CDZ Are We on the Path to National Ruin?

[jwoodie]

Actually, Clinton reined in Welfare in 1996. You don't read much do you?

Actually, the GOP Congress reined in Welfare in 1996. But it didn't last very long, did it? Your example is like saying that someone isn't going anywhere when he stops for gas. You don't think much, do you?

 

[GaryDog]

Actually, Clinton reined in Welfare in 1996. You don't read much do you?

Actually, the GOP Congress reined in Welfare in 1996. But it didn't last very long, did it? Your example is like saying that someone isn't going anywhere when he stops for gas. You don't think much, do you?

TANF is still in effect. Again, try to inform yourself.

 

[I amso IR]

Kinda makes one think of the closing scene of "The War Of The Roses" doncha think? One party seeking reunion and the other seeking separation. Meanwhile, the entire house is in shambles. "Stupidity is as stupidity does"!

 

[Dragonlady]

The time to make a stand has come, possibly slipping away. There isn't another place to escape. America was the last remaining beacon of hope, freedom, opportunity. A place where one could shed the old, aspire, and with hard work realize their dreams. Our government has capitulated, sacrificed what once was the American dream for political gain and power. The road to perdition is littered with the corpses of what once was.

America is not the world's last hope for freedom and opportunity. There are lots of countries around the world whose governments manage to put their citizens ahead of big money, and spend their money on their own infrastructure and citizens, instead of a huge military, illegal wars, and tax breaks for big corporations.

When you start putting your PEOPLE first, all of your people, not just the rich, or the white, then your country will have a chance, but a house divided against itself cannot stand. And the lying has to stop - on both sides. Seriously.

 

[Dragonlady]

Kinda makes one think of the closing scene of "The War Of The Roses" doncha think? One party seeking reunion and the other seeking separation. Meanwhile, the entire house is in shambles. "Stupidity is as stupidity does"!

And they're both dead.

 

[I amso IR]

Kinda makes one think of the closing scene of "The War Of The Roses" doncha think? One party seeking reunion and the other seeking separation. Meanwhile, the entire house is in shambles. "Stupidity is as stupidity does"!

And they're both dead.

Yep!

 

[jwoodie]

TANF is still in effect. Again, try to inform yourself.

And how many people are now on some sort of welfare? Great success? Right.

Still having trouble distinguishing form from substance?

 

[GaryDog]

TANF is still in effect. Again, try to inform yourself.

And how many people are now on some sort of welfare? Great success? Right.

Still having trouble distinguishing form from substance?

Fine, then, let's just get rid of the red states:

Red States Are Welfare Queens

 

[GaryDog]

TANF is still in effect. Again, try to inform yourself.

And how many people are now on some sort of welfare? Great success? Right.

Still having trouble distinguishing form from substance?

Fine, then, let's just get rid of the red states:

Red States Are Welfare Queens

Why do you find that funny?

I mean, I get why it's ironic.....but not particularly funny. The red states are robbing the rest of us blind. Freeloaders!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

TANF is still in effect. Again, try to inform yourself.

And how many people are now on some sort of welfare? Great success? Right.

Still having trouble distinguishing form from substance?

Fine, then, let's just get rid of the red states:

Red States Are Welfare Queens

You DO realize that if you drill down into those stats that the bulk of that welfare is going into the inner cities don't you? Which vote BLUE , every time.

 

[GaryDog]

TANF is still in effect. Again, try to inform yourself.

And how many people are now on some sort of welfare? Great success? Right.

Still having trouble distinguishing form from substance?

Fine, then, let's just get rid of the red states:

Red States Are Welfare Queens

You DO realize that if you drill down into those stats that the bulk of that welfare is going into the inner cities don't you? Which vote BLUE , every time.

No, I don't. Why don't you go ahead and drill into them for me if that's so self-evident?

 

[320 Years of History]

TANF is still in effect. Again, try to inform yourself.

And how many people are now on some sort of welfare? Great success? Right.

Still having trouble distinguishing form from substance?

Fine, then, let's just get rid of the red states:

Red States Are Welfare Queens

You DO realize that if you drill down into those stats that the bulk of that welfare is going into the inner cities don't you? Which vote BLUE , every time.

That business about inner city vs. non-inner city recipients is sophistry. Why? Because the matter doesn't boil down that simply. This question has been specifically addressed; thus it's irresponsible claiming to care about the matter to present that line, for any such person should have performed the due diligence of asking that question and then going to find out if a more complete depiction/explanation of the circumstances pertaining to welfare geography already exists. The fact is that it does, making your remark either grossly disingenuous or grossly ignorant. I don't which, but I know it's one or the other, and it may be both, for it can't be neither.

​

This map from the Tax Foundation details various states’ reliance upon federal aid. As one can see, there is quite a bit of variety across the United States on the levels of federal tax dollars each state receives. Why is that?

The highest federal aid recipients are: Mississippi (45.3%), Louisiana (44%), Tennessee (41%), South Dakota (40.8%), Missouri (39.4%), Montana (39%), and Georgia (37.9%). As you may have noticed, almost all of these are “red” states controlled by the Republican Party (Missouri is an exception).

What gives? We have a couple of factors to look at here to get a clearer picture of what’s going on. First, let’s look at income tax levels by state – also from Tax Foundation 2012:

​

Two states are interesting in particular: North Dakota, and South Dakota. While N. Dakota only receives 20.5% of its revenue from federal aid, S. Dakota receives 40.8%. How can that be? They appear very similar legislatively–both mostly Republican–they have very similar poverty rates, as noted by The Bismarck Tribune.

So, what is the reason behind the extraordinary difference in federal aid? The difference may lie in income taxes. N. Dakota has an income tax while S. Dakota does not. According to The Argus Leader, in an article from May 2014:

North Dakota ranks 49th with just 21 percent of its general revenue funds coming from federal dollars. That state benefits from oil revenues…It has an income tax. And the amount of state general fund dollars it spends each year is twice as much or more than South Dakota spends.​

Jason Dilgess, Gov. Daugaard’s budget chief explains it rather frankly:

The policy makers in our state have decided we want to keep taxes lower for our citizens…As a result, we try to get as much federal participation as we can.​

Variance in state tax revenue may make up a large portion of the seemingly odd differences in such similar states.

The next thing to look at is state budget levels. If the federal government sends out about the same amount of aid to each state per capita, then it will make up a bigger percentage of the state budgets that are lower. Let’s look at the top 20 states in total government spending per capita, which will tell us more precisely what’s going on in each state (FY2013):

1. Alaska $16,103
2. Wyoming $15,673
3. West Virginia $12,037
4. Delaware $9,897
5. Massachusetts $8,597
6. Hawaii $8,250
7. Vermont $7,923
8. North Dakota $7,896
9. Connecticut $7,745
10. Rhode Island $7,481
11. Wisconsin $7,448
12. Arkansas $7,246
13. New Mexico $7,047
14. New York $6,773
15. Pennsylvania $6,684
16. Oregon $6,566
17. Iowa $6,320
18. Mississippi $6,189
19. Maryland $6,115
20. Minnesota $6,102​

Using the 2012 political map (prior to the fiscal year 2013), only 6 out of 20 states were “red states”: Wyoming, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Mississippi and Minnesota. Of the top 10 spenders per capita, 7 were blue states: West Virginia, Delaware, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Alaska was split legislatively, leaving 2 red states in the top 10: Wyoming and North Dakota.

2012 Political Map​

Next, looking at states by their budget solvency gives us an even clearer picture of what’s going on, and if a state is spending beyond its means:

​

The Top 5 states were red or split states: Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming, Wisconsin, and Utah. And the bottom 6 states were: New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, Hawaii, Illinois and California – all solidly blue states. In addition, the southern red states in the initial map of federal aid recipients are much more likely to have higher poverty rates. The impoverished, those who are more likely to need federal aid in a state,tend to vote Democratic according to Pew Research:

When it comes to choosing a party’s candidate in the voting booth, one pattern in modern American politics is so familiar it has become a truism: the rich vote Republican, the poor vote Democratic. And while the reality of the situation is much more nuanced, in broad strokes it has been the case that Republicans have consistently garnered disproportionate levels of support from the financially well-off, while the least financially secure Americans have been significantly more likely to back Democrats.​

In other words, due in part to low voter turnout among the impoverished, it may not be that the majority of constituents who vote to turn a state “red” are the ones causing a state to have a higher level of federal aid in its state budget. Another way of putting this is that the majority of poor people who are reliant upon federal aid to make ends meet may not be voting majority Republican in a given state.

The point is: Don’t simply judge a state by its cover. There are numerous complexities that underlie statistics, and these complexities must be explored in order to make informed opinions. As one can see, even getting "blue" votes in the cities of "red states" doesn't turn the state "blue." So, even were it so that big city residents get the bulk of welfare, and it isn't so, it wouldn't matter to the point you've tried to make.

Some other facts from the Dept. of Commerce: Welfare Statistics

Note:
Clicking on the images above will take you to their source.

 

[jwoodie]

Why do you find that funny?

I found your post "funny" (odd) in that it bore no logical connection to my post.

 

[jwoodie]

That business about inner city vs. non-inner city recipients is sophistry. Why? Because the matter doesn't boil down that simply. This question has been specifically addressed; thus it's irresponsible claiming to care about the matter to present that line, for any such person should have performed the due diligence of asking that question and then going to find out if a more complete depiction/explanation of the circumstances pertaining to welfare geography already exists. The fact is that it does, making your remark either grossly disingenuous or grossly ignorant. I don't which, but I know it's one or the other, and it may be both, for it can't be neither.

Your rambling verbiage and reference to statewide statistics is an obvious diversion from the subject of inner city characteristics. Instead of looking at 50 states, why don't you look at our 50 largest cities?

 

[candycorn]

Always…

There has never been a civilization that has lasted for all of humanity so it’s illogical to think this one will. Since we have to be on “some path” at all times, one can only deduce that it is the path to ruin if “ruin” is the destination where all civilizations end up.

 

[320 Years of History]

There has never been a civilization that has lasted for all of humanity

??? I'm not sure if you truly mean civilizations or whether you mean cultures. They're not the same things. Assuming you do mean "civilization," yes, what you wrote is factually so (as far as we know for sure right now) but only because humanity began without civilizations. Additionally, I'm not sure whether you mean "Western civilization/culture" or civilization/culture in general, globally speaking. We in the U.S. often speak of Mesopotamia as being the "cradle of civilization." That's fine as long as one is clearly referring to Western civilization/culture, yet it's not fine or accurate if one means civilization/culture on the planet.

Extant today it's not at all hard to identify cultures that have evolved yet endured since about when humans first began to live in cities. Among them are the Chinese, Indian and Aboriginal cultures. As far as I know, Aboriginal culture has existed continuously for some 60K years or so. In North America, I think the Puebloan culture is the longest continuously enduring one, having lasted for about 7000 years. Both Aboriginal and Puebloan culture/civilization predate and have outlived Mesopotamian civilization by millennia, yet neither is a Western civilization or culture.

Lastly, it may be -- I don't know and haven't tried to find out -- that there is some African culture that has endured for even longer than have Aboriginals. I suspect it'd be hard to say for sure, particularly if the earliest homo sapiens sapiens city structures were built from wood and thatch. To the best of our knowledge, humanity first appeared in Africa and there has somewhat recently come to our attention signs of civilization dating back some 200K years. (Megalithomania Conference) It appears the culture that created those cities hasn't persisted, but the city itself seems to have nonetheless been there. If it's really a city, it's existence pretty well pairs civilization with the dawn of modern humanity.

That the emergence of civilization and humanity be basically concurrent events is not really that hard to accept for we know that modern humans today, homo sapiens sapiens, are neither more nor less intelligent (more and less knowledgeable is a different matter) than we were when we first emerged as a distinct life form. There are distinct easily discernible advantages to organizing and living in cities, even ones on the scale of what we'd today call a village; it's not at all a stretch to think that early modern humans would have figured that out and lived that way.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

TANF is still in effect. Again, try to inform yourself.

And how many people are now on some sort of welfare? Great success? Right.

Still having trouble distinguishing form from substance?

Fine, then, let's just get rid of the red states:

Red States Are Welfare Queens

You DO realize that if you drill down into those stats that the bulk of that welfare is going into the inner cities don't you? Which vote BLUE , every time.

Kids raised in poverty tend to become poor people, because poverty goes hand in hand with dysfunction: trauma, poor nutrition, chaotic living environment, etc. etc. etc. TANF tries to put a finger in the hole in the dyke. But when you stop TANF and other welfare programs, the ones who pay the highest price are the kids, our future. No cities where I live, but lots of generational poverty, plenty of welfare, plenty of kids dropping out of school by age 16 with no future. Sadly, what we need is more help for kids, not less, if you care about this country's future.

Don't look at me, I'm pro doing away with the current welfare BS and just going to a straight UBI and then taking kids out of homes which continue to neglect them. I mean ALL welfare programs, just give cash.

I certainly am as sickened by those folks who suggest doing away with all welfare with no replacement as you are..

That doesn't change the fact that the bulk of welfare money goes to voters who consistently vote Democrat. Not all of it, of course, but the bulk of it.

 

[Dot Com]

This is a very good column with some unsettling observations....

Are We on the Path to National Ruin?

San Antonio — I never really understood how fascism could have come to Europe, but I think I understand better now. You start with some fundamental historical transformation, like the Great Depression or the shift to an information economy. A certain number of people are dispossessed. They lose identity, self-respect and hope.​

They begin to base their sense of self-worth on their tribe, not their behavior. They become mired in their resentments, spiraling deeper into the addiction of their own victimology. They fall for politicians who lie about the source of their problems and about how they can surmount them. Facts lose their meaning. Entertainment replaces reality.

Once facts are unmoored, everything else is unmoored, too. People who value humility and kindness in private life abandon those traits when they select leaders in the common sphere. Hardened by a corrosive cynicism, they fall for morally deranged little showmen.

And then perhaps there’s a catalyzing event. Societies in this condition are culturally tense and socially isolated. That means there are a lot of lonely, alienated young men seeking self-worth through violence. Some wear police badges; some sit in their rooms fantasizing of mass murder. When they act, the results can be convulsive.

Normally, nations pull together after tragedy, but a society plagued by dislocation and slipped off the rails of reality can go the other way. Rallies become gripped by an exaltation of tribal fervor. Before you know it, political life has spun out of control, dragging the country itself into a place both bizarre and unrecognizable.


This happened in Europe in the 1930s. We’re not close to that kind of descent in America today, but we’re closer than we’ve been. Let’s be honest: The crack of some abyss opened up for a moment by the end of last week.

Blood was in the streets last week — victims of police violence in two cities and slain cops in another. America’s leadership crisis looked dire. The F.B.I. director’s statements reminded us that Hillary Clinton is willing to blatantly lie to preserve her career. Donald Trump, of course, lies continually and without compunction. It’s very easy to see this country on a nightmare trajectory.

How can America answer a set of generational challenges when the leadership class is dysfunctional, political conversation has entered a post-fact era and the political parties are divided on racial lines — set to blow at a moment’s notice?

On the other hand …

I never really understood how a nation could arise as one and completely turn itself around, but I think I’m beginning to understand now. Back in the 1880s and 1890s, America faced crises as deep as the ones we face today. The economy was going through an epochal transition, then to industrialization. The political system was worse and more corrupt than ours is today.

Culturally things were bad, too. Racism and anti-immigrant feelings were at plague-like levels. Urban poverty was indescribable.

And yet America responded. A new leadership class emerged, separately at first, but finally congealing into a national movement. In 1889, Jane Addams created settlement houses to serve urban poor. In 1892, Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance to give the diversifying country a sense of common loyalty. In 1902, Owen Wister published “The Virginian,” a novel that created the cowboy mythology and galvanized the American imagination.

New sorts of political leaders emerged. In city after city, progressive reformers cleaned up politics and professionalized the civil service. Theodore Roosevelt went into elective politics at a time when few Ivy League types thought it was decent to do so. He bound the country around a New Nationalism and helped pass legislation that ensured capitalism would remain open, fair and competitive.

This was a clear example of a society facing a generational challenge and surmounting it. The Progressives were far from perfect, but they inherited rotting leadership institutions, reformed them and heralded in a new era of national greatness.


So which path will we take? The future of the world hangs on that question.​

An uninformed (voting solely on name- recognition or celebrity- status) or duped electorate will be the nations downfall.

 

[Holos]

I am clearly not familiar with the surroundings in which all participants of this thread are posting from.

However, the surroundings in which I find myself in are already long-gone ruins.

 

[Dot Com]

TANF is still in effect. Again, try to inform yourself.

And how many people are now on some sort of welfare? Great success? Right.

Still having trouble distinguishing form from substance?

Fine, then, let's just get rid of the red states:

Red States Are Welfare Queens

You DO realize that if you drill down into those stats that the bulk of that welfare is going into the inner cities don't you? Which vote BLUE , every time.

ummm..... I'm going to have to ask for a source mkaythanks