is going to win anyway..(IMHO)

**WhenWillitEnd**

JF Priest Wrote:

nothing... But Barry is going to win anyway..(IMHO)

I agree. I thought Barry was set to win since the beginning of the republican primaries (unless of course Ron Paul won the primaries)

**SaltWaterTaffy** lop guest User ID: 53361 09-19-2012 07:25 PM

WhenWillitEnd Wrote:

Because Republicans are smarter.. duh

But seriously, i agree with you, that is f*cking retarded, why pay money to the federal government just so it can be granted back to the States (after bureaucrats siphon off a few bucks) ... you just illustrated my point exactly..

So no, there is no problem with my original point addressed by your post, in fact you just reinforced my point..

All social services should be administered by state and local governments and raise their own revenue to pay for those services, get it or do you need more e'splainin'?

It is CRAFTY how a lot of those "Red States" are red states in federal elections, but have blue representation in congress. West Virginia comes to mind.

That's a SMART (for your state) but kind of hypocritical way to vote.

That way, you get all your social conservatism, federal tax, family values, defense stuff, but you also get the big pork for your states' programs from your dems in congress.

Everyone is always trying to get THEIRS no matter what level we are talking about.

**************************** (Another thought:)

There's also a big dichotomy set up in a lot of the Appalachian/Rust belt/and even high-immigrant areas with the push/pull between social conservatism and unions.

I'd LOVE to see some politicians like the old fashioned Democrats like PA's late Bob Casey. Ever since the right co-opted (or the left let go of) the "life" and "family" issues, lots of traditional democrats are homeless.

Where is a pro-family, anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-social-justice person supposed to go? Think back to Irish/Italian/etc (often Catholic) immigrants/steel workers/glass workers/etc. Or today's Catholic Mexican immigrants, religious Blacks, and union members of all varieties. Or me, lol.

Their belief system has no analogue in the current system since abortion and birth control, and "guns and God", became political issues and the parties had to choose sides.

That's why these voters are always "swing" voters but unlike the partisans, they never really have a candidate for them.