DBS - this reply is directed to elfiepololiar so when I refer to "*****" and "liar" and "*********** weasel," the comment is directed to him. With that caveat, may I retort?
To begin with, Coolie started it off, above. The numbers are demonstrably false with the massive, MASSIVE increase in Fed spending on Medicare. Let me continue.
Further, the whole meme, "Oh, such-and-*******-such state pays x in taxes and received y in benefits," is a dumbass and demonstrably false narrative for ALL of the following reasons:
1. The idiotic analysis presumes that social security payments are equivalent to Section 8 and welfare. No, they are not, elfiefuckwaddipshit. Social security recipients paid into a fund. Section 8, food stamp recipients, welfare beneficiaries are losers sucking on the taxpayer's tit. Further, retirees move to warmer climates in retirement - Florida, Georgia, Texas. You know, "red" states. So the entire analysis is ******* stupid from the beginning. Let me continue.
Social Security recipients almost always receive more in benefits over a lifetime than what they pay in(including interest), you are also not including those people who receive S.S. disability and payed little to nothing into the system. You know, the guys with the fake back injuries that scummy ambulance chasers like you help to dupe the system into giving them a handout for a lifetime.
Section 8, food stamps, etc. is a lot of the time given to families who have one or two working members but can not make ends meet because deplorable Reich Wingers make sure to stop any attempt at poorer working people receiving a living wage in the first place.
So according to steeltime : the elderly, the working lower class, and disabled are "losers.....My...my... and some here have the nerve to call me an elitist snob, yet they will slob on steeltimes knob as he regurgitates idiotic long ago debunked Reich Wing talking points that to them sounds like a cogent argument....you can NOT make it up.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/contra...ver-nine-tenths-of-entitlement-benefits-go-to
A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. (See Figure 1.) This figure has changed little in the past few years.
OVER 90 %.........HELLO....
2. Second, "red" states include Montana, South Dakota, Arizona, Idaho, North Dakota, Alaska, and Utah ... states with MASSIVE Federal lands, and with tiny populations. The Federal lands generate basically zero revenue for the Fed, covering millions of acres, so the calculation simply pretends that the Federal government condemning and taking land is a push in this calculation - when in fact, it is a ******* massive cost to the taxpayer and only a stupid ***** (*cough*elfiepololiar) believes otherwise. Once again, the dumbfuck analysis pretends that these state are sucking on the Federal tit. No, ******, they are not. These states are ******* MANDATED to care for Federal land. If they were not required to do so, they would instead probably sell the land, and raise billions in taxes. Strike 2, *****.
States are not "mandated to care for federal land" they are given authority to manage wildlife in some cases and are given funding for that task. Some federal land has been legally transferred to state hands, that's different .
Yes if states were given ownership of these lands most would immediately sell and see a short term gain before they go back to the same cash strapped situation as before. They would sell to a few private interests who would: destroy the land, employ a few people, poison the environment burdening that state with added healthcare and environmental costs, and the best part...buy the state legislature like they have here in Oklahoma where the oil industry rakes in billions upon billions and pays...are you ready?....... A 1% TAX RATE! And we are in a perpetual budget crisis!This is what you propose?
The smart thing to do is what the federal gov. already does; lease the land and apply federal regulation in the stewardship of it. This is what benefits the public now and for future generations(till the climate change takes us out anyway).
Here is what happens when you privatize federal land....read it so you can see that what I mentioned above is absolutely true. It's been tried....epic failure...Donald Trump scale failure....
http://www.hcn.org/articles/an-experiment-in-privatizing-public-land-fails-after-14-years
You're right, second strike....one more and maybe you can get a clue.
3. Third, the argument that "red states" get more in Fed revenues completely ignores who is getting the ******* Federal benefits and why in basically every Southern state. Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma ... hey, who is getting Section 8 benefits, and food stamps, and welfare, and SSDI, and on and on? Yep, the Democrat base. Only an ignorant **** (*cough*elfiepololiar) believes otherwise. Suck it, *****.
Are you serious?
We know Trump got the white non college degree vote(just read this forum) We know that poor whites in the south vote overwhelmingly Repugnican against their own interests....well...because that's what lack of education does to a mind. This has been shown to be true in studies.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/povert...grams-help-adults-lacking-college-degrees-the
People of all races and ethnic groups who lack a bachelor’s degree receive significant help from the safety net, but on two significant metrics, the results for white working-age adults stand out. Among working-age adults without a college degree, 6.2 million whites are lifted above the poverty line by the safety net — more than any other racial or ethnic group. (See Figure 1.) In addition, the percentage of people who would otherwise be poor that safety net programs lift out of poverty is greater for white working-age adults without a college degree than for other adults without a college degree. Still, poverty rates among people without a college degree are substantially higher for blacks and Hispanics than for whites — whether or not safety net assistance is considered.
These findings are particularly noteworthy because the election has brought increased attention to the economic difficulties that people without a college degree can face. Largely overlooked in the discussion of these issues to date, however, is the fact that the nation’s poverty reduction programs provide extensive support to adults lacking a college degree, including working-class whites, and that such people would be the principal losers under various proposals to cut these programs that may emerge in coming months.
Swing and a miss..strike three. Nothing new under the sun when I deal with the *** clown called Steeltime.
4. Fourth, even according to the asinine, phony, corrupt, bullshit, pimped, phony, dick-licking calculations from dumb-as-**** government hacks (*cough*elfie die ************), the biggest tax ***** is ... New Mexico. A solid Democrat state. ******.
An exception to the rule.
5. Fifth, the asinine, stupid, corrupt, bullshit, bogus calculations are predicated on three factors: (1) federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes; (2) the percentage of a state’s annual revenue that comes from federal funding; and (3) the number of federal employees per capita. Now, "Federal funding" apparently counts only direct Fed spending and thereby EXCLUDES the salaries paid by the Fed to employees, accounting for the reason why Virginia - which receives billions and billions of dollars per year in Fed money based on salaries to Fed employees who live in the state - is supposedly a "contributor" to the Fed extortion account when in truth hundreds of thousands of employees who live in that state receive a combined billions of tax dollars in salary and benefits and are a giant black whole of tax theft.
This is just bonus *** waxing on Steeltime at this point! lol..
So then can we subtract federal salaries paid to Forest service, BLM, Interior, U.S. fish and wildlife in some of those states you use to bolster your "point"? Can we subtract the trickle down to contractors and their employees and benefits to the local economy?
6. Sixth, large Western states like North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Arizona - all red states - have ******* MASSIVE Federal lands due to national parks, condemnation, what-the-****-ever, Bammy, etc. So these states hire Fed employees to monitor the Fed lands because government ... and that supposedly makes them "dependent" on the Federal government? *****, every Fed employee could shrivel and die and North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Arizona would do just fine, thank you.
REALLY?
Can we also take away farm subsidies from those states? Do you know what would happen just to North Dakota if you did that? They wouldn't have money to patch a whole in the road much less finance Sheriff Departments, etc. You don't have a clue as to how dependent, rural mostly Republican communities and entire states are to the feds. Hey, but lets listen to Steeltime and destroy our natural resources and enjoy $15 dollars a loaf white bread not to mention what would happen to beef prices.....
You are epically ignorant as to how things work outside of slip and fall cases and probably helping people get the very benefits you condemn........truly stupid.
Back to elieliarPolo, *****.
