Sucking the government tit

[Duff Miver]

Red State conservatives are forever whining about people who suck the government tit. They claim they are overtaxed to pay for the tit-suckers.

The truth is, it is those very states, the red whiners who suck the tit, while it is the blue states who are over taxed to pay for them. Here's the list.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

So,how about you red state tit-suckers start paying your share....naw, you'd rather whine.

 

[ssd]

Complete tripe as is your other article about dividing the country.

Do you really believe that the only people in those states in question that receive govt help voted (R)?

The entire state of Illinois EXCEPT the greater Chicago area votes (R) yet because of the population, the state goes (D).

Statements like this from you are below your intelligence.

 

[Duff Miver]

Complete tripe as is your other article about dividing the country.

Do you really believe that the only people in those states in question that receive govt help voted (R)?

The entire state of Illinois EXCEPT the greater Chicago area votes (R) yet because of the population, the state goes (D).

Statements like this from you are below your intelligence.

It's a bitch when the facts don't support your fantasies, isn't it?

 

[Skulnik]

Look at old man Duff, strutting around like he won something.

:mj07:

 

[ImFeklhr]

Perhaps they go red because so much government tit sucking goes on in those states, the voters have a closer first hand view of the problem than those in Blue states.
So they vote Republican.

It's all so anecdotal. Who votes for what and why. :shrug:

 

[ssd]

Sure, Duff.

That garbage you post is complete reality.

:facepalm:

 

[azbob]

I appreciate the post...let's move to decrease all of the dollars contributed by about 20% and see if the states are better at focusing those dollars where they are needed plus you will eliminate the "federal skim."

That can coincide with a 20% decrease in federal support to the same states.

Those dollars don't have to go to Washington, get siphoned by bureaucrats and be influenced by lobbying.

Let's get Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell on that right away.

 

[ssd]

Top 15 Welfare States:
13-of-the-15 are Democrat States
Posted on November 29, 2011

Interesting: CNBC published the top 15 states in the Nation that consume the MOST in welfare. 13-of-15 are DEMOCRAT states; they went Blue in 2008.

The BIGGEST US WELFARE STATES

?Year Researched Data???2009????-2007????2008???-2009

State??-% of Pop on Welfare??Spending on Welfare?-Total on Welfare??Unemp

#1. California?????3.30%??????$3.28 BILLION???..1,212,893??.11.5%

#2. Maine??????..2.37%??????.$61.73 MILLION???..31,148???.8.3%

#3. Tennessee????.2.15%?????..$91.28 MILLION???.133,505???.10.7%

#4. Massachusetts??.2.09%?????.$295.29 MILLION???136,033???8.2%

#5. Vermont?????.2.02%?????..$30.92 MILLION???..12,543??..7.3%

#6. Wash DC????..1.99%??????.$18.67 MILLION???..11,806???..10.7%

#7. New York????..1.92%??????$1.47 BILLION????..373,305???8.2%

#8. Minnesota????..1.88%??????$106.29 MILLION???98,028??.8.2%

#9. Washington????1.86%??????$265.88 MILLION??121,864??..9.4%

#10. New Mexico???.1.83%??????$58.87 MILLION??.36,322????..6.5%

#11. Indiana?????..1.83%??????..$102.27 MILLION?..116,430???.10.6%

#12. Rhode Island??..1.79%??????.$57.4 MILLION????..18,839????..12.1%

#13. Michigan????..1.60%??????..$380.93 MILLION???.164,589???14.1%

#14.Pennsylvania???.1.60%??????$247.29 MILLION???198,666????8.2%

#15. Oregon?????.1.55%???????.$83.85 MILLION???.58,831????.12.4%

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310?slide=15

 

[ChrryBlstr]

I think that what would be even more interesting and telling are statistics that indicate the actual dollar amounts that welfare recipients receive. Of course, this would vary significantly from state to state and from city to city due to cost of living, etc.

But many on here seem to believe that those on welfare choose to remain on welfare. That it "boosts" the impoverished to middle-class status or something. More accurately, welfare simply allows one to subsist. Of course, there are some exceptions to this, but are those rare cases the norm? And if it's such a terrific lifestyle, then why aren't more people doing it? Don't work, get paid seems like an optimum thing to do! But, it's simply not reality.

Man, if I were only receiving $500-$1000/month to try and survive - I sure as hell would be smoking and boozing as much as possible too because life would SUCK! PERIOD!

Peace!

 

[Duff Miver]

Top 15 Welfare States:
13-of-the-15 are Democrat States
Posted on November 29, 2011

You have noticed, of course that they pay their own way, plus some more for the red states which don't pay their own way?

Or, to put it another way, since they pay more than enough taxes to cover their costs, why do you give a shit?

Or to put it third way, why don't you whine about the states which don't pay their own way?:violin:

 

[azbob]

Chrry...the question is not if YOU were EARNING only $500 to $1,000 a month, it's that those who don't want to work get that amount of money for doing nothing along with all of the other handouts that reinforce them doing nothing.

Clinton had the right idea but, now we are eroding that plan and are moving back to everyone with a handout.

Just put a cap on the number of years you can get welfare for those capable of work and STOP PROVIDING INCENTIVES TO PEOPLE TO HAVE KIDS THROUGH THE TAX CODE.

 

[ChrryBlstr]

az: Perhaps I'm wrong, but the majority of impoverished and poor people that I've met DO NOT prefer this lifestyle.

For argument's sake, say they do receive $1k a month on welfare for NOT working. Would YOU do it? Is $12k a year enough? Anywhere in North America? Perhaps to subsist, but that's it. Of course, there MAY be a few who choose this lifestyle, BUT....there is simply no way that MOST do, given other viable alternatives.

 

[ChrryBlstr]

Maybe I've got it all wrong and have no idea what I'm talking about. Where I am, minimum wage is $10.75 per hour. So a person who makes this much and works 35 hrs per week can make $376.25 per week and $1505 per month with no taxes taken off.

That's only an additional $500 per month working full-time for minimum wage. Hmmmmm....OK....I dunno....under the circumstances, maybe I'd do the same. So where is the incentive if all the jobs available ARE low paying? So perhaps that's another question that needs to be addressed then.

Peace!

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

And how long can you get unemployment now? Where is rusty when you need him?

 

[azbob]

The answer to that question is to keep in place the Clinton plan, and make it stronger, so people don't have the choice you quoted...they either work or get nothing.

That excludes disabled/infirmed etc...but, if you are capable of working...you work. If you make some figure around the minimun wage, you are excluded from payroll taxes and other federal take-aways and still eligible for assistance based on need and NOT tied to an earnings amount but, you have to have earnings to quality.

You might remember all of the horror stories of people being put into the street by the plan Clinton passed...that didn't happen. In fact, the horror stories that exist now are someone else's fault...you can decide if you want to pick failed presidency #1 or failed presidency #2.

AND...eliminate incentives for having children.

 

[Duff Miver]

AND...eliminate incentives for having children.

Good idea. Also eliminate incentives for not growing farm crops. subsidies for living in flood zones, subsidies for building churches, subsidies for exporting jobs, subsidies for exporting cash, subsidies for "donations" to special interests, etc, etc.

Hell, the azbob, give us an evening and a bottle of cheap booze, and we can balance the budget on the back of a napkin. :0074 :lol:


LOL