regent
Gold Member
- Jan 30, 2012
- 10,459
- 1,151
- 245
I think that's about all the education I can take today. It's like a graduate course in economics; I mean if it's red it's communism. Thank you Chic, I'm going out now and will look for red.Flip to any news channel in the past three years, and you can almost be certain to see any number of Republican governors, blustering about how Washington spends too much money and how they'd never spend that much money if they were President. It's a lot of tough talk, really. But is there any truth to it?Are you two both suffering from the same malady?
My position is, and always has been, Conservatism has not always meant Republican and Liberalism has not always meant Democrat.
Let me put it yet another way. Conservatives have not always been Republican. Liberals have not always been Democrats.
Conservative Democrats have been in the party since Lincoln, as Lincoln was a Republican.
Liberals were in the Republican Party since Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and through the LBJ Administration.
History shows us, had you ever studied it, that ideology and party identity are in flux.
The defining characteristics of conservative: individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.
And you say.....what???
Well, all of this tough budget talk from Republicans got me thinking about the central: who really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers.
The truth? Not so fast, Michele Bachmann.
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.
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.
- 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
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.
Go ahead and bookmark this article. The next time some smarmy teabagger tries to tell you it's liberals who are ruining the country and spending us into oblivion, kindly point them to the evidence that shows it is GOP states, not Democrat states, who are Welfare Queens. It is GOP states who spend more than they collect in taxes. It is GOP states who are out of balance, nationally.
See if they still want to cut off funding when it means no more socialism for slave states.
Red States Are Welfare Queens
I have a shorter article that is far more indicative:
"His presidency will end with Democrats in possession of 11 fewer Senate seats (depending on how you count), more than 60 fewer House seats, at least 14 fewer governorships and more than 900 fewer seats in state legislatures than when it began. That’s a staggering toll."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/o...est&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0
The people have spoken......all of 'em.
Oh....and BTW.....Red states are Democrat/Liberal/Progressive.
Red is traditionally associated with socialism and communism. The oldest symbol of socialism (and, by extension, communism) is the Red Flag, which dates back to the revolutions of 1848. The colour red was chosen to represent the blood of the workers who died in the struggle against capitalism. All major socialist and communist alliances and organisations – including the First, Second, and Third Internationals – used red as their official colour. The association between the colour red and communism is particularly strong. Communists use red much more often and more extensively than other ideologies use their respective traditional colours.
In Europe and Latin America, red is also associated with parties of social democracy, and often their allies within the labour movement. Sometimes these parties use pink instead, as a "moderate" colour instead of the more "radical" red.
In the United States, since the year 2000, the mass media have associated red with the Republican Party, despite the fact that the Republican Party is a conservative-leaning party. Since at least 2010, the party has adopted an all red logo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour
Now....what else do I have to re-educate you about?