Red States Are Welfare Queens

The OP is on a payroll, I'm sure.

2nd, Most of Those Red-states are accepting the punishment of a lost Civil War, where they Opposed The Federal Government. No it really, really, really, wasn't about Slavery. Of Course you won't read between the lines, that it was separation of powers between States and D.C. that has been conveniently stricken from the record.

The Federal Government went Bankrupt to defeat the South and then 60 years later we started a new Bank Called The Federal reserve, which though private was given the LEGAL authority without oversight, to MASS PRINT paper money. Essentially Selling our Currency to foreigners, to be used irresponsibly for their new great divide between wealthy, and worker/wage slave.

So what defines a red state?

A Republican governor?
A Republican state legislature?

I have seen no information in that article as to what clearly defines what a "red state" is, and then of course how come i California 43 on that list? That is a lie.

There are more people on welfare than other states entire populations, and New York the 20 worst states?

That article is garbage.

Originally posted by neo96
So what defines a red state?

Electoral voting history.

Originally posted by neo96
A Republican governor?
A Republican state legislature?

Often go hand in hand with the above.

and then of course how come i California 43 on that list? That is a lie.

There are more people on welfare than other states entire populations,

edit on 30-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

You are confused.

However many welfare recipients there are in California, they also generate the most revenue in the nation and pay for most of thier welfare programs locally through that revenue, rather than rely on the Federal Government.

If Mississippi paid for their own welfare recipients rather than using federal taxpayer funds, they would have a budget crisis that would make California look like pocket change by comparison.

reply to post by Indigo5


Not confused because Governors do not write legislation and that legislation was written years ago before that article date.

California has a population of around 40 million with over 11 million on welfare which is more people on welfare than other state populations.

Originally posted by matthewgraybeal
The OP is on a payroll, I'm sure.

2nd, Most of Those Red-states are accepting the punishment of a lost Civil War, where they Opposed The Federal Government.

WOW...gotta love it when the same pundits who won't tolerate any blame being dolled out to the President that held office just 3.5 years ago...the same folks who loudly deny that the institution of slavery has any social or economic consequences for present day African Americans...all of sudden want to explain away the welfare state of the Red States as a leftover consequence of the Civil War!!???


Wow...great stuff.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Not confused because Governors do not write legislation and that legislation was written years ago before that article date.

California has a population of around 40 million with over 11 million on welfare which is more people on welfare than other state populations.

edit on 30-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

And yet they rank near the bottom for government handouts...because California makes enough to pay for their own and even contributes 25c of every tax dollar to pay for the Red States welfare programs. Mississippi gets $2 back for every federal tax dollar they pay....California gets 75c back for every dollar.

reply to post by BlueStatePatriot


California isn't on that list but we have 12% of the population and almost 30% of the welfare cases.
What is wrong with this picture?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by matthewgraybeal
The OP is on a payroll, I'm sure.

2nd, Most of Those Red-states are accepting the punishment of a lost Civil War, where they Opposed The Federal Government.

WOW...gotta love it when the same pundits who won't tolerate any blame being dolled out to the President that held office just 3.5 years ago...the same folks who loudly deny that the institution of slavery has any social or economic consequences for present day African Americans...all of sudden want to explain away the welfare state of the Red States as a leftover consequence of the Civil War!!???


Wow...great stuff.

edit on 30-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Your Words, not mine. I blame a two party system which only rewards those on the million dollar side and higher of income per year, social policy is inconsequential in our Federal Government. It is merely a tool to rile up voters to hear "freedom my way". Usually with dirty tricks paving over and redirecting the worst consequences onto the Citizens. Thus fueling it's own opposition, and voters willing to uselessly toss votes at a broken Government which has left and right written in the consitution? No not really....

AND... Any fool, knows slavery is bad. duh. How do you enjoy yours, economic slave?

However, please continue to Worship your paradigm. Like a "lifer" lawyer/banker/politician, really makes the best decisions for us "Plebs".

Are the people who are taking those benefits taking them because they're welfare queens or because they have to in order to survive?

Are they living in an area where halfway decent employment is a simple bus ride away, or are they living in rural areas and small towns where a half decent income in a 30-40 minute drive away (or, in some cases, even longer)?

How many of these people are retirees?

And my final question is really simple: how many of these people would be on benefits at all without all this free trade crap resulting in millions of manufacturing jobs going overseas?

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Are the people who are taking those benefits taking them because they're welfare queens or because they have to in order to survive?

Are they living in an area where halfway decent employment is a simple bus ride away, or are they living in rural areas and small towns where a half decent income in a 30-40 minute drive away (or, in some cases, even longer)?

How many of these people are retirees?

And my final question is really simple: how many of these people would be on benefits at all without all this free trade crap resulting in millions of manufacturing jobs going overseas?

How dare you use logic in a case such as this, we have an election to Skew! Only Northern city folk know whats good for you poor Red-State Hillbillys who no one bothered to send work to, after D.C. redristibuted it north, and across the sea.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by matthewgraybeal
The OP is on a payroll, I'm sure.

2nd, Most of Those Red-states are accepting the punishment of a lost Civil War, where they Opposed The Federal Government.

WOW...gotta love it when the same pundits who won't tolerate any blame being dolled out to the President that held office just 3.5 years ago...the same folks who loudly deny that the institution of slavery has any social or economic consequences for present day African Americans...all of sudden want to explain away the welfare state of the Red States as a leftover consequence of the Civil War!!???


Wow...great stuff.

edit on 30-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

so you think slavery is an excuse for African Americans now, but the Civil War angle isn't legit- what say you?

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


You're doing exactly what you accuse HangTheTraitors of doing, stereotyping.

I don't take sides on this site and I'm not going to start now. I just want to make a few points that I hope you receive well.

It's safe to say that HangTheTraitors is referring to the people who made their voices heard mainly during the beginnig of the Presidents term. I say that b/c the President received a lot of backlash for gov. spending and was called a wellfare queen and many other derogatory names during his term, especially in the beginning. Most of those ppl were Tea Party members. They had every right to do what they did. The problem is many of those town halls were ppl said those things were in those red states. Neither he, you or I know whether those ppl received handouts or not. So he's definitely stereotyping but you are as well when you say that "NEVER heard any handout recipients complain about government spending. It's those of us remaining in the middle class who are frustrated." There's no way for sure to know that. We can only speak for ourselves unless we are providing statistics of those who have received handouts and those who speak out against handouts.

Your stance of not receiving handouts is admirable but you don't know how others feel who do receive handouts. It's a horrible assumption that both liberals and conservatives make.

The only ppl who may believe you when you say, "Most of the people in the "red states" who vote Republican are sick of ALL of the crap, including being fed up with most of the republican politicians," when you follow it up by saying you're going to hold your nose and vote for Mitt Romney when he's one of the republicans who is definitley part of the problem.

This line of thinking is insane. In order to make change you must take action. Something I really admire about what democrats did during the last election is that they organized on a massive scale. If these republicans that you speak of were really sick of all the crap they'd organize and get massive support behind a candidate who they feel will have America's best interest at heart. You should be out organizing not worried about what HangTheTraitors has to say on ats... It doesn't take much effort to settle and wait for others to get their # together. I tell everyone I know who complains but barely take the initiative to get the results they say they want... Just do it!

Dummies voting against their own best interests in the red states. Well DUMMIES there, when you get your republican fantasy dream everywhere in the nation, you will be out on the STREETS and the super wealthy will get IT ALL!!!!!!!!

reply to post by HangTheTraitors


I'm in a blue state and we have people on fixed incomes that keep voting republican. Yet when you talk to them they start saying, "thanks to social security and medicare were just barely making it." Well keep voting republican and you won't make it.

I know educators who are staunch republicans. They voted a republican governor into office and they lost their jobs the following year! Everyone knows conservatives want to cut education to the bone. Yet their too ignorant to realize that innovation and a strong economy is tied into a well educated society. If you don't have enough intelligent engineers or skilled workers, your economy is going to be nothing but low paying service industry.jobs.

Originally posted by beezzer
Just thought I'd share.

May provide a more telling picture.

I'm not so sure about that graphic. Georgia is required by its Constitution to have a balanced budget, so showing that it has a large percent of the budget being "deficit" doesn't seem like it could be true.

www.georgiaencyclopedia.org...

The state of Georgia must by law operate with a balanced budget. A balanced budget is one in which the amount of money spent over a fiscal year does not exceed the amount of money collected from taxes and other revenue sources for that same fiscal year.

Most states have a balanced-budget requirement, but few take the requirement as seriously as does Georgia. The Georgia Constitution makes it illegal for the General Assembly to pass an operating budget that anticipates expenditures exceeding funds available. If the budget becomes unbalanced after the start of the fiscal year, then the governor must call the General Assembly back into special session to make changes to the budget. The amended budget will either raise revenues or cut expenditures or provide for a combination of both.

I just thought I'd throw that out there, since the graphic tells a very different story.

reply to post by Heyokha


I was one of those people out marching with the Tea Party in its early days. I know we all speak from our own experience, but I got the feeling it was made up of people like me--middle class, and feeling disenfranchised by our government. The problems we face did NOT start with Obama, and I know there are many who agree with me.

I know you said we should get out there and do something--I'm really at a loss as to what. I thought we WERE doing something back in those early Tea Party days--meeting, rallying, petitions...all we got was ridiculed and marginalized, and called racists.

If I sounded defensive in my earlier post, it is because I LOVE my state. We are southern, and many of us are Conservatives, and even Christians, but that does not make us backwards welfare hillbillies. I'm very tired of the way people are so quick to toss those ideas around.

It is NOT okay to condemn entire states of people based upon one's own stereotypical views. That's mainly what I am trying to say here.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by BlueStatePatriot

 

The article provides no means as to where the info was gathered, nor how it was gathered and put together.
This is the same tired old pitch from 0bama fan boys across the internet. Maybe using the chart from last week, showing 0bama as not a big spender??? That was blown out of the water as well.

I will say that the Federal Govt is completely out of control, spending wise. Many states are as well.
But, what factors are used to calculate the stated monies? Are these funds going to the state for what???????

You beat me to the punch line. Absolutely no references or data to back up their statements. As far as I am concerned they pulled those numbers out of a magic hat. Very poor journalism. Taking an educated guess, the numbers are probably close to correct in terms of government spending, not welfare spending in particular.

Originally posted by beezzer
Just thought I'd share.

May provide a more telling picture.

Wow, when the facts come out......

The OP and demitards are trying to cover up their leeeeeching.

I am going to retract from my comments as my blood is boiling at this moment in time over this subject. Thank you and good night.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

It's a catch-22 here. Even the most anti-welfare person isn’t going to refuse a benefit their due since their property is already being stolen from them anyway.

Actually, I am a retired officer from the Army. I get 62.5% of the average salary of the last 36 months of service. I earned that. It comes with retiree medical and dental at a nominal fee. A laughable fee relative to what the general population pays. I pay 35.00 a month for the whole family, 5.00 co-pay on meds and I think 90.00 a month for dental.

However, without the actual wounds received I'd still be eligible based on some certain medical diagnoses around 60-70% VA disability. I refuse to do so. I am almost 50 now - my back/neck hurts because of what I did for a living in Special Forces - but the retiree medical covers it all anyway. Besides, what man who did hard physical labor for 24+ years doesn’t have some back pain…

I feel like applying for and taking extra money from VA - it would be about 11-1250.00 extra a month in tax free income with some other preferences for jobs etc. would be IMO just plundering the treasury more than necessary.

I am an entrepreneur and don't need a job preference I already qualified for VA small business loan with a good solid plan. And while an extra 1k a month or so would be nice (and would come in handy) the 4k I already make (retired O4) just for getting out of bed every day in addition to my business earnings is a lot more than most in America have. I own 140 acres free and clear – I’m all set.

I guess if needed it I'd apply but I don't so I just let it ride. Not everyone who can milks the treasury.

1)These red states don't get to refuse the federal dependence payments to some of our less desirable citizenry. Trust me, we would.
2) Whenever one suggests that the blue states take these poor, pitiful folks in if they care about them so much, they always refuse. Hypocrites.

When you are talking about state budgets being irresponsible and beyond stupid (ie California), it has nothing to do with the federal budget. In this case, the federal budget hasn't had to care for California (yet) because California has been spending lots and lots of imaginary money, that doesn't and never will, exist.

Trust me. If (when?) it all collapses, the red states will be fine. The blue states will be zombie pits of hunger and disease.