So Texas is considering withdrawl from Medicaid.

[quote name='depascal22']Because dense population areas tend to have more minorities and disadvantaged. Why do they vote Democrat? Because the Republican Party has never and will never will give two shits about anybody but rich white Christians. If they stopped making abortion and tax cuts on the top 1% their main talking points, they might get the rest of America to jump on board.

Also, rural areas have and always will be 95+% white.[/QUOTE]

Define disadvantaged because I would say living in a rural community would be more disadvantageous than living in an urban community given the proximately to local resources (libraries, museums, cultural stuff, parks, employment, entertainment, other people & professionals etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) Why do they vote Republican? Because they're self reliant and aren't expecting any handouts or government benefits to their small community. They don;t need big government.
 
Goddamn. I would seriously consider voting for Gary Johnson in 2012. At least he'll do things we agree with like withdrawing from the wars and legalizing drugs. His anti-traffic light stance is kinda meh.
 
[quote name='tivo']Also, on a personal note depascal, It seems that a large percentage of your responses are rants about "rich white Christians." YOU are the most discriminatory person here by far. I don't think I've heard anyone bloviate about a certain group of people like you have against "the white Christian man". [/QUOTE]

It's not racism or bigotry if it's against white people. +2 if they're male, christian, straight and old.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's not racism or bigotry if it's against white people. +2 if they're male, christian, straight and old.[/QUOTE]
Do you ever add anything beyond a minimal level of sarcasm.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Quick: What percentage of Congress does California control?
What percentage of Congress does Alaska control?
What percentage of the US population are citizens of California?
What percentage of the US population are citizens of Alaska?[/QUOTE]
More intellectual dishonesty?

Population of Alaska: 700,000 (I'm rounding up)
Population of California: 36,960,000 (I'm rounding down)

Members of Congress for Alaska: 1
Members of Congress for California: 53

Members of the Senate for Alaska: 2
Members of the Senate for California: 2

Population of US from Alaska: .003%
Population of US from California: 11%

So tell me, should .003% of the population be able to "dictate" policy to the rest of the 99.007% of the country?

And since you're in the mood for googling, how about you tell me the tax revenues coming from each of those states and how much each state gets back in federal funding. Or are you going to conveniently ignore how red states get more than they put in. Facts are not on your side bub.
 
[quote name='tivo']Define disadvantaged because I would say living in a rural community would be more disadvantageous than living in an urban community given the proximately to local resources (libraries, museums, cultural stuff, parks, employment, entertainment, other people & professionals etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) Why do they vote Republican? Because they're self reliant and aren't expecting any handouts or government benefits to their small community. They don;t need big government.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Members of Congress for Alaska: 1
Members of Congress for California: 53
[/quote]

I think you meant House Representatives here...

Population of US from Alaska: .003%
Population of US from California: 11%
Click to expand...

So, 535 members of Congress. That means Alaska controls 0.69% of our law making branch while California has 10.28% control.

So tell me, should .003% of the population be able to "dictate" policy to the rest of the 99.007% of the country?
Click to expand...

Are you going to tell me that .003% of the population in Alaska has a better idea of the needs of 11% of the population in California? Because their vote sure does count more.

And since you're in the mood for googling, how about you tell me the tax revenues coming from each of those states and how much each state gets back in federal funding. Or are you going to conveniently ignore how red states get more than they put in. Facts are not on your side bub.
Click to expand...

After this last election, are there many blue states left? :p

But seriously, yes, this is a problem... Collecting money from citizens of one state by force to redistribute to another state is something I disagree with. The Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of doing this - Federal taxes should go towards paying for Federal programs (National defense, national highway system, Federal court system, etc., etc.).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I think you meant House Representatives here...



So, 535 members of Congress. That means Alaska controls 0.69% of our law making branch while California has 10.28% control.[/quote]
Which means that Alaska is over-represented by a factor of 230 times while California is under-represented.

Are you going to tell me that .003% of the population in Alaska has a better idea of the needs of 11% of the population in California? Because their vote sure does count more.
Click to expand...
No, and that's why they have state AND local elections to figure out what to do with what they get. Stop being a dishonest partisan shill.

After this last election, are there many blue states left? :p
Click to expand...
Not enough to pay for those freeloading redstates.

But seriously, yes, this is a problem... Collecting money from citizens of one state by force to redistribute to another state is something I disagree with. The Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of doing this - Federal taxes should go towards paying for Federal programs (National defense, national highway system, Federal court system, etc., etc.).
Click to expand...
Yes, I say we let all the red states fend for themselves and see society collapse. Even I'm not that sociopathic.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Alaska sucks more gubberment largesse per person than any blue state.[/QUOTE]

Yep, that's the irony of complaints like these.

It's the sparsely populated, poor ass, rural red states that benefit most form income re-distribution. They're getting highways, education, social programs etc. funded with money re-distributed from the wealthy, blue urban and suburban areas that had not only much larger shares of the population, but also larger proportions of income and taxes paid as that's where the bulk of the highest paying jobs are.

Conservatives bitch about paying high taxes because of urban centers driving elections, when their states benefit the most from federal tax money given out to states. Their states have lower tax revenue and they wouldn't be able to fund anywhere near the level of things that states with wealthy urban centers could without the income re-distribution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which is why I laugh so much when they talk default and earmarks or pork. Fecking tick on two legs sucking a million dollar farm subsidy can't sleep at night thinking a brown child got a bowl of cereal he paid for.
 
When your grandparents will still playing doctor, those large "empty" areas of our country were it's lifeblood. Those large swaths of "nothingness" full of rednecks and uneducated toothless religious gun-huggers that lefties despise so much were the engine of America that helped see it the fastest advancing nation in history for 100 years.

Of course, now that America no longer produces a single thing that anyone else in the world wants, besides green paper, that's all changed.

Perhaps figuring out the reason for why it's changed and bitching about that would be better than bitching about the "cost" of supporting sparsely populated areas we once (and maybe still should) depended on?
 
No one's bitching about supporting the sparsely populated areas.

I'm all for taxes and income re-distribution. I do ok for myself, and I'm 100% fine paying taxes and having money redistributed to people who need it, to states with lower tax bases etc. etc.

It's the idiots who live in these sparsely populated areas AND benefit the most from income redistribution who do the most bitching thinking all their tax dollars are going to support welfare mommas in the ghetto etc.
 
I don't think anyone really complains about taxes going to infrastructure, which is going to cost more vs revenue in many places.

Entitlements are a whole different story, and subsidies of any kind along with welfare mommas are kind of the same thing.
 
Another thing that annoys me dmaul is red state idiots that moan about entitlements but never define them. It just means gubberment money going to people they don't like.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Another thing that annoys me dmaul is red state idiots that moan about entitlements but never define them. It just means gubberment money going to people they don't like.[/QUOTE]

Yep. I don't like blue collar, conservative bible thumpers. But I'm fine if my tax dollars build them roads, help subsidize school lunches, provide welfare to those who need it etc. if their state's tax base can't support all that stuff.

I'm not so cold hearted that I don't want people I don't "like"/agree with to not have a decent quality of life.
 
Since you asked so kindly for me to define it for you without being an asshole, msut:

An entitlement is something you have a right to receive because either you or someone else has paid for you to receive it. In the case of the government, aside from your constitutional rights, entitlements are paid for by redistributing wealth.

Most American viewpoints can be categorized into three:

Some people (fewer people) believe we should totally get rid of all entitlements.
Other people (probably the majority) believe we should drastically minimize entitlements.
And others, such as you and dmaul (it seems), believe we need more entitlements.

And, of course, being a far lefty, you always assume anyone critical of entitlements fits into category one.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']entitlements are paid for by redistributing wealth.[/QUOTE]

So, then, which part of the Bush tax cuts are entitlements?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']When your grandparents will still playing doctor, those large "empty" areas of our country were it's lifeblood. Those large swaths of "nothingness" full of rednecks and uneducated toothless religious gun-huggers that lefties despise so much were the engine of America that helped see it the fastest advancing nation in history for 100 years.[/quote]
Actually they weren't. Large corporate farms are not a modern invention...or the government subsidies that helped pay for them. Neither are the land barons that owned them and "leased" them to others. It wasn't strickly "poor bucktoothed white trash" that helped the country "grow." The New Deal had initiatives reaching all industries. The agrarian industry is shit work and has been since forever. The landowners always made it that their workers could barely eek out a subsistance life. Why do you think land was so important when European "settlers" arrived here.

Of course, now that America no longer produces a single thing that anyone else in the world wants, besides green paper, that's all changed.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because corporations would rather pay a worker $4 a month instead of $8 an hour? And who the hell do you think that helps?

Perhaps figuring out the reason for why it's changed and bitching about that would be better than bitching about the "cost" of supporting sparsely populated areas we once (and maybe still should) depended on?
Click to expand...
F me. We KNOW why it changed. We stopped being a subsistance agrarian civilization. We have refridgeration. We have canning. We made it virtually impossible for a small farm to exist next to huge corporate farms. Hell, even equipment modernization has changed how farms operate.

Maybe some of those people should eat the shit they spew and go "off the dole" and stop being "welfare queens" themselves.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Since you asked so kindly for me to define it for you without being an asshole, msut:

An entitlement is something you have a right to receive because either you or someone else has paid for you to receive it. In the case of the government, aside from your constitutional rights, entitlements are paid for by redistributing wealth.

Most American viewpoints can be categorized into three:

Some people (fewer people) believe we should totally get rid of all entitlements.
Other people (probably the majority) believe we should drastically minimize entitlements.
And others, such as you and dmaul (it seems), believe we need more entitlements.

And, of course, being a far lefty, you always assume anyone critical of entitlements fits into category one.[/QUOTE]
I have an even better question for you: When/where did you start hearing the word "entitlements" and when did you start using it. And to go even deeper, when did it start being used en masse.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, then, which part of the Bush tax cuts are entitlements?[/QUOTE]
Only to nig...I mean poor urban single mothers and their absentee fathers.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, then, which part of the Bush tax cuts are entitlements?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you are getting at.

Are you trying to say entitlements should have been cut before taxes? Or are you trying to say tax cuts are entitlements? Or something else?

[quote name='dohdough']
Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because corporations would rather pay a worker $4 a month instead of $8 an hour? And who the hell do you think that helps?[/quote]
Why do I think that is? Because any entity that enjoys the word 'profit' has little choice, for the most part.

Corporations are going to go where there are the most incentives to be. The current hostility towards business in this country makes it worse.

F me. We KNOW why it changed. We stopped being a subsistance agrarian civilization. We have refridgeration. We have canning. We made it virtually impossible for a small farm to exist next to huge corporate farms. Hell, even equipment modernization has changed how farms operate.
Click to expand...
True, but it also changed because a restrictive environment has been created where raw materials were no longer profitable, or even legal, to produce domestically - forcing dependence on foreign sources.

[quote name='dohdough']I have an even better question for you: When/where did you start hearing the word "entitlements" and when did you start using it. And to go even deeper, when did it start being used en masse.[/QUOTE]
Umm, why not just ask me when I realized the sky was blue?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Why do I think that is? Because any entity that enjoys the word 'profit' has little choice, for the most part.[/QUOTE]
All profit has a cost whether socially or economically.

Corporations are going to go where there are the most incentives to be. The current hostility towards business in this country makes it worse.
Click to expand...
Don't bullshit me. The reason why it moved is because companies can't get away with typical labor conditions from the industrial revolution anymore in the US. With globalization, they aren't confined to the US anymore for those conditions. AND there's "plausible deniability" because they can't "control" how their manufacturers treat their workers. Kinda like how "profit wasn't a factor" in the BP Gulf spill.


True, but it also changed because a restrictive environment has been created where raw materials were no longer profitable, or even legal, to produce domestically - forcing dependence on foreign sources.
Click to expand...
More bullshit. Mining and refining those materials is dangerous work and often has high levels of waste and toxic waste. Those industries were dumping that waste almost anywhere they wanted and were profitable as hell. So you're saying that we should just allow these industries to contaminate the food chain and water supply? How about you live next to one of those places if you want to jerk them off so much. I bet you fucking wouldn't muchless any other right wing hack.


Umm, why not just ask me when I realized the sky was blue?
Click to expand...
I've been politically active for 2/3rds of my life and I'm only 32. If the word "entitlement" was commonplace prior to 2008. I'd like to hear about it. Like most political buzzwords, it came out of a right wing think tank meant to be divisive as coded language.
 
[quote name='tivo']Define disadvantaged because I would say living in a rural community would be more disadvantageous than living in an urban community given the proximately to local resources (libraries, museums, cultural stuff, parks, employment, entertainment, other people & professionals etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) Why do they vote Republican? Because they're self reliant and aren't expecting any handouts or government benefits to their small community. They don;t need big government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']So you completely deny that rich white Christians are trying to mold this nation in its image? I'm not speaking out of racism. I'm speaking from a position of truth.

So it's completely OK to rail against welfare mommas in the trailer parks in ghettos in this country but we can't ever say anything about whites in the suburbs? Hmmm.

It's completely OK to rail against Muslims building mosques but talk about a white dude in a mega-church the size of Lucas Oil Stadium and I'm the bigot? Hmm..

It's OK to rail against people that don't make a lot of money because they're "lazy", but I talk about some fat cat CEO and I'm the Communist? Hmm...

And you call me the equivalent of an anti-semite KKK Klansman because you don't agree with what I say? fuck off.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with his assessment. I think I'm a bigger "discriminatory person" than you are. Hell, I think I started 2 threads on racism and white privilege. But hey, leave it to a dumb con not to pay attention to the facts. :D
 
[quote name='dohdough']I disagree with his assessment. I think I'm a bigger "discriminatory person" than you are. Hell, I think I started 2 threads on racism and white privilege. But hey, leave it to a dumb con not to pay attention to the facts. :D[/QUOTE]

We also forgot that it's only discrimination when it hits home. Most of us defend people that aren't anything close to us but if someone says something about rich white Christians that dominate this country's economy, political system, and entertainment industry then it's RACISM! I could be one of those guys one day. "I'll never be a Islamic single mother from the ghetto so it's cool to make fun of them at backyard barbecues."
 
[quote name='depascal22']We also forgot that it's only discrimination when it hits home. Most of us defend people that aren't anything close to us but if someone says something about rich white Christians that dominate this country's economy, political system, and entertainment industry then it's RACISM! I could be one of those guys one day. "I'll never be a Islamic single mother from the ghetto so it's cool to make fun of them at backyard barbecues."[/QUOTE]
Cause REVERSE RACISM111!!! is the only one that matters...cause it's going the wrong way....shhhhhh
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Or are you trying to say tax cuts are entitlements?[/QUOTE]

Yes. You have to remember, some people define "entitlement" differently. Where you (probably) and I would define it as money or goods given to those who haven't earned said money or goods, some people define "entitlement" as letting someone actually keep what already belongs to them.

[quote name='dohdough']Which means that Alaska is over-represented by a factor of 230 times while California is under-represented.[/quote]

So... you okay with that?

No, and that's why they have state AND local elections to figure out what to do with what they get. Stop being a dishonest partisan shill.
Click to expand...

So, while large percentages of my taxes go outside of my local area, our politicians get to beg for state and Federal "assistance" to get the tax money back this way and hope it works out - figuring out what to do with what we're able to redirect back to us?

And how the hell am I being "dishonest"? You, yourself, admitted that Alaska is over-represented and California is under represented. Exactly what I pointed out. Thus my question - are you perfectly okay with .003% of the population having more of a say of what goes on in this country than 11% of the population?

Yes, I say we let all the red states fend for themselves and see society collapse.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Let's.
 
Got it mapped out already:

dumfuckistan.gif


Have fun.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Got it mapped out already:
dumfuckistan.gif
Have fun.[/QUOTE]

Damn our blue state... I wish I could have gotten more support to campaign for Indiana to annex my county. :(
 
Boy, I'm still waiting for some people in this thread to pull out the "Where's white history month?" chestnut and offer it up as a valid argument. We are seriously on that level of discourse at this point.
 
[quote name='Strell']Boy, I'm still waiting for some people in this thread to pull out the "Where's white history month?" chestnut and offer it up as a valid argument. We are seriously on that level of discourse at this point.[/QUOTE]

Where's my Native American History Month?

(It's November, by the way...)
 
[quote name='dohdough']I've been politically active for 2/3rds of my life and I'm only 32. If the word "entitlement" was commonplace prior to 2008. I'd like to hear about it. Like most political buzzwords, it came out of a right wing think tank meant to be divisive as coded language.[/QUOTE]

I see entitlement used for things like Social Security, unemployment insurance and Medicare by idiots almost exclusively all the time, these are things for for the most part people pay into their entire lives to collect.

By calling them entitlements they conflate them with welfare. Now welfare doesn't bother me at all but this is how they get their idiot base riled up about a fairly piddling amount of government spending. They are floating around pie charts with huge slices labelled "entitlements" and next thing you know their moron base thinks we spend 8 trillion dollars on welfare for people they don't like. They just think the gubberment funded motor scooter to ferry their asses doesn't count.

More bullshit. Mining and refining those materials is dangerous work and often has high levels of waste and toxic waste. Those industries were dumping that waste almost anywhere they wanted and were profitable as hell. So you're saying that we should just allow these industries to contaminate the food chain and water supply?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_cyanidation

Yeah man, you know. The Good old days.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Cause REVERSE RACISM111!!! is the only one that matters...cause it's going the wrong way....shhhhhh[/QUOTE]

that bit about going the wrong way, is probably the funniest thing you've said. Kudos to you for the water in my nose!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Got it mapped out already:

dumfuckistan.gif


Have fun.[/QUOTE]

Maps needs to be redone, Wisconsin is most definitely Dumbfuckistan, probably the capital
 
[quote name='nasum']I wonder why entitlements are never used to describe military contracts?[/QUOTE]

Entitlements is everything the gubberment does QEDuh.
 
well that's just silly talk.

The only way to fix any of that is an across the board cut of equal %. There's no controversy at that point.
 
equal % or equal dollar amount?

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, replace with an across the board $5,000 tax cut for all filing households.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']equal % or equal dollar amount?

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, replace with an across the board $5,000 tax cut for all filing households.[/QUOTE]

Is this one of those tax rebates where if you paid in less than $5,000 you get money back? If so, then no.
 
for equal cuts you'd be looking at a %. Basically, take 15% off of everything (for instance, the realistic amount could be much different) so that any group's pet projects aren't reduced by any more or less than any others
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Where's my Native American History Month?

(It's November, by the way...)[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the heads up. It's time for another trip to the Cahokia Mounds.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']why not? equal numbers are fair, aren't they?[/QUOTE]

It's not a "tax cut" if you get more money back than you paid in.
 
According to whom? It's from taxes, it's cut from gov't spending, it's equal for everybody.

equal percentages have been pushed so hard by many of you that I thought I'd argue for just a flat, income-independent tax cut as a raw number. think it's absurd because it's not fair? then perhaps you can rethink how 'equal' a flat % cut is as well.

go team!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top