What is?

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

opt out of x amount of federal tax you can give up welfare, some states may actually do it lol.

I'd be first in line to opt out...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

If it’s there to take and people are paying into federal taxes, why not take it? I’m sure if you put forward hey you can opt out of x amount of federal tax you can give up welfare, some states may actually do it lol.

So the Republicans that are almost unilaterally "anti-welfare" have no problem taking money simply because it's there to take it, while democrats foot the bill?
Rather hypocritical, no?

Why would a state opt out of getting more back than they give? That would be like winning at a casino and opting to get your wager back and forego the winnings.
Not a great move economically.

I’m glad you brought up the “they need to get a job but there aren’t any”. There are jobs, they just feel they are too good for them. Let them do the jobs all the illegals do. Let them clean up some highways, there are many things they can do. I’ve seen the mentality first hand in NYC working on big projects in places like east NY, queens bridge projects and many others. Talking to dudes hanging out at 1030 am and me asking them “bro why ain’t you at work lol”. They will tell you with total honesty “I don’t wanna work ”. Some will make the excuse no one will hire them but when you ask when is the last time you put an application in for a job they respond “never” . Granted not all of them are like this but for those who aren’t im sure we can find something for them to do .

"Let them do all the jobs illegals do". Most of the illegals are getting paid well under min. wage, by an employer who is willing to employ illegals.
Let's lock down those employers and make them hire US citizens, and pay them at least a living wage.
As for the big projects: Do you want that stuff being done by someone who has no training, no skill, no experience? Most places won't hire unskilled labor for skilled jobs.

The "I don't want to work" is sure possible. I'm just glad you didn;t say they were waving their welfare check at you while saying it (literally heard that claim some months back, and laughed right in the claimants face).

 

[djdilliodon!]

So the Republicans that are almost unilaterally "anti-welfare" have no problem taking money simply because it's there to take it, while democrats foot the bill?
Rather hypocritical, no?

Why would a state opt out of getting more back than they give? That would be like winning at a casino and opting to get your wager back and forego the winnings.
Not a great move economically.

"Let them do all the jobs illegals do". Most of the illegals are getting paid well under min. wage, by an employer who is willing to employ illegals.
Let's lock down those employers and make them hire US citizens, and pay them at least a living wage.
As for the big projects: Do you want that stuff being done by someone who has no training, no skill, no experience? Most places won't hire unskilled labor for skilled jobs.

The "I don't want to work" is sure possible. I'm just glad you didn;t say they were waving their welfare check at you while saying it (literally heard that claim some months back, and laughed right in the claimants face).

That’s the thing, if that’s what they want, give them that option. If they take it even though they are giving up something they benefit from, that’s on them . I believe in a state being able to do what its majority wants to do. If the majority in a specific state want to can abortion, let them. If the majority want to legalize drugs, let them. If the majority want crime to run wild cause arresting anyone would be racist let them! Let democracy put itself to work.

As far as hypocrisy goes, I fully take advantage of the tax code. Why? Cause I can lol. Those states pay in and the rule is you pay in you can get, of course they are going to take. Heck I think most do this in some way shape or form.

When you work off the books, you have to be prepared to accept what they think you are worth. Maybe if enough people here see how it is to actually work and get paid shit for it, they may try to change their stars and better themselves.

Thank god no one waived a check in my face . They didn’t even mention welfare but a few told me ways they make money from going around looking for scrap to selling drugs and asking if I needed any

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

That’s the thing, if that’s what they want, give them that option. If they take it even though they are giving up something they benefit from, that’s on them . I believe in a state being able to do what its majority wants to do. If the majority in a specific state want to can abortion, let them. If the majority want to legalize drugs, let them. If the majority want crime to run wild cause arresting anyone would be racist let them! Let democracy put itself to work.

how about just reduce every Republican state to a 1:1 ratio at most based on their anti-welfare narrative?
I wonder if they would drop the narrative...

As far as hypocrisy goes, I fully take advantage of the tax code. Why? Cause I can lol. Those states pay in and the rule is you pay in you can get, of course they are going to take. Heck I think most do this in some way shape or form.

That's not hypocrisy. You're just following the law.

When you work off the books, you have to be prepared to accept what they think you are worth. Maybe if enough people here see how it is to actually work and get paid shit for it, they may try to change their stars and better themselves.

BINGO. But employers have no problem paying min wage in a place where it costs 40% more than min wage

Thank god no one waived a check in my face . They didn’t even mention welfare but a few told me ways they make money from going around looking for scrap to selling drugs and asking if I needed any

If on welfare, then they are committing fraud. If not, then they really do not count as part of the conversation.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

So the Democrat takers are all in the Republican states?

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

And is that even the correct way to frame the question?

www.theatlantic.com

And the study doesn't say that 60% of recipients are Democrat, it says that 60% of Democrats from the study have received aid, and 52% of Republicans from the study have received aid. Not a resounding difference, and the lifetime participation rates are even lower:
"Despite conservatives’ opposition to many poverty programs, there is virtually no difference in the lifetime participation rate of conservatives (40%), liberals (42%) and moderates (42%) in these programs. Also, conservatives are more likely to have gotten Social Security and Medicare (34% vs. 27% for liberals and 25% for moderates)"

So we're looking at a 2% difference in lifetime participation rates for programs.
Which circles us back to the big disparity in the states that are "red" takers and the states that are "blue" givers.

One theory that has been posited here is that the numbers have been rigged to show blues states as red in order to make them look bad.

You guys are working off the assumption that welfare only comes in the form of a gov't check to the individual. There are other types of welfare. For example, cities subsidize electricity, mobile phone/data, cable, etc in rural areas. Ultimately, as a city dweller, I don't begrudge the red rural areas that receive our tax dollars.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

“There is virtually no difference in the lifetime participation rate of conservatives (40%), liberals (42%)”
But the big picture is the taker states should be following their anti-welfare mantra, and taking less than they give.

Walk the walk, so to speak.

And yes all programs do have limitations. From TANF, to SNAP, etc, they all have time limits.
Medicare is generally for people who are old, regardless of work history. Medicaid is generally for the young, regardless of work history.

I’m all for reducing the jobless rate to zero. But that doesn’t happen by telling people to “get a job”, especially when workers outnumber jobs by a LOT, and when there are so many workers not qualified for so many jobs.
It’s a much bigger issue, and one we can’t seem to solve and never will, especially with politics.
When one party argues that a living wage is too high and that people should only get healthcare if they can afford it, success is doomed from the start.

The red states are never going to give up federal dollars. Capitalism needs a certain amount of unemployment and jobs that fall below a "living wage" to work, or at least to work at the Capitalist class prefers.

 

[djdilliodon!]

how about just reduce every Republican state to a 1:1 ratio at most based on their anti-welfare narrative?
I wonder if they would drop the narrative...


That's not hypocrisy. You're just following the law.

BINGO. But employers have no problem paying min wage in a place where it costs 40% more than min wage

If on welfare, then they are committing fraud. If not, then they really do not count as part of the conversation.

Take it away fully and lower the federal tax for them opting out. Remember they don’t want it, I say give them their wish. I’m a firm believer that every state, the majority in that state who vote should get exactly what they want. If I don’t live in the state, it’s not my concern and not my business to care. They want it to be easy to full carry guns? Let them have it. They want to decriminalize all drugs? Let them have it. They want to abolish the police and have social workers fix everything? Let them have it. We will then see who was right and who was wrong.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You guys are working off the assumption that welfare only comes in the form of a gov't check to the individual. There are other types of welfare. For example, cities subsidize electricity, mobile phone/data, cable, etc in rural areas. Ultimately, as a city dweller, I don't begrudge the red rural areas that receive our tax dollars.

dj might be. I tried to make the distinction of the give/take regarding taxes paid in to the federal coffer, and funds taken back from the federal coffer.
That invariably leads to the discussion of the what people think of when they hear "welfare", which is the social benefits programs like SNAP, TANF, Medicare and Medicaid, etc.

They are separate, but also intertwined as the funding for those programs are given to the states, and then disbursed by the states for the programs, along with all the other things federal funds get used for.

The big picture of course being that any state that gets back more than it gives, is not being self-sufficient.
Self-sufficiency is a basis of an "anti-welfare" sentiment. What's difficult to reconcile is when people are anti-welfare, yet not being self-sufficient.

 

[chillin 10+ year member]

Take it away fully and lower the federal tax for them opting out. Remember they don’t want it, I say give them their wish. I’m a firm believer that every state, the majority in that state who vote should get exactly what they want. If I don’t live in the state, it’s not my concern and not my business to care. They want it to be easy to full carry guns? Let them have it. They want to decriminalize all drugs? Let them have it. They want to abolish the police and have social workers fix everything? Let them have it. We will then see who was right and who was wrong.

That will only work if you put up boarder crossings between states. Otherwise, the guns and drugs will cross freely between states the same way they do now.

 

[djdilliodon!]

Looking at the list to compare red vs blue states, when you remove the top 10 states on the list (remember many of these states have small populations, the red ones that is), it’s a 52-48% mix. If all those red states succeeded and joined together and carried the red states that needed help, they could easily do it without blue states being involved. These numbers also assume the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are blue states. It’s also very interesting looking at the GDP for many of these states. I’m too lazy to add it all but I’m tempted

Edited to add: I couldn’t help myself I did the math lol. Removing the 3 swings states and not counting them as blue or red. GDP on blue states 12,355 and red states is 10,787. This is in millions and I really thought the difference would be larger due to california and New York. That is pretty darn close if you ask me!

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Sorry kid, you are wholly incorrect on that one.
Verbatim means "word-for-word" not "every single word that is in the original text/document/speech/etc".

Seriously, go ask and English professor. Ask Jimi, since it seems he can outwrite anyone on this forum.
"no such thing as a partial quote" -Thxone

Quotations

A direct quotation reproduces words verbatim from another work or from your own previously published work.

apastyle.apa.org

That is a partial quote that is word-for-word from your original statement. It means I have not altered the words that I have quoted in any way.

A verbatim quote IS word for word exactly how it was originally written. ALL WORDS. I have given the definition to you several times and it falls on deaf ears.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

A verbatim quote IS word for word exactly how it was originally written. ALL WORDS. I have given the definition to you several times and it falls on deaf ears.

Incorrect.
The definition does not say ALL the words originally written must be quoted in order to be verbatim.

I even included a link to a college-level English lesson that uses a partisl quote as an example of a verbatim quote. I believe it was from Purdue University.
Did you read the lesson?

If so, can you tell us YOUR reference that indicates Purdue got their lesson and the examples therein wrong?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

partisl

Much smart; English lecture much valid

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Still got some lies to own up to Robbo...