All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[aja_christopher]

They found no one, so it was all waste:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...esting-program
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ning/94826672/

Please post a link if I'm wrong and new data has been found, or if any testing like this found any real number of people.

They talk a big game about the "welfare state" but it's the Republican "states" that tend to need the most "welfare".



The hypocrisy on said issue is so blatant that it's pathetic -- but it's par for course for the Republican party and it's supporters.

[Gray Lensman]

They talk a big game about the "welfare state" but it's the Republican "states" that tend to need the most "welfare".



The hypocrisy on said issue is so blatant that it's pathetic -- but it's par for course for the Republican party and it's supporters.

I didn't realize my state took it so hard from the Feds. 49th place....ouch.

[aja_christopher]

Sure but is not like there are many places to go when it comes to political paeties, are they going to vote libertarian, green other third party? Sure that can work when it comes to local elections but presidency, that is a game with big stakes, if only the US could drop the 2 parties system.

You can vote for the Democratic candidate without calling yourself a Democrat -- I don't consider myself a Democrat but since I support things like civil rights, climate awareness and environmental protections, universal health care and medical marijuana, I will usually vote for the Democratic party in most elections.

I don't vote for them because I feel that they should give me something in return -- I vote for them because they are considerably better than the alternative.

More importantly, if I felt like the Democratic party should do more for me -- whether as an individual or a "demographic" -- then I would actively engage with them and voice my concerns directly rather than just complaining about the status quo.

[mojotastic]

They talk a big game about the "welfare state" but it's the Republican "states" that tend to need the most "welfare".



The hypocrisy on said issue is so blatant that it's pathetic -- but it's par for course for the Republican party and it's supporters.

I just searched about that graph you just posted.

The graphic’s data uses data from the 2004 election rather than 2008, and the figures on taxes and spending date back to 2005 according to polifact.

I just google and i found this study from March of 2017 about the same subject.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...vernment/2700/

Also i once read an article saying that democrats in the red states were the ones who were more on welfare than republicans but i cant find the article about it.

[aja_christopher]

I just google and i found this study from March of 2017 about the same subject.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...vernment/2700/

Also i once read an article saying that democrats in the red states were the ones who were more on welfare than republicans but i cant find the article about it.

The article you linked to still points out that Red States are more dependent on federal "welfare" than Blue states.

And it's the "blue" (i.e. Democratic) cities like Houston and Austin that generate most of the income in "red" states like Texas -- not the "Republicans".

Anyone can find a way to twist data to suit their agenda, but the last Bush administration -- and the subsequent recession -- is irrefutable proof that the Republicans should not be trusted with power, whether military or economic.

Agree or disagree as you will, but only a fool lets the fox into the henhouse... repeatedly.

[Tendrin]

The article you linked to still points out that Red States are more dependent on federal "welfare" than Blue states.

And it's the "blue" (i.e. Democratic) cities like Houston and Austin that generate most of the income in "red" states like Texas -- not the "Republicans".

And the important thing to realize about the fact that red states take in more federal dollars than they put out (and the ridiculous notion that Mojotastic outlined above being a real one some conservatives espouse) is that there's a difference between getting federal money and whether or not that money actually reaches the populace its intended to serve in any way. Red state rural communities, for example, are often extremely undeserved by their governments. (really, we do a shitty job with rural communities in genral.)

[mojotastic]

The article you linked to still points out that Red States are more dependent on federal "welfare" than Blue states..

Didnt mean to prove you wrong or anything, i was just telling you to use more recent information about the subject.

[aja_christopher]

Didnt mean to prove you wrong or anything, i was just telling you to use more recent information about the subject.

Good to hear that -- I noticed that the dates weren't recent but little has changed since then with regards to the fundamental reality behind it.

And the important thing to realize about the fact that red states take in more federal dollars than they put out (and the ridiculous notion that Mojotastic outlined above being a real one some conservatives espouse) is that there's a difference between getting federal money and whether or not that money actually reaches the populace its intended to serve in any way. Red state rural communities, for example, are often extremely undeserved by their governments. (really, we do a shitty job with rural communities in genral.)

They continually espouse this nonsense because the Republican party has mastered the art of making the lie out to be the truth.

Which is exactly why Trump is now the head of said party, with all that that entails.

[mojotastic]

(and the ridiculous notion that Mojotastic outlined above being a real one some conservatives espouse)

Is just something i had in my mind and took the opportunity to post it since people was talking about that subject, since i didnt follow up the story i dont know if what i read had any merit or not or whatever.

[numberthirty]

They talk a big game about the "welfare state" but it's the Republican "states" that tend to need the most "welfare".

To go off on a slight tangent...

It's worth pointing out that many of the states that wind up "Taking" money from the Feds are states with "Right To Work" laws in place. I don't believe that is just random happenstance.

[numberthirty]

You can vote for the Democratic candidate without calling yourself a Democrat -- I don't consider myself a Democrat but since I support things like civil rights, climate awareness and environmental protections, universal health care and medical marijuana, I will usually vote for the Democratic party in most elections.

I don't vote for them because I feel that they should give me something in return -- I vote for them because they are considerably better than the alternative.

More importantly, if I felt like the Democratic party should do more for me -- whether as an individual or a "demographic" -- then I would actively engage with them and voice my concerns directly rather than just complaining about the status quo.

Without getting to judgemental, I believe you are not a minority woman.

If I can believe that the minority woman was told directly that the issue she raised was not the elected officials issue, I don't see where that is much better than any alternative. If everyone is telling you, "Your issue is not our issue.", each option is a non-starter.

As for "Actively Engage", did you actually get through then entire article? I don't see any scenario(short of her actually running against the folks in the article) where she could be any more engaged.

[aja_christopher]

Without getting to judgemental, I believe you are not a minority woman.

Nor are you, but you sure seem to care about "minority" and "women's" issues when it comes time to complain about Democrats and seem to forget about them -- conveniently enough -- when it comes to voting for a woman who will protect women's rights vs voting against a guy who has attacked both groups in the past and continues to do so while president.

Thirty -- I'll be blunt -- you're just as bad as the people you're complaining about, addressing "minority" issues only when it serves your purpose and you have absolutely no right to be judgmental since you're doing even less to help "minority women" than the political party that you continually criticize.

[numberthirty]

Sure...

Make it about me and not the woman in question and if she might have her own set of issues separate from yours.

[numberthirty]

As for the woman in question, she penned the article that was critical of the party.

I can say with absolute certainly that she did not do so because she lost a bet with me. That leaves you to consider(or decide not to consider) what she has to say.

[aja_christopher]

Sure...

Make it about me and not the woman in question and if she might have her own set of issues separate from yours.

Of course she does -- but that doesn't change the truth of what I said.