Why do people hate Liberals?

[numan]

Cost of living is diffrent in Texas commie

You mean they charge poor people more for things in Texas, Boobie?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

The problem with your little list is take a look at the populations of the states you are complaining about vs those states you think are so great.

More to the point, a great lion's share of those federal expenditures are for federal installations like military bases and such. New Mexico seems to get a disproportionate share because we have three large military bases here plus the White Sands missile proving grounds and the scientific 'Great Array'--all placed here because weather is rarely ever an issue here--plus we have the Los Alamos Natonal Labs put here because of its remoteness at the time it was put here and its companion Sandia Labs in Albuquerque positioned to easily work with Los Alamos and numerous research groups placed at Kirtland AFB here.

How much has New Mexico benefitted from all that lovely federal money? We have some of the nation's poorest people, one of the hgher crime rates, are at the bottom of education, health care, quality of life and a lot of other key indicator rankings, and have very high unemployment despite an unemployment percentage below the national average--most New Mexicans who need work have just given up.

But the percentages are also relative. 27% of money received/spent in New Mexico is allocated by the Federal government. Only 16% of California's budget comes from the federal government.

But New Mexico receives only 8% of what California receives from the Federal government - 4.5 billion to New Mexico compared to 57.7 billion to California.

But you add up all those allocations to all 50 states and it totals about a half trillion against a 3.5+ trillion dollar budget because social security, medicare, and federal pensions are not included in those numbers.

 

[RKMBrown]

I see from your map that Texas is quite a leader in poverty, as well as in its traditional lead in insanity.

Is that because of your rugged individualism?

.

Partly, yes. We have learned to live as kings on much less money than northern folks live in poverty. My ranch on a creek with a nice sized home would cost two orders of magnitude more in boston, san-francisco, NYC... poverty rates do not accurately reflect happiness or comfort.

Additionally, Texas has a lot of illegal immigrants who start out in poverty.

 

[RKMBrown]

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

The problem with your little list is take a look at the populations of the states you are complaining about vs those states you think are so great.

More to the point, a great lion's share of those federal expenditures are for federal installations like military bases and such. New Mexico seems to get a disproportionate share because we have three large military bases here plus the White Sands missile proving grounds and the scientific 'Great Array'--all placed here because weather is rarely ever an issue here--plus we have the Los Alamos Natonal Labs put here because of its remoteness at the time it was put here and its companion Sandia Labs in Albuquerque positioned to easily work with Los Alamos and numerous research groups placed at Kirtland AFB here.

How much has New Mexico benefitted from all that lovely federal money? We have some of the nation's poorest people, one of the hgher crime rates, are at the bottom of education, health care, quality of life and a lot of other key indicator rankings, and have very high unemployment despite an unemployment percentage below the national average--most New Mexicans who need work have just given up.

But the percentages are also relative. 27% of money received/spent in New Mexico is allocated by the Federal government. Only 16% of California's budget comes from the federal government.

But New Mexico receives only 8% of what California receives from the Federal government - 4.5 billion to New Mexico compared to 57.7 billion to California.

But you add up all those allocations to all 50 states and it totals about a half trillion against a 3.5+ trillion dollar budget because social security, medicare, and federal pensions are not included in those numbers.

Additionally, a great many Americans work in rich states with high rates of pay and high costs of living, then retire to states with lower costs of living.

 

[thanatos144]

Cost of living is diffrent in Texas commie

You mean they charge poor people more for things in Texas, Boobie?

.

Such hate and jealousies in you I'm guessing your mommy told you could do whatever you wanted in the world then you realize you couldn't cause you're too f****** stupid

 

[Foxfyre]

But to further put into perspective all that federal money that the modern 'liberal' always qualifies as 'compassion', what if we had done it the modern 'conservative' aka 'classical liberal' way?

The federal government would still be performing its constitutionally mandated functions and ONLY its constitutionally mandated functions and, except for possibly the military, there would be no post employment entitlements of any kind. And because there would be no pork allocated and no subsidies hidden in the defense budget et al, the government would be able to do its constitutionally mandated functions with say 1/4th of what it now spends and would balance its budget as much as possible every year.

Most of the rest of all that money would be left with the people to use to save (so money would be available for others to borrow), to invest in growing businesses, providing good secure employment for people, spent without taking money out of the economy which is what true economic stimulus is, and used in philanthropic projects to help those unable to help themselves, build hospital wings and museums and libraries and otherwise improve the quality of life.

To promote an economy capable of supporting the people via the dignity of work and honest earnings and increasing the quality of life is also compassion in the eyes of the classical liberal.

 

[CandySlice]

True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?

I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites. Nothing good can come of that. Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are four different things, not two.

But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist. Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.

But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.

You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins. Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.

In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.

American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.

American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.

Perfect. That's the best explaination I've ever seen.

 

[CandySlice]

I see from your map that Texas is quite a leader in poverty, as well as in its traditional lead in insanity.

Is that because of your rugged individualism?

.

Partly, yes. We have learned to live as kings on much less money than northern folks live in poverty. My ranch on a creek with a nice sized home would cost two orders of magnitude more in boston, san-francisco, NYC... poverty rates do not accurately reflect happiness or comfort.

Additionally, Texas has a lot of illegal immigrants who start out in poverty.

Numan, it's starting hurt, watching you stumble around tripping over your own tongue. You are clearly out-gunned here. Cut your loses and run.

 

[rightwinger]

no I mean moochers

Such as?

As the rightwing still whines about a $35 a month cell phone

But since cellphones were once a symbol of wealth, we can't have ignorant black women having them....can we?

I bet she has one of them color TVs and a high philut'n microwave oven

 

[Foxfyre]

Ben Franklin was no saint and put his pants on one leg at a time like most guys do--imperfect and flawed in some ways as all people are, but brilliant and bright and blessed with amazing common sense as almost all imperfect people boast some virtues.

But he had it right. To paraphrase: to encourage poverty--to make people more comfortable in it--is not compassion. Compassion is showing them the way to overcome poverty and leading or driving them out of it.

Even if the way to do that is to require work for welfare, that is true compassion. Children should not grow up seeing the parent live fairly decently on the government dole and developing a concept that such government support was his right as a citizen and deciding it was preferable to doing the hard work of educating himself, putting in his dues to acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, and acquire references that would enable himself to support himself and a family. That is not compassion.

Children should grow up seeing the parent get up, get cleaned up, get dressed, and go out to work for money to pay the rent and light bill and put groceries on the table. And if the parent has to do that for a government pittance, he or she is likely to decide if s/he has to work anyway, s/he might as well make it worth his/her while and get a real job that pays better.

In the classical liberal view, that is compassion.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd prefer to keep linguistic terms stable and stop morphing them into their own opposites. Nothing good can come of that. Let's recognize that "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" and "rightist" are four different things, not two.

But let's be clear: BOTH political parties are corporatist. Eisenhower warned us about that on his way out the door, and he was absolutely correct.

But unless you understand what is opposite of what, and unless the terms are defined, no coherent debate or even a conversation is possible.

You are correct that political parties are not useful to use as definitions, nor is any individual or group or demographic, nor is pointing to present or past sins. Even previous historical definitions or dictionaries are not that useful in how Americans understand those terms.

In the simplest terms, 'left' in American vernacular is looking to government for solutions and results and 'right' is looking to the individual for solutions and results.

American liberals/statists/political class look to government to create the sort of society they think they want.

American consevatives/classical liberals/libertarians (small "L") look to the government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form whateve sort of societies we wish to have.

Perfect. That's the best explaination I've ever seen.

Thanks. You and I make a minority of two who even care about the explanation or definition of terms. Most of the rest seem interested in playing the 'whose is blackest' game or complain that any definitions are used at all.

 

[rightwinger]

Ben Franklin was no saint and put his pants on one leg at a time like most guys do--imperfect and flawed in some ways as all people are, but brilliant and bright and blessed with amazing common sense as almost all imperfect people boast some virtues.

But he had it right. To paraphrase: to encourage poverty--to make people more comfortable in it--is not compassion. Compassion is showing them the way to overcome poverty and leading or driving them out of it.

Even if the way to do that is to require work for welfare, that is true compassion. Children should not grow up seeing the parent live fairly decently on the government dole and developing a concept that such government support was his right as a citizen and deciding it was preferable to doing the hard work of educating himself, putting in his dues to acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, and acquire references that would enable himself to support himself and a family. That is not compassion.

Children should grow up seeing the parent get up, get cleaned up, get dressed, and go out to work for money to pay the rent and light bill and put groceries on the table. And if the parent has to do that for a government pittance, he or she is likely to decide if s/he has to work anyway, s/he might as well make it worth his/her while and get a real job that pays better.

In the classical liberal view, that is compassion.

To give old Ben a break, he was a product of his time

This was still a pre-Dickensonian world of debtors prisons and poor farms. In fact, we still had slaves.

To take the advice of founding fathers on how the lower classes should be treated is not advisable

 

[numan]

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

That is really quite amusing.
.

 

[RKMBrown]

Such as?

As the rightwing still whines about a $35 a month cell phone

But since cellphones were once a symbol of wealth, we can't have ignorant black women having them....can we?

I bet she has one of them color TVs and a high philut'n microwave oven

I have 5 people in my family cell phone plan. 5x35 is 175 a month. The original idea for the emergency phone was for remote locations where there are no phones to be given access to an emergency phone line. Emergency cell phones are "free." You can take any cell phone and use it to make an emergency cell phone call for free. No plan is required. There is no reason we need to be giving people cell phone minutes so they can make non-emergency phone calls.

 

[numan]

There is no reason we need to be giving people cell phone minutes so they can make non-emergency phone calls.

You're really quite funny, Tex.

.

 

[CandySlice]

Such as?

As the rightwing still whines about a $35 a month cell phone

But since cellphones were once a symbol of wealth, we can't have ignorant black women having them....can we?

I bet she has one of them color TVs and a high philut'n microwave oven

That's right. All this while her kids go hungry in deference to her crack habit and her propensity to produce unlimited children with various baby-daddies that abscond immediately leaving us to provide for them. Now THERE'S a statistic for you. Number of illigitimate children per capita.

 

[Dragonlady]

The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers, parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.

Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone. I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.

But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money. A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment. By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them. In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.

And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone. Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too. A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.

 

[numan]

'

I see you are a Texan, too, Candy.

Maybe you and Mr. Stetson above can work up a comedy act together.

The kids going hungry due to the mother's crack habit, is classic tarring everyone with the same brush and kicking someone when they're down. Classic one-two punch slapstick, eh, Candy?

.

 

[rightwinger]

As the rightwing still whines about a $35 a month cell phone

But since cellphones were once a symbol of wealth, we can't have ignorant black women having them....can we?

I bet she has one of them color TVs and a high philut'n microwave oven

I have 5 people in my family cell phone plan. 5x35 is 175 a month. The original idea for the emergency phone was for remote locations where there are no phones to be given access to an emergency phone line. Emergency cell phones are "free." You can take any cell phone and use it to make an emergency cell phone call for free. No plan is required. There is no reason we need to be giving people cell phone minutes so they can make non-emergency phone calls.

You know what?

That bitch might even have access to the INTERNET

 

[Foxfyre]

The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers, parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.

Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone. I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.

But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money. A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment. By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them. In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.

And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone. Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too. A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.

Yours must be a state unto itself because in most states you only have to be at a certain income level to qualify for a free phone and virtually unlimited minutes. One per household, technically, and no illegals qualify but neither provision is being enforced. I work with low income families all the time, and I have yet to run across anybody who doesn't have a phone. Most have cell phones AND a land line.

If they MUST make cell phones accessible to people, then have the people pay for them, if only a fraction of their actual cost. Even a nominal fee would discourage those who don't NEED the phone from getting one.

And I wonder how my parents raised their family and I raised my family before the advent of cell phones? Never occurred to us that such a thing was a necessity. But oh well. Working for what you want and need was not out of style back then, and it wasn't considered demeaning or humiliating to ask people to pay for what they got. In fact not paying your own way back then was considered humilitating and demeaning.

But oh well. . . .modern liberalism is so superior to that, eh?