2024 ELECTION THREAD

They do? Delaware is 22% black and get 6k per person in federal aid, more than double Kansas.

It's just that there are more red states with higher than the nation % of black people (because, you know, the south)

Again, from today's WSJ article:

whether or not.....lololololololol

The govt giving back the money I loaned them is not aid.

"Loaned" seems generous. More like "invested into their Ponzi scheme".

Not hard at all except if you either are a radical rightwing bad faith person wanting to claim welfare is high, like those writing that WSJ article OR a leftist extremist wanting to claim republicans are leeches, like people ITT

Nope just invested in a mandatory insurance/savings program, there is no ponzi.

There is state violence in the mandate but there is no Ponzi

Right, I wasn't disagreeing with that, which is why I asked for his source that supports his claim that red states aren't taking more net Federal dollars than blue states with those two programs put aside, ie excluded.

I put the pic of the per state per person federal aid and the link of the source previously.

But the whole idea is that giving money to specific people INSIDE a community isn't giving money to the whole community

If you meant your post here, that chart is gross Federal dollars received, which isn't relevant. Only net Federal dollars received is relevant, ie what the states received from the Federal government subtracted from what the Federal government received from those states in Federal taxes. For example from the source you linked:

Despite receiving the most federal funding dollar-wise, California was the second-least reliant state on a percentage basis, with 14.5% of revenue coming from the federal government, followed by Minnesota (14.6%), South Dakota (15.0%), and Iowa (15.5%).

They're using a percentage of annual state revenues, which isn't the right comparison either but is at least a rough proxy of the funds the Federal government receives from those states since Federal tax is a percentage of revenue. If you have a better source that shows net Federal dollars to states that supports your claim I would be interested in seeing it.

Agreed not a Ponzi but...... there is plenty to say about it not being fair.

Many do not get everything back because there die too soon.

Spousal support for a two income family is another death penalty. If one spouse dies, both checks do not get delivered, only the larger of the two.

Those are the two that stand out to me.

there are some elements that make that insurance not necessarily financial break even but provisions like COLA, spousal support and so on are contractual elements that exist in private annuities as well and the more "guarantees" you want the lower the payment. afaik SS is already fairly generous in terms of payouts per accrued contributions compared to private plans (which is reasonable because no middle men and no management company have to take any cut)

as you mention % of annual state revenue is really not the number to look at because a state which has a preference for a small budget , like it would be normal for a red state compared to a blue state, would clearly show that number being higher without it necessarily meaning anything related to how much that is costing taxpayers elsewhere

From what I understand, if there were no new contributions to social security, there would not be anywhere near enough money to pay out those who have already paid into it because the money has been "repurposed". The definition of a Ponzi is using money from new investors to pay out existing investors.

So what is your source for red states not receiving any more net Federal dollars than blue states, with Medicare and SSN excluded per your stated preference?

my source is that it goes to democrats or non voters in those states anyway overwhelmingly (because it goes mostly to minorities) so it doesn't matter if there is a transfer, not in the sense of being able to claim that "red states" benefit massively.

and big red states aren't net takers, Florida is the biggest next payer in the nation to those programs.

so yes some rural whites in some red states are benefiting from those programs significantly but that doesn't mean blue states are subsidizing red states, it means some blue states and some red states are subsidizing poors everywhere, and poors are overwhelmingly left leaning.

not sure how else to frame it but if you help a poor family in Austin that doesn't vote or votes blue you aren't helping TEXAS, you are actually damaging red voters living in Texas

Again, if the black population in the states is comparable why are you asserting that it goes to "democrats or non voters" in red states disproportionately to blue states, one way or the other? If you again want to respond that there isn't a difference in red vs blue states in net Federal dollars, then again please provide a data source which supports that.

because Latinos skew democrats as well and because I didn't say blacks are equally distributed, southern states are more red than the avg and have more blacks.

That would of win the gold medal In Paris this summer in mental gymnastics.

Ps: I’m sure that wouldn’t differentiate anything when u speak about the power of the constitution and the states …

Luciom, can you explain your point with toy numbers? State X has 100 voters of which a% are republicans, b% are poor, and receives Y dollars in federal aid, State Y has 100 voters of which c% are republicans, d% are poor and receives Z dollars in federal aid - that sort of thing?

yes to show who gets medicaid disproportionately (that source didn't have Latinos data for some reason I don't understand).

even in California it's disproportionately democrat leaning demographics which get medicaid money, which both rich democrats and rich republicans pay for, nationwide.

That’s not an option. They are US citizens and have a legal right to federal programs. I’d like to wave a wand and make rurals productive but I can’t. They get federal money like everyone else snd they’ll follow federal employment laws like everyone else. No exemption just because they are poor uneducated etc.

Stop giving money to unproductive people, stop having programs that do.

They either die or become productive and everyone else is better off in both cases.

Be ready to allow police to shoot to kill without problems and to give the death penalty for any violent crime to solve externality problems.

That's how the west became dominant before leftism cooked up the insanity , the moral horror, of spending precious scarce resources on the less productive people in society

Pass. Productive people will make the decisions not you.

Right. I think it actually shows how headless the system is that it couldn't even think one step ahead to the tax money.

Legalized weed is a good policy and a popular one. That's mostly irrelevant. But you'd think politicians would say, "wow we can throw a 20% tax on this and people will be delighted with us because we legalized weed, freed up LEO resources, passed a popular policy, etc." It's just a win for almost everyone. But that didn't matter initially, because there was no pro-weed lobby to speak of, and there were LEO unions, private prisons, alcohol and pharma lobbying against it.

Now that this tax revenue exists, and a weed lobby exists, it gets more support from politicians. But when legalization first came up in Colorado, the Dem Gov opposed it because all that existed at the time was a lobby against it. He wouldn't stand up to them even to get to all that wonderful tax revenue. Legalization could only occur through referendums, with both parties fighting against legalization for years.

Tobacco is a good counterexample, where politicians did stand up to a massive special interest, almost to the point of comedy with bans on outdoor smoking and stuff. I think that's just an isolated phenomenon though. It would be interesting to figure out why it happened in that one case.