Quote (PixileDust @ Oct 20 2014 06:51pm)

Skinned... you are delusional. I agree with you when you imply democrats are welfare queens; however, conservative Republicans believe in decreasing the size of government overall, and funding strategic programs, i.e. Nasa. Not welfare.

Quote

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.

    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

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.

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.

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 20 2014 08:46pm)

Republicans support subsidies for big agriculture, big oil, timber producers, the extremely wealthy, defense contractors, and lots lots more.

Most Republicans only have government spending when it isn't on them.

Also:

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-18-at-3.15.41-PM.png

Get to work Red States.



Republican welfare queens.

Quote (duffman316 @ Oct 20 2014 09:15pm)

inb4 santara racist blames black people in conservative states for skewing the numbers!

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 20 2014 08:32pm)

I'm fine assigning some blame to democrats, but to say it's a 50/50 split is absolutely, stupidly, untrue.  The Democrats actually made deals with Republicans to seat judicial candidates during Republican majority, they never held up the surgeon general, and there are several examples of appointees which passed on the first vote once the fillabuster was lifted.  They're actually obstructing nominations that they later voted in favor of confirming.  We actually have Boehner ON FUCKING TAPE saying their game plan is to obstruct anything the Democrats put through at meetings with donors like the Koch brothers.

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 20 2014 08:46pm)

Also:

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-18-at-3.15.41-PM.png

Get to work Red States.

Republican welfare queens.

Quote (duffman316 @ Oct 20 2014 09:15pm)

inb4 santara racist blames black people in conservative states for skewing the numbers!

Quote (Santara @ Oct 20 2014 09:31pm)

No, it has to do with the uniform federal poverty level being applied across all the states' disparate income levels.

The average wage in California if far above the 130% FPL guideline to be getting SNAP benefits, so fewer people are eligible. On the other hand, CA also has exorbitantly high costs of living and taxes.

The average wage in Alabama is much closer to 130% FPL, so more people get benefits. On the other hand, AL has a low cost of living and taxes.

I've sourced more than once how red states have higher disposable income than blue states (disposable = income - taxation). Add in costs of living and a reasonable argument can be made that there are MANY people in CA who need SNAP but don't qualify, and many people in AL who don't need SNAP but do.

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 20 2014 08:44pm)

I've never considered money allocated for rent, power, transportation, and food to be disposable.  I just factor taxes right along in there as a relatively minor cost compared to the rest.  And I see myself getting quite a bit back in return.  I love having my trash picked up, having clean water to drink that will literally come out of my faucet no matter how long I have it turned on, nice roads and passable bridges, high quality public education for my children in a nice, clean building, and if I ever run into a stroke of bad luck I can be sure my family won't starve because of the fruits of the welfare state.

Compared to rent, transportation, power, groceries, etc, I feel like I get the best bang for my buck through societal collective action aka government.

Quote (Pollster @ 20 Oct 2014 10:25)

I really hate painting with a broad brush but in this case it always seems to be true: the only people who blame Harry Reid or the way his "desk" runs for the obstruction in Congress are people who either don't understand how Congress works or the people who are completely full of bullshit. There are three main reasons for this phenomena:

1) The Senate institutionally does not operate how the House does, and that's why every Congress experiences this.

2) Harry Reid is arguably the most adept Senate Majority Leader in decades, and knows better not to waste what little precious time the Senate does get to actually do its work on bills that have positively zero chance of passing over top of the inevitable Republican filibuster (from the top of the caucus or the bottom). This is the case with most, if not all, of these bills: they can not pass through the Senate due to Republican objection. For some reason most people struggle to understand the basic concept that vulnerable Senate Republicans do not want to rubber-stamp a bill passed by extreme Republican House members who are safe in their gerrymandered districts that would not be signed by President Obama anyway because it's either manifestly unpopular or because it's terrible policy. The GOP also has no one to blame for the fact that time is more scarce in the Senate than usual, because they and they alone have chosen to obstruct all business by refusing unanimous consent, refusing to yield time, and refusing other customary acts required by the Senate that could speed up the process.

3) The characterization of these House-passed bills as "bipartisan" is a joke, because most if not all of the non-ceremonial bills by this poor standard also have "bipartisan" opposition to them as well. This is why even amateur political analysts know better than to set the "bipartisan" bar on the floor of a couple of procedurally-insignificant votes from the minority joining a sufficient majority. They instead choose to apply that status to bills that actually receive a meaningful level of support from both parties. The two most-common thresholds are a simple majority from both caucuses or the majority caucus + enough support from the minority caucus to ensure passage that couldn't be obtained by the majority caucus alone. Few, if any, of these House-passed bills meet either one of those criteria. That's why no serious observer buys this bullshit, and correctly puts the blame on Republican Senate filibusters combined with a Republican House Majority that refuses to take up Senate-passed bills that enjoy wide support from the national electorate.

Edit: Also, reading Politifact or worse, relying on it to issue judgments, is among the best ways to ensure you will never understand how Congress works.

Quote (nobrow @ Oct 20 2014 10:08pm)

But, I am capable of sniffing my own meat.

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 20 2014 09:11pm)

My wife sniffs mine when I stay out too late.