2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Yes, I think we've all heard the apologia for why whites dependent on welfare is actually fine.
Hm no i started with "please remove those programs".
But your claim that those programs on net help whites is quite absurd, some whites are helped of course but they also pay into the programs more than they get out of it as an ethnic group, so they lose from the existence of those programs financially as a group.
If white democrat voters want to pay in, that's their prerogative, but claiming those programs help republicans by using the "red states" thing is quite absurd, given recipients of those programs nationwide are overwhelmingly from demographics that vote democrat or don't vote, while net taxpayers include more republicans than recipient groups do.
Medicaid (which is the bulk of it) is a program into which wealthy democrats and republicans pay, and out of which overwhelmingly democrats and non voters take.
It's definitely a net help for the conservative low education low work culture whites that are dependent on those programs and will not get rid of them. Which is why I want some control over conservative areas in exchange for this money. If those states and non productive rurals in blue states opt out of federal funds we can have the discussion about them taking more control at the state or local level, but it's a non starter until they start supporting themselves. That's the conversation; why do we want input into how these states are run.
It's definitely a net help for the conservative low education low work culture whites that are dependent on those programs and will not get rid of them. Which is why I want some control over conservative areas in exchange for this money. If those states and non productive rurals in blue states opt out of federal funds we can have the discussion about them taking more control at the state level, but it's a non starter until they start supporting themselves. That's the conversation; why do we
It's not a net help because those programs are part of the reason they stay poor (at least according to how we think on the right).
You want control on conservative areas because you force them to subsidize their poors, which are very often, and clearly so in aggregate nationwide, your own voters already lol.
West Virginia would NOT tax it's residents a whole lot more to pay for the poors if medicaid stops existing, you know that. Nor would any other red state.
Red states love your money so much they fought tooth and nail to stop the medicaid expansion in their states lol. Can't really claim they want your money on the face of it alone.
West Virginia expanded Medicaid over a decade ago.
Yes. A state trump won by as much as any voted in people that expanded Medicare. That can try to undo it now. But I don’t think they want to. All I’m pointing out is the obvious; since we’re supporting them we should get a say.
The point wasn't that his show is satire, my point is that comedians making political commentary is pretty in line with how comedy has always historically been used. Maybe the big difference is that some comedians like to escape the responsibility that they have as comedians and media figures by saying stuff like "well I'm just a stupid comedian, what do I know?" while having millions of people watching them. I'm thinking people like Joe Rogan or Jimmy Dore. Once you enter into the commentary sp
This is what happened during Jon Stewart's interview on Crossfire years back. Tucker Carlson was pressing him about his responsibilities as host of the Daily Show, and Stewart's argument was basically "You're on CNN. The show that leads into mine is puppets making prank phone calls," downplaying his influence. I like Stewart, but calling Tucker a dick in that debate wasn't the huge own that so many people made it out to be.
Yes. A state trump won by as much as any voted in people that expanded Medicare. That can try to undo it now. But I don’t think they want to. All I’m pointing out is the obvious; since we’re supporting them we should get a say.
they purged 20% of recipients recently "because of technical errors" .
You don't get to control the lives of people you willingly donate to usually no, and if that's what you want to achieve you have to ask them before giving them the money and find an agreement about that.
There is nothing obvious especially because you are the ones deciding to donate in the first place
I’m not controlling their lives. Im just fine with having more say than 0 since rurals are dependent on my money. If they were self supporting I’d have more sympathy for their desire to be left alone. As it stands that can’t have it both ways of free money and full autonomy. If that’s what they want step 1 will be fixing conservative culture to make it productive and not a drain on real America.
I will respond to ES2’s post later but on this subject of nationwide vs state entitlements, I think that it just makes a lot more logistical sense to have entitlements be uniform or else what happens is something similar to the insurance coverage issue. The free riders on the system will eventually tap into the benefits when needed but won’t be paying into the benefits.
Something like worker’s benefits are different though, I think state by state we can mandate that and businesses and individuals will figure out if that works better for them. In the macro level it does reduce leverage for workers when businesses can offload certain jobs to other states. But there are other considerations, like if you can insert exceptions for small businesses they are able to have some small advantage over larger firms within those states so if small businesses are something you value then making larger orgs have more mandates for benefits can give them some small competitive advantage.
I really don’t know what the right answer is on that. I generally think it’s a good policy, and for instance my org does offer it without any mandate needed. Benefits don’t have to just be mandated, they can also be built into general comp packages. People confuse no mandated sick time or breaks with no sick time or breaks whatsoever. And when you do insert those mandates you want to make sure the cost of doing business isn’t prohibitive. I will say from a worker’s perspective having a certain amount of paid sick time is nice. It also sucks when we have some of the highest productivity but don’t have the same benefits package as other countries, although many would argue paying significantly less in taxes makes up for that. But then that’s going to be dependent on CoL and how much those dollars/euros can actually buy you with what’s left over.
Going back to entitlements though, what I’m worried about is if blue states have robust social safety nets while red states have nothing, I don’t want them to basically be offloading their poor onto us and making us pay for their sick, poor, and elderly. That’s why ultimately if we’re going to have these programs they should be national. To the point of Ron Paul, this also means we have to worry about overloading our system with illegal immigrants who don’t pay taxes, although this is partially solved using an ITIN and cracking down on their tax contributions. The point is that CA and NY can’t be forced to subsidize the nation’s poor, and we have seen that Republican governors are willing to pull stunts like busing migrants, so they are not morally against exploiting other state’s systems for their own benefit. This will happen naturally as well.
Why the inverted commas? This is Missouri with 67 % of blacks on medicaid vs 34% of whites
https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/d...
Stats are similar for every red state
Missouri has one of the highest concentration of blacks in America yet they still only represent 11% of the population there, so that doesn't explain why the net federal dollars are so much higher there vs blue states. Nor does it explain all the other red states who take net federal dollars without a similar significant black population like Missouri has.
I’m not controlling their lives. Im just fine with having more say than 0 since rurals are dependent on my money. If they were self supporting I’d have more sympathy for their desire to be left alone. As it stands that can’t have it both ways of free money and full autonomy. If that’s what they want step 1 will be fixing conservative culture to make it productive and not a drain on real America.
Given autonomy comes from the constitution while the money comes from your choices, stop giving them money instead of asking for unconstitutional restraints on state rights.
Step 1 is stopping giving money to people to keep their problems.
Missouri has one of the highest concentration of blacks in America yet they still only represent 11% of the population there, so that doesn't explain why the net federal dollars are so much higher there vs blue states. Nor does it explain all the other red states who take net federal dollars without a similar significant black population like Missouri has.
No Missouri has almost the same % of blacks the nation has, in approx 1 in 8 people, which is why I picked it.
The federal dollars on welfare are almost all medicaid/chips. It's explained by democrats wanting to cover everyone.
And they especially want to cover poor people in red states because they know those states being red won't cover them themselves, as rightwing people aren't very happy about giving free stuff to others.
You btw might be confused by stats that include ss/medicare but those aren't welfare, rather mandatory old age insurance for health and income.
Medicaid is welfare, you get it even if you didn't pay into it.
No Missouri has almost the same % of blacks the nation has, in approx 1 in 8 people, which is why I picked it.
The federal dollars on welfare are almost all medicaid/chips. It's explained by democrats wanting to cover everyone.
And they especially want to cover poor people in red states because they know those states being red won't cover them themselves, as rightwing people aren't very happy about giving free stuff to others.
You btw might be confused by stats that include ss/medicare but those ar
If Missouri's population of blacks is inline with the nation then why are you quoting their black population as being related to those red state's heavy reliance on net Federal dollars?
No Missouri has almost the same % of blacks the nation has, in approx 1 in 8 people, which is why I picked it.
The federal dollars on welfare are almost all medicaid/chips. It's explained by democrats wanting to cover everyone.
And they especially want to cover poor people in red states because they know those states being red won't cover them themselves, as rightwing people aren't very happy about giving free stuff to others.
You btw might be confused by stats that include ss/medicare but those ar
Well Left Wing states do not really want to give everyone Universal Healthcare as well California being a prime example
If Missouri's population of blacks is inline with the nation then why are you quoting their black population as being related to those red state's heavy reliance on net Federal dollars?
Because that's who medicaid recipients overwhelmingly are: democrat voters or non voters.
In red states as well, and the fact some (many in a few cases) live in red states doesn't allow people like ecriture to claim they are paying for republicans.
They are paying overwhelmingly for their demographics, for the people who vote democrats, wherever they are in the nation.
And if some red states have many blacks, that doesn't make these states liable to be controlled by democrats in California only because those democrats want to subsidize the blacks who live elsewhere.
Medicaid is a program to help democrat voter bases, with the taxes of both rich democrats and rich republicans (only rich people pay significant amount of federal taxes on net).
It's already a scam against republicans, a transfer from them to people who vote against them and their values
So why does that disproportionately affect red states if their percentage of black population is no different than blue states, considering black people as a whole vote Democrat regardless of which state they live in?
So why does that disproportionately affect red states if their percentage of black population is no different than blue states, considering black people as a whole vote Democrat regardless of which state they live in?
Because it doesn't disproportionately affect red states much, only a few of them.
Florida is the state with the lowest federal welfare per person (at 2700), the second lowest is Kansas.
NYS is over average, higher than Texas.
Alaska is super high and first in the nation but so is Hawaii (in those cases, it's evidently from otherwise marginal federal contributions related to the remoteness of the state).
As I said, you probably have in mind data that, using medicare and SS as well (which aren't welfare) indicate the vast majority of counties relaying on federal money "vote republican". But it's few people.
Really poor people numerically are concentrated in urban areas (both on red and blue states) and mostly either vote blue or don't vote.
It's false to claim blue states subsidize red states.
Blue states on net send money to red states but only to a specific portion of their populations which overall is dramatically skewed to the blue so it's democrats and rich republicans subsidizing poor democrats through the federal welfare state.
The rich resident of a red state isn't better off if the poors in his state stay poor (or don't leave) because federal money comes and help them.
The state isn't better off if their poor resident who also leeches from other state programs live longer thanks to medicaid, it would be better off if the poor resident died or left for a blue state with state coverage, that's obvious
You have it wrong on gambling, it's about taxing an activity that will happen anyway and which is far harder to enforce against with internet.
Once they realized gambling would be widespread and the state monopolies on lotteries and the like with their fat tax take were under pressure they legalized it, which is sorta what happened in several European countries with far more statist/leftist governments as well including Italy.
Gambling is a tax on stupidity yes, but a lot of the revenue goes direc
I'm sure taxation is a major factor but they could also tax hookers n blow.
I think the difference is that the gambling industry is an existent special interest with the ability to lobby/bribe.
My guess is that these policies are basically auctioned off on an a la carte basis. The big money will push and push till they get their way. If the public somehow wins once, they start trying again the next day.
Weed seems to have followed this principle too. It started off with public referendums that both parties fought. Now there is an industry that has money to spend on the political process and they have an easier time.
Because it doesn't disproportionately affect red states much, only a few of them.
It's false to claim blue states subsidize red states.
Today's WSJ: Americans Are More Reliant Than Ever on Government Aid
Americans’ reliance on government support is soaring, driven by programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
That support is especially critical in economically stressed communities throughout the U.S., many of which lean Republican and are concentrated in swing states crucial in deciding the presidential election. Neither party has much incentive to dial back the spending.
The data help explain why. Though counties that rely significantly on government spending tend to be small, they are still home to nearly 22% of the U.S. population.
The growth in these counties has been far more concentrated in places that vote for Republicans or have shifted that way.
Yes this is exactly the kind of mistaken take I was comment anticipating this, medicare and social security aren't government aid.
You are forced to subscribe to those programs, and that's why I oppose them, but when you cash in it's your money coming back to you deferred (SS) or the insurance you paid for in advance triggering (medicare)
Yes this is exactly the kind of mistaken take I was comment anticipating this, medicare and social security aren't government aid.
You are forced to subscribe to those programs, and that's why I oppose them, but when you cash in it's your money coming back to you deferred (SS) or the insurance you paid for in advance triggering (medicare)
Putting aside whether or not medicare and SSN are considered government aid, what data are you using to make the claim that red states are no more dependent on net Federal money than blue states?
I'm sure taxation is a major factor but they could also tax hookers n blow.
I think the difference is that the gambling industry is an existent special interest with the ability to lobby/bribe.
My guess is that these policies are basically auctioned off on an a la carte basis. The big money will push and push till they get their way. If the public somehow wins once, they start trying again the next day.
Weed seems to have followed this principle too. It started off with public referendums that
They don't have legal state hookers and blow (they have legal tobacco taxes though).
Putting aside whether or not medicare and SSN are considered government aid, what data are you using to make the claim that red states are no more dependent on net Federal money than blue states?
The fact that it isn't states who benefit rather specific groups of people inside them which aren't necessarily representative of the state at large.
If there is a huge gipsy community in Paris and the french government decides to give 10k Eur to each of them , someone claiming that's a gift to THE MUNICIPALITY OF PARIS would be as bad faithed as someone claiming that federal government going to medicaid helps "red states"
The fact that it isn't states who benefit rather specific groups of people inside them which aren't necessarily representative of the state at large.
If there is a huge gipsy community in Paris and the french government decides to give 10k Eur to each of them , someone claiming that's a gift to THE MUNICIPALITY OF PARIS would be as bad faithed as someone claiming that federal government going to medicaid helps "red states"
Which circles us back to my previous question to you - why do blue states with similar percentages of black populations not show the same net Federal $ usage then?
