Republican States More Dependent on the Federal Government

[jwoodie]

It's the consistently republican states that are taking in more than they're paying out so...

That's right. You don't have a clue.

 

[daws101]

HOW WOULD YOU MAKE UP THE SHORTFALL on #2?

What shortfall?

bad choice of words ....what will you do with the millions of sick homeless and starving people you just fucked over in: 2) Cut Social Security, medicare, food stamps, and all other welfare.
put them in camps?

First, you need to demonstrate that your emotional description actually matches the reality.

Second, you need to learn how to rely on yourself, and learn that other people must do the same.

the award for best rationalization and dodging in a thread goes to....
I hope I'm there the day you need any one of those programs.. it'll be hilarious...

So every single federal program is essential? You're hilarious...

no not all... what is funny is you in a rush to get one over...took what was said out of context.

 

[daws101]

It's the consistently republican states that are taking in more than they're paying out so...

That's right. You don't have a clue.

says the queen of cluelessvaina

 

[whitehall]

Well duh, that's because there are more republican states than democrat states. There are 31 republican governors and 19 democrat governors. The ever growing federal government controls everything from health care to the education system. All republicans want to do is trim the gigantic bureaucracy.

 

[SwimExpert]

the award for best rationalization and dodging in a thread goes to....

Are you saying that you're gong to dodge the question? You're not going to be bothered to demonstrate that the people removed from welfare would be sick homeless people?

I hope I'm there the day you need any one of those programs.. it'll be hilarious...

No such day will ever come. I'm self reliant. I maintain a job, I don't have kids I can't afford, and I live within my means.

nice attempt at spin. what I said was you've already avoided the question..

and this:" I'm self reliant. I maintain a job, I don't have kids I can't afford, and I live within my means"- SE Is all wine and vinyl until it aint ...

No, I'm answering you head on. It's not avoiding the question. The problem is that you fail to understand a scenario where your preconceived notion of universal weakness and government dependence doesn't hold true.

You must break yourself from your bias that people are inherently weak and dependent upon the government, and the answers will be laid before you. Clearly, plainly, and directly.

 

[daws101]

Well duh, that's because there are more republican states than democrat states. There are 31 republican governors and 19 democrat governors. The ever growing federal government controls everything from health care to the education system. All republicans want to do is trim the gigantic bureaucracy.

you keep telling yourself that..

 

[daws101]

the award for best rationalization and dodging in a thread goes to....

Are you saying that you're gong to dodge the question? You're not going to be bothered to demonstrate that the people removed from welfare would be sick homeless people?

I hope I'm there the day you need any one of those programs.. it'll be hilarious...

No such day will ever come. I'm self reliant. I maintain a job, I don't have kids I can't afford, and I live within my means.

nice attempt at spin. what I said was you've already avoided the question..

and this:" I'm self reliant. I maintain a job, I don't have kids I can't afford, and I live within my means"- SE Is all wine and vinyl until it aint ...

No, I'm answering you head on. It's not avoiding the question. The problem is that you fail to understand a scenario where your preconceived notion of universal weakness and government dependence doesn't hold true.

You must break yourself from your bias that people are inherently weak and dependent upon the government, and the answers will be laid before you. Clearly, plainly, and directly.

best bullshit today...
you spew like an evangelical on speed.

 

[boilermaker55]

You mean like talking about the ACA?

wow, anyone not know this? it's been posted a million times

toro what gives?

 

[SwimExpert]

the award for best rationalization and dodging in a thread goes to....

Are you saying that you're gong to dodge the question? You're not going to be bothered to demonstrate that the people removed from welfare would be sick homeless people?

I hope I'm there the day you need any one of those programs.. it'll be hilarious...

No such day will ever come. I'm self reliant. I maintain a job, I don't have kids I can't afford, and I live within my means.

nice attempt at spin. what I said was you've already avoided the question..

and this:" I'm self reliant. I maintain a job, I don't have kids I can't afford, and I live within my means"- SE Is all wine and vinyl until it aint ...

No, I'm answering you head on. It's not avoiding the question. The problem is that you fail to understand a scenario where your preconceived notion of universal weakness and government dependence doesn't hold true.

You must break yourself from your bias that people are inherently weak and dependent upon the government, and the answers will be laid before you. Clearly, plainly, and directly.

best bullshit today...
you spew like an evangelical on speed.

You're not making any sense. Do you believe that people are inherently weak and dependent on the government? Yes or no?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

According to a new analysis.

Click here.

It must be a Tuesday because this debunked lie is brought up again.

 

[rdean]

Right away, Republicans try breaking it down into race. It's always about race with them. Then how come only two states are worse than Kentucky and Kentucky is 90% white? Republicans desperately cling to this fantasy that it's white southerners who anti up all the money and the rest of the country lives off them. But it's anti education and anti science Republicans who love off the rest of us.

 

[daws101]

the award for best rationalization and dodging in a thread goes to....

Are you saying that you're gong to dodge the question? You're not going to be bothered to demonstrate that the people removed from welfare would be sick homeless people?

I hope I'm there the day you need any one of those programs.. it'll be hilarious...

No such day will ever come. I'm self reliant. I maintain a job, I don't have kids I can't afford, and I live within my means.

nice attempt at spin. what I said was you've already avoided the question..

and this:" I'm self reliant. I maintain a job, I don't have kids I can't afford, and I live within my means"- SE Is all wine and vinyl until it aint ...

No, I'm answering you head on. It's not avoiding the question. The problem is that you fail to understand a scenario where your preconceived notion of universal weakness and government dependence doesn't hold true.

You must break yourself from your bias that people are inherently weak and dependent upon the government, and the answers will be laid before you. Clearly, plainly, and directly.

best bullshit today...
you spew like an evangelical on speed.

You're not making any sense. Do you believe that people are inherently weak and dependent on the government? Yes or no?

I'm making plenty of sense...we'll try it this way "the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry..
as to your false question: neither.

 

[rdean]

According to a new analysis.

Click here.

It must be a Tuesday because this debunked lie is brought up again.

So go ahead. Debunk it. Just saying it doesn't make it so. In fact, if you don't debunk it then you look like a lying sack of.........

 

[jwoodie]

.[/QUOTE]the award for best rationalization and dodging in a thread goes to....
I hope I'm there the day you need any one of those programs.. it'll be hilarious...[/QUOTE]

So every single federal program is essential? You're hilarious...[/QUOTE]no not all... what is funny is you in a rush to get one over...took what was said out of context.[/QUOTE]

"Any one of those programs." Out of context?

 

[jwoodie]

I'm making plenty of sense...

Talking to yourself again?

 

[daws101]

.

the award for best rationalization and dodging in a thread goes to....
I hope I'm there the day you need any one of those programs.. it'll be hilarious...[/QUOTE]

So every single federal program is essential? You're hilarious...[/QUOTE]no not all... what is funny is you in a rush to get one over...took what was said out of context.[/QUOTE]"Any one of those programs." Out of context?

"Any one of those programs." Out of context?[/QUOTE] completely ! if you had not been in such a rush to daws bash and taken the time to read post # 26.
it would be clear even to you o empty head. what programs I was talking about.
but as usual you tripped over your dick...

 

[tigerred59]

As you can see, New Mexico is the most-dependent state in the U.S., according to WalletHub's data. The state gets $2.19 in federal funding for every dollar paid in federal income taxes. In contrast, New Jersey, which is the least-dependent state, gets only about 50 cents in federal funding for every dollar paid in taxes, WalletHub calculated.

The analysis found that red states, or those that voted Republican in the 2012 presidential election, were much more likely to depend on the government than blue states.

That's somewhat ironic, considering the Republican Party's general reluctance to support federally funded initiatives like Medicaid expansion, and its long-termdedication to across-the-board budget cuts to slash the federal deficit.

FOLKS, YOU COULDN'T EVEN ON YOUR BEST DAYS, MAKE CRAP LIKE THIS UP....YET THEY ALL HATE THE GOVERMENT WITH THIER HANDS OUT BEGGING!!

 

[kiwiman127]

I was going to say that everything you listed is part of the House Budget, but the GOP didn't want the bottom 95% not to pay taxes. And I'm sure they don't want to reduce the said all the programs by 50%.
But with all the cuts they want to impose, they also want to increase spending on the military. I guess it isn't enough that the US spends more on the military than the next seven top countries spend on their military's combined.

Yes, the Republican party has just as much of a spending problem as the Democrats.

And it doesn't matter if they are reducing benefits on the elderly who for the most part, live on fixed incomes and can't afford the GOP's version of prosperity for America..

Those elderly should have prepared for their own retirements. Today's working generations are paying through the nose to fund today's retirees, and then paying through the other nostril to save for their own retirements because SS will be defunct by the time they retire, all while making smaller comparative paychecks than the Boomers. It's really a travesty and an incredible injustice.

Yes, the elderly should have prepared for their retirement, unfortunately wages have been relatively flat since the 1980's. This has contributed to the state of affairs for the elderly and preparing for retirement. More and more people in the Middle Class are living check-to-check as their disposable income shrunk. The fact that more and more people are unable to have savings is a good barometer and that number has increased over several years.
Regarding Social Security, quite a bit of money could be saved by upping the retirement age. It just makes sense, people are living longer and working further into their retirement years. Unfortunately, jobs for the elderly are not in abundance. I know several older people who are having a tough time competing for jobs with younger candidates.

 

[SwimExpert]

we'll try it this way "the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

Which is exactly why government intervention so often screws things up.

as to your false question: neither.

It is a yes or no question. There is no middle ground possible. Apparently you are not well versed in logic.

Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Toro]

According to a new analysis.

Click here.

It must be a Tuesday because this debunked lie is brought up again.

I'd be interested in seeing that.

Can you post it?