Red state Secession would see welfare dependent states collapse

[DigitalDrifter]

Conservatives hate America and want to see it destroyed.

Liberals hate America and want to see it destroyed.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I do believe in the rich helping the poor. American socialism helps red states. Its all good.

The rich can help the poor all they like, I'm all for it. It's when it's the government that is doing the redistribution of wealth is where you run into trouble.
The government should exist to protect the people, outside of that they should get out of the way and allow people to thrive on their own abilities.
That's not to say I'm against helping people who are unable to help themselves, but the left has taken it way too far.

I'm all for "safety nets". You and yours have slowly but surely turned those nets into hammocks!!

 

[eagle7-31]

American Divorce? More like Americaâs Brexit | Voices

Let’s talk about American Brexit

www.independent.co.uk

Marje has been sharing her vision on Hannity. She envisions a red state secession , Marjistan, that would break away from America.
The stats are quite illuminating.
# Counties that voted for President Joe Biden generate 70 percent of gross domestic product.
# Fourteen of the poorest 15 states voted Republican in 2020.

# All 12 richest states chose Biden.

# Only four red states have median household incomes in the top half of the 50 states.
# The nine red states that seceded in 1861 get, on average, 42 percent of their budgets from Washington, according to SmartAsset. Mostly that buys health care –

There are more stats in the article but the picture seems to be quite clear. These dependent states rail against govt spending whilst being the biggest recipients.

Its hilarious in a way but rather sad. I wonder if the exercise is worth it to just excorcise the evil woke.

Liar. She said no such thing on Hannity. She spoke about shrinking the size of the federal gov. not about states leaving the union. Watched her on Hannity the otther day.

 

[Doug1943]

Let me summarize.

I said red states are obese.

You said that was racist.

I called you out on your racial signaling.

You said leftist do it and I pointed out it was you who did that.

Now you're confused? Perhaps you should head to the kiddie forums and read more and post less and increase your ability to digest posted information.

Good luck.

No. I said that when Lefties begin implying that obesity is a bad thing, laughing at us old ignorant rednecks because people in our states suffer from it disproportionately, they're treading on thin ice, since the latest 'Woke' insanity is to say that giving advice on how to combat obesity -- which implies it's not a good thing -- is racist.

And since there are probably sane liberals here, who dismiss the crazier 'woke' nonsense as the unrepresentative actions of a fringe, I quoted an article to this effect in what used to be an excellent magazine, Scientific American.

I'm sorry you didn't understand this. I didn't think it was all that subtle.

Perhaps you suffer from irony deficiency anemia, which, I have noticed, tends to be a déformation professionnelle for the really earnest, humorless Left.

 

[Catsnmeters]

No. I said that when Lefties begin implying that obesity is a bad thing, laughing at us old ignorant rednecks because people in our states suffer from it disproportionately, they're treading on thin ice, since the latest 'Woke' insanity is to say that giving advice on how to combat obesity -- which implies it's not a good thing -- is racist.

And since there are probably sane liberals here, who dismiss the crazier 'woke' nonsense as the unrepresentative actions of a fringe, I quoted an article to this effect in what used to be an excellent magazine, Scientific American.

I'm sorry you didn't understand this. I didn't think it was all that subtle.

Perhaps you suffer from irony deficiency anemia, which, I have noticed, tends to be a déformation professionnelle for the really earnest, humorless Left.

That's your problem I think. I am not a leftist and I don't speak for all leftists. I speak for myself.

You seem to have a problem with liberals and jumped the gun in your attack...which is odd because it's almost like you aren't a liberal yourself. Is this true?

 

[Doug1943]

That's your problem I think. I am not a leftist and I don't speak for all leftists. I speak for myself.

You seem to have a problem with liberals and jumped the gun in your attack...which is odd because it's almost like you aren't a liberal yourself. Is this true?

I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative.

 

[themirrorthief]

I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative.

it would be awesome if welfare ended in red states....all non whites would move out immediately....great idea dude

 

[Doug1943]

it would be awesome if welfare ended in red states....all non whites would move out immediately....great idea dude

No they wouldn't. There are plenty of non-whites, including current Democratic voters, who have a very good understanding of how corrosive excessive welfare is.

Statements like the one quoted above -- "all non-whites would move out immediately" -- are designed to weaken the patriot movement by splitting out its non-white supporters. But we're not stupid.

I repeat: plenty of non-whites understand perfectly well how the 'welfare trap' works to destroy the Black family and make Blacks dependent on the state.

That's why both Democrats and Republicans voted to replace the 'Aid to Families with Dependent Children' program with the 'Temporary Assisstance to Needy Families" program in the mid 1990s. (Charles Murray's Losing Ground had shown in very convincing detail the negative effects of an entitlement-welfare program, which had the effect of making poverty permanent because it removed the incentive to get a job. [ Losing Ground (book) - Wikipedia ] )

And if we were smart, we would retain elements of the welfare state, mainly the contributory parts, like Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, etc.

The last thing we would want would be a full-on Libertarian system, every man for himself, auction off the National Parks, etc.

I think ultra-capitalist Singapore (where, I believe, it's an imprisonable offense to be unemployed) would provide a good model for our social welfare legislation.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative.

So you don't like change. You can still support many beliefs of liberals. Don't you?

 

[Doug1943]

So you don't like change. You can still support many beliefs of liberals. Don't you?

There are all sorts of conservative, just as there are all sorts of leftist. We're talking about dispositions, not ideologies. My response is gong to be a bit rambly, therefore.

I'm that flavor of conservative who thinks we need to be cautious about 'change'. And by that, I mean human-inspired change, a change in the law, state enforcement of programs that well-meaning people have thought up. You're probably familiar with Edmund Burke -- if not, read his Reflections on the Revolution in France. He sets it out very nicely there.

Most change is economic, automatic, not something we consciously try to do. The children of peasants become factory workers, their children become clerks ... economic change drives social change. We become urban, literate, more educated. This sort of change just happens.

Capitalism has unleashed the productive forces, a huge advance for humanity. But there is no supernatural overseer making sure it all works out nicely ... around the beginning of the 20th Century we looked like moving smoothly into an increasingly prosperous and democratic world ... then along came WWI,which brought down three empires and gave birth to three totalitarian nightmare movements. Then we had the Great Depression. And today has a pre-1914/pre-1929 smell to it.

Basically, I'm one of that part of the conservative movement who would be better described as 'civilizationists'. We are pro-civilization, especially Western. And we see human history as tragedy, not melodrama. We know that humanity at its present stage of evolution is naturally hierarchical.

None of this can be compressed and abstracted into an ideology. We have to talk specifics.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No, they literally don't. If they did you fuckers would have jobs and not all be fucked up on welfare and fentanyl.

Lame even for you.
Why do dem cities lead the US in homeless people?

 

[Godboy]

you said in another thread you want Senator Tom Cotton's entire family to burn in a fire because he voted to increase spending in the omnibus, when he wasn't even the deciding vote

you're the crazy nutcase, i would argue, and with a criminal mindset, i would add. are you sure you're not of Russian origin? Putin's lost son?

Well, youre dumb for taking things so literally. Who does that?! Stop being a dumbass and you wont look so stupid in the future.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Lame even for you.
Why do dem cities lead the US in homeless people?

Taking care of all you fentanyl fuckers.

 

[Catsnmeters]

There are all sorts of conservative, just as there are all sorts of leftist. We're talking about dispositions, not ideologies. My response is gong to be a bit rambly, therefore.

I'm that flavor of conservative who thinks we need to be cautious about 'change'. And by that, I mean human-inspired change, a change in the law, state enforcement of programs that well-meaning people have thought up. You're probably familiar with Edmund Burke -- if not, read his Reflections on the Revolution in France. He sets it out very nicely there.

Most change is economic, automatic, not something we consciously try to do. The children of peasants become factory workers, their children become clerks ... economic change drives social change. We become urban, literate, more educated. This sort of change just happens.

Capitalism has unleashed the productive forces, a huge advance for humanity. But there is no supernatural overseer making sure it all works out nicely ... around the beginning of the 20th Century we looked like moving smoothly into an increasingly prosperous and democratic world ... then along came WWI,which brought down three empires and gave birth to three totalitarian nightmare movements. Then we had the Great Depression. And today has a pre-1914/pre-1929 smell to it.

Basically, I'm one of that part of the conservative movement who would be better described as 'civilizationists'. We are pro-civilization, especially Western. And we see human history as tragedy, not melodrama. We know that humanity at its present stage of evolution is naturally hierarchical.

None of this can be compressed and abstracted into an ideology. We have to talk specifics.

Unlike many on these boards I tend not to hide my ignorance behind 5 minute google searches that turn into pretending to be an expert.

That said, my experience with Edmund Burke doesn't really extend beyond "I have heard his name before". I will take your word that his beliefs align with yours. I am an avid reader however and may very well look into your recommendation.

Oddly, it seems that being a conservative that instead of resisting change, embraces change but slowly; is not much different then a progressive that instead of advocating for moving forward quickly, wants to progress slowly.

Potentially a pretty thin line there I think.

Of course neither has a whole lot to do with liberalism and I haven't heard any statement from you that convinces me that you don't believe in a many liberal views...especially on an economic level.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Lame even for you.
Why do dem cities lead the US in homeless people?

Not exactly sure but if I was to guess I would say...

Because homeless people have access to more recourses in larger cities and Democrats tend to be elected to office in these large cities.

Housing costs in cities tends to be much higher, which contributes to homelessness.

Red cities tend to have laws that move homeless off the streets and into prisons which drives homeless to more sympathetic blue areas. This is probably why red states tend to have less homeless but many more prisoners.

Weather. Homeless won't likely freeze to death in California, Texas or Florida.

Do you agree with these reasons or have any of your own to add?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not exactly sure but if I was to guess I would say...

Because homeless people have access to more recourses in larger cities and Democrats tend to be elected to office in these large cities.

Housing costs in cities tends to be much higher, which contributes to homelessness.

Red cities tend to have laws that move homeless off the streets and into prisons which drives homeless to more sympathetic blue areas. This is probably why red states tend to have less homeless but many more prisoners.

Weather. Homeless won't likely freeze to death in California, Texas or Florida.

Do you agree with these reasons or have any of your own to add?

For the most part.
I dont agree with the cost of housing. They could easily do what I did when I was young....get a room mate.
I also believe it's foolish to offer the homeless an easier way to stay homeless.

 

[basquebromance]

Well, youre dumb for taking things so literally. Who does that?! Stop being a dumbass and you wont look so stupid in the future.

when we were teens, i made my cousin tap out with the same move Jon Bones Jones made Gane tap with, i don't know what the move is called, but it took me a longer time to do it. did you watch the UFC card or am i spoiling it for ya? buy the damn PPV you cheap bastard! lol

 

[Doug1943]

Unlike many on these boards I tend not to hide my ignorance behind 5 minute google searches that turn into pretending to be an expert.

That said, my experience with Edmund Burke doesn't really extend beyond "I have heard his name before". I will take your word that his beliefs align with yours. I am an avid reader however and may very well look into your recommendation.

Oddly, it seems that being a conservative that instead of resisting change, embraces change but slowly; is not much different then a progressive that instead of advocating for moving forward quickly, wants to progress slowly.

Potentially a pretty thin line there I think.

Of course neither has a whole lot to do with liberalism and I haven't heard any statement from you that convinces me that you don't believe in a many liberal views...especially on an economic level.

Well, yes, I do 'believe in many liberal views, especially on an economic level'.

That is to say, I'm not a Libertarian on economics. (Don't get me wrong, I love Libertarians -- they're "the Right, with a human face". But I don't believe in auctioning off the National Parks, and they do. Or at least that was in the Libertarian Party platform a few years ago, and it's consistent with their beliefs.)

Another way to put it: I'm for a "conservative welfare state", which forces people -- yes forces them -- to act intellligently. A 20-year old often will just not think about how he/she is going to take care of themselves when they're 75. So we have to make them save up via forced deductions from their paychecks.

Until fairly recently, historically speaking, this did not matter. We all lived in villages or on farms, our children and grandchildren were in the same dwelling or near by, and they took care of us. We grew our own food, chopped our own firewood, had wells for water, and our only electricity was lightning. We weren't entirely self-sufficient -- we didn't refine our own iron or make our own glass -- but we were far closer to self-sufficiency than we are now.

Modern society has changed all that.

And ... 99% of ordinary conservatives agree with me. Which is why the Republican Party doesn't dare touch a hair on the head of Social Security, Medicare, etc. This, despite what some of its ideologues might mutter from time to time.

This situation is not necessarily all good: we need to think seriously about the National Debt, about Peak Oil, about what would happen if the dollar stopped being the world's reserve currency, about other possible future catastrophes. Preparing for these might require raising taxes, and not just on the rich.

But our current infantile political system prevents adult discussion of these issues.

On another aspect of 'liberal economics', Keynsianism, I'm agnostic-leaning-towards-support.

We have Keynsianism, in the form of our military spending, so conservatives can support Keynsianism while pretending to be for free markets.

But to be honest, I've always considered economic theory above my pay grade, especially since this year's Nobel Prize winner in economics often flatly contradict last year's winner. (And having a couple of Nobel Prize winners in economics on the Board of Directors of your investment company doesn't appear to guarantee success -- in fact, the company that was blessed this way, Long Term Capital Management, went spectacularly bust. See [ How the Eggheads Cracked (Published 1999) ] )

If you want to read something that is closely congruent to my own views, by a fellow much smarter than I am, look at the thinking of Francis H. Buckley (no relation), the last book in particular:

The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed r – 2018

https: //amazon.com/Republican-Workers-Party-Victory-Everyone/dp/1641770066

American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup – 2020
https: //amazon.com/American-Secession-Looming-National-Breakup/dp/1641770805

Progressive Conservatism: How Republicans Will Become America's Natural Governing Party
https: //amazon.com/Progressive-Conservatism-Republicans-Americas-Governing/dp/1641772530

(There is a space after the colon and before the double solidii (?) which should be removed if you want to look at the links).

I think he is too sanguine about our future --- that everything will go on much as before --- but I agree with his general outlook. (He's an immigrant, by the way.)

And of course I support values that used to be stock-in-trade for liberals: equal rights and not racial preferences, free speech, and a belief in objective truth and science, and that one society could be superior to another.

 

[westwall]

American Divorce? More like Americaâs Brexit | Voices

Let’s talk about American Brexit

www.independent.co.uk

Marje has been sharing her vision on Hannity. She envisions a red state secession , Marjistan, that would break away from America.
The stats are quite illuminating.
# Counties that voted for President Joe Biden generate 70 percent of gross domestic product.
# Fourteen of the poorest 15 states voted Republican in 2020.

# All 12 richest states chose Biden.

# Only four red states have median household incomes in the top half of the 50 states.
# The nine red states that seceded in 1861 get, on average, 42 percent of their budgets from Washington, according to SmartAsset. Mostly that buys health care –

There are more stats in the article but the picture seems to be quite clear. These dependent states rail against govt spending whilst being the biggest recipients.

Its hilarious in a way but rather sad. I wonder if the exercise is worth it to just excorcise the evil woke.

I hear money is real tasty. Doesn't sustain you very well though.

The red states feed the blue states. Dumbfuck.

Of course you have never produced anything in your useless life but flatulence.

 

[HeyNorm]

With stats like that, one would wonder why lefties would oppose such a divorce.

Where would they get their food, their water, their energy from?

Remember, most “blue states” are made up of “red” counties.

They would leave with the red states.

In what would be remaining, we would charge an exorbitant amount for the food, energy and even water they require.

The economic situations would flip nearly overnight.