How DO we end red state welfare?

Maybe a better question would be can it be done?

I cried like a baby today after I forced myself to turn down charities that I have been helping for years. I took time to explain why I could no longer support them.I think they were shocked and appalled by my refusal and reasons. Hopefully if enough people do the same, it will start to sink in.

I live in the reddest of the red states, Oklahoma. It hurts me to the core to see people suffer, but I have had my fill of being cursed, despised and spit at for my core beliefs by people who will turn around and gladly lap up the benefits of what WE have fought so long and hard through the years to provide.

"Blue Staters", if you are on board, call or write your Congressional Representatives and Senators. *Bush* made a noise about wanting to work with the Dems, lets see if we can get him to make good on it. (not holding my breath though) I am sure you blue state folks are even more pissed about having to send your hard earned dollars to red state 'Murka.

I hate to see it come to this, but I just don't see any real, lasting change being implemented until the people down here that continually vote against their own interests are made to feel the true impact of their poor decisions.

If there were a true radical reduction in "red state welfare", it would probably put my wife's job in the line of fire. I talked to her this afternoon about it. she clenched her jaw and said: " I'd give up a lot more than just my job to change this shit." I know it would hurt us in the short term, but I'm looking at the long run.

So, how do we go about it? I'm all ears.

Don't have links, but you could search the sites and find the info.

Let them eat Jesus....

:toast:

It's mean, but hey.

Yes, it's mean, but it fits. One of my friends (maybe an ex-friend now) that works for one of the charities I turned down called me "mean" today. My response, which is quickly becoming my standard response, was: "Hey, it's a mean country now and YOU VOTED TO MAKE IT THAT WAY!"

:eyes:

let's see how long they'd last without their Blue State sugar daddies.

:hi:

"Those ignorant people, trapped in poverty, disagree with me. I know! If they're hungry enough, they'll vote the way I want them too!"

How very compassionate of you.

Tired of all the crap...... :)

What's next? Economic sanctions from the UN?

I won't donate to anything that has roots or serves the red states. Fortunately where I live is bluer than blue. I volunteer for a non-profit and I donate in-kind to its operation, and contribute only to local charities. Let the red state bastards suffer.

Apparently they won't listen to reason, so lets hit their wallets, I agree. I understand Rush got wind of this and wants to make sure we "get over" this idea. And thats precisely why we shouldn't. I don't why we are paying for them in the 1st place. Its fundamently unfair. In addition, we pay the bills, they pick the president?? I don't think so. This has to be changed. Especially since Red State bush voters are always talking about taking "responsibilty" and "ending welfare" Let these phonies put their money where their mouth is. I'm going to start calling my reprsentatives on Monday. Its an unfair practice & should be stopped.

It seems to me he is fast becomming the liberal stereotype he's created.

As far as phonies are concerned....These people aren't phonies...they really are dumb country fucks....they've got no clue that their states function on welfare subsidies paid for by blue states. They really truly believe that they are strong, resolute, self sufficiant pioneer type folks.

It's odd that this cutting off of federal subsidies to rednecks who hate welfare has all of a suddon become such a hot ticket.....I've been railing on about it for the past two years. Sort of a shame that the Dems always pick up the baton after the race has been run.

I live in the second poorest state in the Union....SD. The fine redneck stock out this way has whined for years about "The War on the West". When I have mentioned that for every dollar they think they shouldn't have to pay in income tax....three dollars, paid by those who live in liberal states come back in federally mandated state welfare....they say "yup them there welfare lovers are wreckin this great nation. That's right...they are so staggeringly ignorant they have no comprehension of what is I just put forth.

RC

RC

:hi: How close to the creek are you? I'm about a mile away. People here have no clue of the amount of welfare this state gets. But they are about to find out. I just heard from one of my students last night that a local University just lost $400,000 in grants because of the last election & how it went down. There's more bad news like that on the way & they have no idea that any of it is coming. I'm planning my garden for next year & getting ready to can as much stuff as I can. My job might get better for a while but OTOH, losses in Fed subsidies could put me on the unemployment line.

Also Spearfish Creek, Whitewood Creek and Battle Creek. Lately the local boaters have been heading out to CO and WY in search of water. The Red Water between Spearfish and Belle Fourche has generally stayed full enough to paddle and is quite pretty...lot's of wildlife and wild flowers in the spring...It isn't whitewater though, which is my first love. Still barring all the rest it's fun.

Yea....the funny thing is, is these assholes don't understand that in a year or two all the never ending pork barrell highway projects are going to come to a close, what's left to complete of the water projects will not get done, farm and ranch subsidies will dwindle, grazing priveledges will cost more and the National Parks will suffer budget cuts, State University tuition will skyrocket more than it already has, funds for public schools will dry up, the second lowest paid teachers in the country may graduate to the lowest paid teachers in the country...etc. etc. etc.

How many times did we hear about John Thunes stand to abolish the fictitious death tax. How many South Dakotans asked why the Republicans sought to rename the inheritance tax in such a deceptively comprehensive fashion? How many South Dakotans know that this intentionally misnamed tax only applys to estates worth more than 8 million dollars? How many South Dakotans know that there are only EIGHT people in the entire state who's estates are worth that much? How many South Dakotans realize that with inheritance tax abolition comes a decreased revenue pool for their subsidies? I'm guessing about 5%.

How many South Dakotans just voted NOT to repeal the most evil and regressive tax levied in this country? Namely sales tax on FOOD! How many South Dakotans know what regressive means? How many South Dakotans understand that as a result of Bush's income tax cut, any money refunded to them will be returned in like quantities to those in the states that pay thier way? How many of them understand that the State will be forced to offset the subsequent loss of federal subsidy revenue by raising State taxes...that they alone will have to pay? How many of them recognize the fact that to do so the state will have to dream up revenue enhancements that will require them to pay TWICE the taxes they currently pay? I'm guessing about 5%.

You mention gardening. I have been considering planting one myself. I've not hunted for years...or trapped for that matter. Truth be told, both make me want to hurl. I sold my traps and rifles long ago. I may be forced to swallow back the bile and purchase a rifle and work on my archery skills in the very near future. Things are gonna get real rough here in a little while and 200 pounds of Elk meat should last my mom and I quite a while. As far as trapping is concerned I'll never do it again....as long as much warmer synthetics are available I don't need to be stealing fur from my animal friends.

It's good to see a fellow South Dakotan on the board. As far as I know there are currently three of us....which in my opinion is a pretty sad state of affairs. That said, welcome to the board. Hopefully you'll glean some facts that you can share with your friends and neighbors. Better yet, maybe you can recruit some a few more South Dakotans onto DU. I know that success in such a venture is nearly futile out here but it never hurts to try.

Pardon the crappy spelling...my spell checker is broken and the boards is turned off.

Peace and Inner Harmony,

RC

Yes, I was thinking about deer hunting the other day. That venison would come in handy. But I wanted to talk to one of my friends in forest service about the incidence of chronic wasting disease here first.
I hadn't even thought about the rise in taxes. We have the most regressive tax system in the country & poverty that doesn't end.. All these good xtians don'tcha know?

There is some amazing stuff going on here. I can't believe the amount of information and the research that is being done here.
I'm awfully glad I found this place!

that we Blue Staters send far more of our tax dollars to a lot of Red States than we get back. Hell, people that live there have it hard enough, I'm glad to help. I just wish they'd wake up to to the fact that we're trying to help them, but if they don't want our help maybe we should have a little tax "tea party". They think Mr. Bush "more shares their values". :eyes: Yeah, right. Mr. Bush doesn't give a crap about them, just their votes to promote his radical agenda. You'll never convince me that these people are going to want what Mr. Bush is going to try to force down their throats in the near future.

and so many more from the blue states who hold the same values. But I can tell you, since I'm here "on the ground", a shitload of the very people being helped would spit right in your face and call you every ugly name in the book. Then they turn right around and march into the voting boot and vote for the worst Repuke scum the right can dredge up.

I am in the middle of Wal-Mart country down here and I can tell you that a lot of your tax dollars are going to supplement the Walton empire by helping to make up the difference between what those rats are willing to pay and what it actually takes to "live". Enough is enough.

of school... or are trying to because for the second time all the RICH people in my town voted down a bond measure for the local schools. Oh, they voted to increase the sheriff's budget.

I voted against the bond measure, myself. Felt terrible about that.But I KNOW the schools are funded; bush just won't give us the money. I don't have a child in school and I am practicing republican values: It don't benefit me, so why should I have to pay?

Those food stamps that the red states get are all that some kids get to eat. As much as I hate to think that I am supporting a problem, penalizing children for it is not whom I am.

On the other hand cutting off the charities is the right thing. Most of them only use a third (legally) of the money for actual charitable work. The rest of it disappears into administrative expenses (legally).

There are ways to help out and to make sure your charity goes to the needy, but you have to move very cautiously.

...to think this way. It is just completely against my nature. But, it might be the only way to force the likes of Wal-Mart etc. to raise their wages and benefits to a competitive level. this state and so many others have done nothing but trade good jobs for shit "jobs" and STILL the people file in to vote Repuke. I am afraid we might need a taste of the Great Depression to see another FDR emerge.

who are at the bottom of the scale and really traumatized. FDR did what he did to stop this. I don't think he would go for it. There has to be another way.

are voting aginst their own interests, and voting for a man whose policies are killing thousands of innocents.

I think much of the red state welfare is actually big farm subsidies and corporate welfare.

people who actually need them most of the time. I would be very much in favor of cutting off the welfare check for the huge farming corporations. I can't say more now because I have just started studying the issue since Monsanto has been trying to introduce their Frankenfood operation into our area.

we didn't get any of those big subsidies & we qualified for food stamps. But that was at the beginning of the regressive campaign against family farms. We went bankrupt, like so many of our neighbors.

Today, I'm glad that I am no longer farming. It is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world and the pay sucks. it is the only business where you buy everything that you need to do business at retail prices & sell your produce at wholesale but not at a price you set; at a price the large agribusiness multinationals set.

WE always said that when all the family farms were gone, people would find out how much food REALLY costs. Have any of you noticed the price of food going up & the quality going down. Thank the regressives for it.

Yuck, I hate thinking about all of that.....

:nuke:

It didn't. It's such a shame.

work 365 days /yr & go broke.. But like I said, now I'm thankful for it!
Of course, it's taken me more than a decade to get to this place & we are just in the process of getting rid of the last acre we still own & cleaning out that house. You have no idea how much shit one family can accumulate in 112 years & that's not the actual shit!

Smaller states have a lot of voting power in congress and this shit would never end until the dems preach ending subsidies to the red states and winning back congress.

We can invest more of our blue state tax dollars in our poor neighborhoods and underfunded schools.

The only money from Blue states that should go to red states is for education and make sure to invest in an economy from this century (and not the 19th century) so they can make their own money and stop being so needy.

Instead of just quoting numbers and ranting about the red state welfare, why not create a terrific graph and info booklet/page-let for the internet.

Show:

Population of each of the 50 states
Fed Taxes paid by individuals (not corps... since soon they won't pay a damn dime)

Add in:

How many tax dollars sent to each of the states. Do a bar graph for every state, and show that state as red or blue, depending on what it is.

We could even do a further study... determine what those fed tax dollars are going to.. which programs.

I think this red state welfare thing is growing legs... and we should keep feeding it.

I am terrible at graphics, or I would do it.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Someone has already started on it. I'd like to see a more detailed breakdown.

I first read about this on Daily Kos "End Red State Welfare" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/151749/966 Going to try and find more info.

the article you posted was based on.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03cffr.pdf

I posted that article you have on free republic and within minutes was attacked by about 70 toothless inbred Bushies. It was a good time till I got cast out.

I went to a public undergrad school. When they called they cited cutbacks due to the state budget being cut.

The money they were requesting this time around wasn't for a scholarship fund, or an alumni association fund...but to go into the operational budget for the school.

I stopped and thought about it for a minute, and said to myself, "if the state assembly doesn't care to fund its schools, why should I?"

I hated to tell this young kid no, but if that's what tax cuts bring down, then they need to hear the message.

Isn't that what welfare is all about? If you want the rich to help the poor, it seems hypocritical to want to cut off the poor states...even if they did support shrub.

I don't think so, beyond any stretch of the imagination. Besides aren't Red Staters for "personal responsibility"?? Why arent the well off there taking care of their own?

Because of the responsibility they have taken in trying to keep up wage standards for workers. I tried like hell to spread the word here two years ago about what a bad deal "right-to-work" was going to be for this state, then watched helplessly as the very people this stupid law was going to hurt lined up and voted for it. Now we have lost just about all the good jobs here.

Just about all we have left here is the rich and the poor. God knows the rich aren't paying any taxes and the poor damn sure don't make up the difference. Hence, the imbalance in welfare dollar distribution. Most of the poor here(not all) that the "Blue State Liberals" are paying taxes to support would spit right in your face for being, well, a "Blue State Liberal" just because OxyMoron comes on KRMG radio and tells them to.

rich. Why anyone thinks that is beyond me. You should see the property taxes I pay compared to friends I have who live out of state, not to mention the rest of the taxes I have to pay. And I believe you when you say they would spit in my face. If I have to hear "How can you forget 9/11?" one more time, from a Red State bush voter, I'll scream! As if! Guess it doesnt dawn on these people that the states most effected by 9/11 NY, PA, NJ & DC didnt vote for bush! We have no illusions about him "protecting" us.

the planes left from Boston, and there are many families here who lost loved ones on those flights. Needless to say, Mass. is also a blue state.

And the GOP is the party that always likes to rant about welfare being such a curse on society.

Talk about hypocracy.

Perhaps some of those states which are close to blue would swing back to blue if they understood they stand to lose the free money if they don't make some compromises.

and the corporate masters are busy trying to make us all that way.

Julie

The Republicans hate the federal government, hate paying federal taxes and support states rights on many issues.
Cut the federal income tax! Cut off federal aid to the states.
In New York we pay $1 to Washington and get 81c back.
Someone in Alabama pays the same $1 and gets $1.61 back.
Get rid of the federal income tax (except to fund the War Dept. as per the Constitution) and let states pay for their own programs by raising local taxes by the exact amount that feds cut.
This should make everyone happy.
The blue states get a 20%-30% increase in revenue and the red will be delighted by their massive federal tax cut.

If you think not sending money to a charity or your alma mater is going to accomplish anything constructive, you are delusional.

I have spent years collecting "coats for kids" and "toys for tots". Spent tens of thousands of my hard earned dollars donating over the years and helped in countless other ways only to be SHIT ON and CALLED A TRAITOROUS COMMUNIST BASTARD among other things by THE VERY PEOPLE I HAVE BROKEN MY BACK TO HELP. What do YOU suggest for a solution? More of the same? I don't have it in me any more and I bet a lot of us "dirty Un-American commie pinkos" don't either.

The kids you gave coats to have been shitting on you and calling you a traitor? The tots have not been grateful for their toys?

Or are you punishing them because adults who happen to live in the same state voted for Bush?

Like their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles etc. People who I have directly helped get back on their feet, served food to in the mission lines etc. turned right around and bit me like a snake.

fair share??? Red States have plenty of rich people with big mouths, it seems. They want people to take "responsibility" ok, by me...start at home. Charity begins at home. Get off the gravy train.

we are both being used and we have a right to be pissed.

And I'm sick of it. Sick of the "superior" ones acting like they're the only ones with "values."

Bake

Walking the walk on family values
By William V. D'Antonio | October 31, 2004

PRESIDENT Bush and Vice President Cheney make reference to "Massachusetts liberals" as if they were referring to people with some kind of disease. I decided it was time to do some research on these people, and here is what I found.

The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.

But don't take the US government's word for it. Take a look at the findings from the George Barna Research Group. George Barna, a born-again Christian whose company is in Ventura, Calif., found that Massachusetts does indeed have the lowest divorce rate among all 50 states. More disturbing was the finding that born-again Christians have among the highest divorce rates.

The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people." The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/

Or 'shit in their own mess kit' as we used to say. If we Blue State immoral pinko hippie commie atheists let them get hungry, maybe they will pull their heads out of their asses once they realize nothing is coming down the pipe. My wife and I will continue to give what little we have to needy democrats, but the tap has been turned off for repukes and their spawn.

if this makes Rush nervous, I like it! And my wallet likes it even better.

Bush himself will see to it that there's less money given to the actual little people who voted for him in those red states and more given in corporate welfare to his cronies wherever they may reside (likely in Bermuda). So I don't think we'll have to worry about teaching them any sort of lesson by cutting them off. And I'm really not sure they'd care. They'd rather get less federal money from revenue sharing and shut down the local police or fire department than allow a couple gays guys in MA to get married. Some of these states are already pretty goddamn poor and they still vote Republican. If they thought like the rest of us, they would already be over that threshold where their economic interest trumps their want for conservative social policy.

And I don't see anything unreasonable about it, politics aside.

But there must be a better way than to harm the innocent on purpose.

Spiteful & mean because expect them to pay their fair share? I don't think so.

And when people from the county come in for help, the Dems need to tell them that the republicans are AGAINST helping the poor, and educate them over a bowl of soup about how the right wing works.

Just an idea.... Sort of the Dem response to "faith based initiatives".

:kick::kick:

Please make a new post for this..
It is very constructive!!

:shrug:

Stereotypes, even when they are true in 70% or so of the cases are bad anyway. Way to alienate people. It's just like cutting Pell grants because poor students don't go to college anyway. Why should any individual poor person in a red state be treated any worse than any individual poor person in a blue state. Going with another stereotype, tneither probably didn't even bother voting.

I'm not sure all that money is necessarily going to worthy causes. There's probably a lot of pork in there that we could cut.

This post is repulsive!

One of Rush's (and the other RW idiots) favorite mantras is about "how good" our poor have it compared to the poor in other countries. He never bothers to tell you that the red state poor are shoved in to suckle off the tit of the blue state taxpayers to make this somewhat possible.

Who do you think the most loyal Democrats in the South are? Go check out the county-by-county map and see what counties are blue -- the poorest ones.

But we need a wake up call somehow. My god, the poorest county in the US, I believe it was in Nebraska voted for Bush**. I was in the grocery store in line behind a loud mouth freeper woman who was shooting her mouth off about Kerry being a "librul from Taxachussets" and PAYING FOR HER GROCERIES WITH A FOOD STAMP CARD!

Maybe I'm just frustrated, but I live smack in the middle of it. Remember, the only way to get most Repukes to realize there is a problem is if it affects them PERSONALLY. They will never wake up and smell the coffee any other way.

I live in Alabama. So I'm in the middle of it, too. But it has not turned me into a Republican.

I am also the director of a non-profit agency whose volunteers and donors are mostly Republicans. Believe it or not, Republicans actually do contribute to charity. In fact, I previously served on the board of the local Salvation Army along with the chairman of the state Republican Party and he busted his ass to bring in money for the agency.

And lived in South Ms. for quite a while. The difference you have there is a much larger black population who votes Democratic. We don't have that here. We had no blue counties in the entire state this time around.

And no, I haven't "turned into a Republican", I resent the hell out of that. It's just, in case you haven't noticed, we are up against some particularly nasty bastards these days. The status quo isn't going to get it any more.

Maybe what we should do is look at the red states on a state by state basis to see how much support we have in each one. As far as repugs giving charity, If the ones here in OK give to charity like they tip for service, they can't be giving all that much. What a sense of entitlement these people have here.

I thought someone showed a graph pointing out that people who live in Red States give a higher portion of their income to charity than people in Blue States. As much as many people here hate Red Staters, there are many good people in them, even if they voted for Bush.

yours takes the cake!

The public face of welfare is black, while a well-hidden fact is that more whites are on welfare than blacks. Check any commercial, news report, charity request for aid and the face you will see is a black child. Never, never, never show a white child needing welfare assistance. These media productions and newspaper ads and flyers are always accompanied by the useless word, "HOPE." Therefore the viewer equates "welfare assistance with blackness." They forget that they or their next-door neighbor may also be receiving food stamps or monthly checks.This removes the stigma and guilt of receiving welfare from the white mind and convinces him that he is only receiving what is "due" him.

Rush has preached for years now, that the WHINING blacks are too lazy to work and just want to sit back and receive welfare checks, but he never reminds his listeners that many of them are receiving the dole also - in fact, MORE of them are receiving the dole than are their black counterparts. Are those welfare whites "too lazy" to work or are they just in unfortunate circumstances?

This Rush hate-talk has glued the most racist elements of American society together, causing them to erroneously believe that somehow, urban poor black Americans are faring far better than they are - never taking into account the enormous costs of living in large cities. And where else can they go? To YOUR community? Yeah, right! No jobs there either, huh? Rush gives the impression that these black welfare recipients spend all of their money on clothes and sneakers, etc., and then cry for more. In reality, the checks they receive hardly cover the costs of basic necessities, food and shelter.

I have been to welfare offices in New York City and there are as many, if not more Asians, Russians, Hispanics, Whites and "others" as there are African Americans sitting there, waiting to apply. In New York, the Jewish people are given their own neighborhood welfare offices so they do not have to come into contact with the masses.

The homeless shelters are overflowing because landlords in this city have been allowed (through Republican politicians like Guiliani) to charge up to and over $3,500 per month for a one-bedroom apartment that consists of a living room, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. Not even a hallway! The cost of living in this city is astronomical. Food, public transportation ($2.00 for one-way fare.) Senior citizens on fixed incomes have been found eating cat and dog food in order to pay for medication and other related bills.

So, please, don't try to bring a unfair racist flair into this very interesting and informative thread. Certainly some black people in the south receive welfare payments, but far more whites receive them.
So it will not only be blacks who suffer if the subsidies are cut.

And IMO, George Bush is the greatest "Welfare Queen" of all time because he has raided the entire public treasury to reward his rich friends and corporate supporters.

To think that only Democrats give to charity is misguided. I am sure Republicans give about as much as Democrats. The poor people down their don't know any better but I would rather change their hearts by reaching out and educating them rather than have them not have enough to eat. I know people are upset right now but lashing out is counter productive. Education is the key! You don't punish someone for being ignorant. You reach out your hand and offer them a new path.

One who has the capacity to educate oneself and proudly chooses not to...does so for a reason. Generally that reason is maintenance of a carefully crafted, self delusional feeling of superiority, a feeling of superiority which knowledge threatens. Willfull ignorance will continue until we who enable its practice make quite clear that it will no longer be tolerated....and if this intollerance is laughed at and ignored a serious price shall be paid.

I'll tell you what fella...you come out here to South Dakota and reach out your hand and offer a new path to the Great Unwashed. You'll pull back a bloody stump. These folks don't want your fucking hand or your new path....knowledge diffuses the carefully crafted delusion that they are not the paragons of personal responsibility or self sufficiency which place them a cut above eggheads like you. Their ignorance is a tool and your hand is a threat which will always be rebuffed and laughed at. The only thing that motivates them to acknowledge reality is the reality of pain. Untill they feel it you can jamb your helping hand right up your ass. What about that is so goddamn hard for people like you to get through your heads? What will it take before you figure it out?

RC

The discussion is about taxes. See, more wealthy people live in certain areas, so more tax money is generated there. In fact, Souther "red states" give far more money to charities (especially faith-based charities) than the 'blue states'.

There is a big difference, and I don't think this is getting through.

over the years and they are happy to discriminate against gay people..I'll give to charities that are more in line with my values

You can give it to the poor who will show up for pennies and charge the cheapskates.

Also, on edit, I usually dump my stuff with the Goodwill, and the guy who collects the stuff is very gay.

What about those of us in Red States (Oklahoma, in my case) who consistently vote and campaign for Democrats, fighting an uphill battle in the face of constant harassment, yet have disabled spouses and children to support and have to do so with the aid of food stamps, Medicaid, etc?

Or what about those kids who have no control over the fact that their parents vote with no conscience?

Those who need the subsidies the most will be cut off and the guys who should be cut off won't be.

I agree. I do understand the anger- and it frustrates me to death to see others in similar situations who vote against their own interests in the name of "morals". But that's not the way to handle it.

As someone told me in an email a few moments ago, the key is not to punish them, it should be to EDUCATE them.

Education is necessary, but that's also a "you can lead a horse to water" situation. Merely providing information often isn't sufficient motivation to absorb it and act on it.

The Right has had a consistent strategy for the last 30 years to "defund the left", forcing cutbacks in education, medical clinics, and social programs so that "they" wouldn't have to foot the bill for things that would only encourage people to vote for liberals.

It may not be a perfect solution, but it's time to adopt a similar strategy. How many "red" states would be as nice places to live or as lowly taxed if not for Federally-built or -subsidized highways, power, water, etc.? If those states had had to issue bonds to pay for that infrastructure themselves, you can bet their tax bill would be quite a bit higher. It's time to throw a little reality-rain on their "rugged, do it yourself, independent" parade.

liberal Red Staters can move to Blue States and receive state aid to help transition. :D

Just gassing up the car and driving off, isn't an option a lot of poor people, who are hanging on, have.

if Blue States stopped giving money to Red States, they'd have more to use on themselves.

You think we are all Donald Trump types? That there is no poverty, no homeless in our areas? No one having to survive on disability?? You couldn't be more wrong. I have friends living out of state who make the same income who aren't subjected to half of the taxes I have to pay..state, local, federal, sales, etc. Ironically they get to keep more of their money than I do.

Want to add insult to injury?? I pay more than they do, yet when it comes to the Federal govt & Homeland security, Woming gets more money than NY. Make sense of that one, somebody please.

I get the pleasure of picking up the tab, bush & his clowns telling me in addition, that I am morally unsuperior to them. Honestly
how much crap are we suppose to take before we get good and fed up?

I have no illusions about us winning in 2008 either, unless we clear up some misconceptions & they start carrying the fair share of the load.

However, these are the few progressive programs that still help poor people that are left. Damn, who are the people forwarding these posts?

I am amazed.

:shrug:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ct--charitablegiving1110nov09,0,1352381.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

New England states making more, giving less

By LAURA WALSH
Associated Press Writer

November 10, 2004, 1:44 AM EST

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Residents of Connecticut and its New England neighbors continue to earn more and give back less, according to an annual index of charitable giving.

Connecticut ranks first when it comes to making money, but joins New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island in falling to the very bottom of the 2004 Generosity Index, according to the Catalogue for Philanthropy.

Mississippi held onto its title as the most giving state for the eighth consecutive year. Following right behind are Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee.

The survey is based on the average adjusted income of residents and the value of itemized charitable donations reported on 2002 federal tax returns, the latest year available.

All people in the South or other DU proclaimed "Red States" are not on Welfare, SS, Medicaid or any other government aide.

Many of us have worked all of our lives, paid taxes and never ask for a dime from anyone. Many of the Baby-Boomer Era who have been supporting this country for several decades and now are looking at retirement in a few years, most likely won't have anything coming in the mail box. Between my husband and myself, we have already worked well over 60 years and are not planning to retire any time soon.
We will probably never see a penny of the taxes and SS we have paid.

I don't suppose we are the only 2 people in Alabama that has actually worked for a living. Maybe...according to some of these posts.

Check out where most of our money is going even though the govenments "pie" looks quite different. You may possibly be helping someone in a Red State with welfare or medicaid.....
You are ABSOLUTELY financing a Military Power.


Federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful Members of Congress, and state governments can grab more federal grant money by skillfully manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.
However, demography may be more influential than politics. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other large federal entitlements are bound to rank fairly high. Similarly, the high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.

Projections for fiscal year 2005
War Resisters League creates this leaflet each year after the President releases a proposed budget. The figures here are from a line-by-line analysis of projected figures in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005. The percentages are federal funds, which do not include trust funds such as Social Security that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2004, goes only to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds (the so-called “Unified Budget”) began in the 1960s during the Vietnam War. The government presentation makes the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

“Current military” spending adds together money allocated for the Dept. of Defense ($431 billion) plus the military portion from other parts of the budget. Spending on nuclear weapons (without their delivery systems) amounts to about 1% of the total budget. “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt. Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. The government willingly borrows for war, but finds nothing extra for crises in human needs.


28% current military
3% Iraq & Afghan wars
18 % past military
13 % general government
6% general resources
33% human resouces

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm




U.S. Military SpendingThe United States, being the most formidable military power, it is worth looking at their spending.

The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2005 is $420.7 billion

For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.
Compared to the rest of the world, these numbers are indeed staggering.

In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the WorldConsider the following:

The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.
The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.
It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.
The United States and its close allies account for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spend $116.2 billion, 27.6% of the U.S. military budget.


http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending

Also, the small matter of paying off dept. that gets jumbled around into Social Program spending.


In FY03 the U. S. Government spent $318 Billion of your money on interest payments* to the holders of the National Debt. In FY04 the amount was $322 Billion. Compare that to NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion.


http://www.federalbudget.com/


And the point is, some people in these states voted for Bush, so damn them all. I guess Democracy is different, depending on where you live.

is skewed.

Also the cost of living here is exhorbitantly high, so the middle class often has no money left to donate.

They have a table in the current issue on which housing markets are overpriced, fairly priced, and underpriced. Yes, it costs a bundle to live in NYC and New England.

Also compare our winter heating bills with the a/c bills for people in Alabama.

You can feel oh-so-superior while keeping your own money (or your wife's money). If it works for you, fine.

Are you the guy who wrote "She Broke My Heart When She Quit Her Job"?

I'm just tired of putting my money where the "compassionate conservatives" mouths are. Let them either pick up the load or get exposed for what they truly are.

And why do they let the red state representatives take more of the pie for their own states? This is not a new problem. So why the hell didn't the Democrats fix this in the 1990's.

It sounds to me like one more reason to start a 3rd Progressive Party in this country. Instead of ever accomplishing anything, the Democrats are now the crybaby party. It's always the fault of someone else. Kind of like Bush. Waaah. They get more money. Well, get the fuck on the appopriations committee! Waah. They get too much FEMA money. Well how many fucking hurricanes did YOU have Washington state?

If you want to fix corruption in the whole system, great. But this divisive crap about one state needs it more than the other is a republican tactic to splinter the liberals. If you honestly don't think there are more people in poverty in the deep south than New York, I can't help you.

How can any caring person choose to turn his or her back on his or her principles in order to gain political power?

No matter who was in charge of the White House, I would never stop donating to local food pantries.

As long as we keep putting our money where the "compassionate conservatives" mouths are and don't force them to either put their money where their mouth is, we will continue to be beaten back until one day, the party and opposition just "blinks out of existence". Then who will help anybody?

It has become painfully obvious down here that unless there are major consequences, people WON'T stand up and do what is necessary like organizing unions and demanding living wages for starters. My god some of the porest people I know marched into the voting booth here two years ago and voted FOR a goddam "right to work" law because they REFUSE to believe that the cheap-labor, fuck-the poor conservatives here have anything but their best interests at heart.

What I am proposing is some temporary pain to wake people up and get them to not only vote but to also act in their own best interests before it is too late and the pain becomes much worse and permanent. It might be shocking to some, but sometimes it takes a shock to really get people's attention. Apparently, everything that has transpired over the last 4 years has not been enough.

Here is your opening paragrpah
""As long as we keep putting our money where the "compassionate conservatives" mouths are and don't force them to either put their money where their mouth is, we will continue to be beaten back until one day, the party and opposition just "blinks out of existence". Then who will help anybody?""


The main idea I get from this is that you are trying to prevent the Democratic party from blinking out of existence. Even if that were to occur and all welfare was gotten rid of, rather than cutting back my charitable giving, my prinicples would force me to give even more.

is to get people up off their knees. The goddamn repugs would keep everybody except their precious 1% of the elite on their knees and worse to serve their ever increasing gluttony for wealth. If there isn't an opposition party of SOME kind, there isn't much hope that they could be defeated at anything they set out to do. Right now, the Democratic party, flawed as it may be, is the only real opposition to the Rethugs. I sure don't see the Repukes supporting raises in the minimum wage, living wage standards or any other form of economic justice.

I am willing to put my ass on the line to do it, not just stand on the sidelines and cheer. My job isn't all that stable either, my wife could lose her job if red state welfare were cut out, so we could wind up in the same boat as everyone else real soon. But with the way my earning power has continually been diminished by these thugs, it is getting to the point where we don't have a lot left to lose. Frankly, I really don't give a shit anymore.

Good idea. So you are putting your own personal economic interests at risk for a moral reason? Bully for you. I hope that the others that put moral purposes before their own economic interest *do* suffer as a result of your actions. Then maybe you can increase their pain to the point that they must subsume their moral principle to yours.

Very elegant, don't you think? "If the poor who disagree with me are hungry enough, they'll vote and act the way I want them to."

Its nice that you realize that your charitable giving was for a self-interested reason and that you can purposefully manipulate the needs of those least-capable of helping themselves to achieve your personal goals.

This way, only the 'deserving poor' (i.e., those that happen to live in places where a slight majority of voters agree with you) receive the assistance that your noble generosity makes possible.

I am poor, you know. And I've been very, very, very poor. The kind of poor where you don't eat for days at a time. I'm really glad that those few people who decided to help me didn't depend upon folks like you. And if your wife loses her job and you are in dire financial need, I hope (for your sake) that you aren't able to convince many people to do as you suggest. Because, after all, "too many" of your neighbors disagreed with you.

the way "I want them to act". It is about getting people up off their knees and fighting for their own interests as a working class. As long as korporate amerika can keep them "on the plantation", they will, and they will use anyone's money except their own to keep people there. We need to organize unions and demand a living wage for god's sake, not beg for handouts.

people don't take a 'beg for handouts' class. They only go when they are desperate.

While you may be upset about where your *taxes* go, 'red states' give far more in *charity* than do 'blue states'. And it still isn't enough, as evidenced by the amount of federal aid that goes to these places.

Do you think that making kids hungry is the way to get people to unionize? Do you think its a *moral* way to make people unionize? Because that is ALWAYS who suffers most - poor children. Kids who don't vote, can't work, can't move, etc., etc. They can't make the moral decisions you disapprove of so deeply; they didn't vote for anybody, and they have no ability make any decisions.

But they can still get hungry. And go without heat, or clothes, or a place to live. Or books to read. And when they are hungry, they will be more prone to illness (no healthcare, remember?), and do poorly in school, and not develop as fully as they otherwise could. And in 10-20 years, there they'll be - even more disadvantaged than they would have been.

But maybe their daddy will try to unionize and "earn" your generous charity. Or maybe he will put aside a deep moral conviction (which you don't share, for whatever reason) and - out of fear and shame - vote in a way that you approve of so his kids can eat.

Listen, I just joined this forum and the first thing I see is someone planning to use hunger, fear, and shame to manipulate the poor to do as he wishes. Why? Because those same people fell for the "scare tactics" of the right and disagreed with him and he's mad.

Make no mistake - justify it how you will, you (and the people who agree with you in this forum) are clear in the intent to use hunger to get the results you want. Heck, some are gleeful about it.

Aristotlean logic tells us that you can't separate the ends from the means. And Aristotlean metaphysics tells us that corrupt ends that lead to corrupt means corrupt the actors.

I'm sorry that you didn't get the election results that you wanted. I'm sorry that you don't like where your taxes go. And I'm sure that all of those people that will go hungry, and cold, and maybe homeless if charitable donations drop will be sorry too.

I hope that is enough to cool your anger.

First of all not all of us in "red states" wanted or supported Bush for President, so why punish us.

Secondly, the Federal government should end the system of giving benefits to states based on who they supported for President.

People in "red states" pay the same tax rates people in "blue states" pay so we should have the same access to federal programs blue staters do.

we should get the same rate of return, not more as is currently the case. If we could get off our knees and demand living wages here, we wouldn't need so much more.

Welfare money sent to a state.

it explains pretty well what I'm talking about:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Way to frame! :toast:

but I think this one is, related:

*Blue State Liberals put THEIR money where the "compassionate conservative's" mouth is*

:evilgrin:

But don't let them forget it either. How about a big billboard on every intersection in Kansas saying "Thanks for our road, New York!" or a slip in every federal employee's pay listing just where their pay is coming from.

Would not that power be better used to get something we need (like fixing the voting system nationally), rather than to do something to try to punish those who didn't vote for us? I think if we fixed the voting system, we may be seeing the "red state/blue state" issue differently as some "red states" may turn out to be blue, and some may turn out to be battlegrounds.

https://www.cafepress.com/secessionnow

Seriously, if the blue states weren't sending their federal taxes to the red states, that would get their asses off welfare in a jiff.

That statement would make most RW'ers skin crawl

think about it though. the republicans in blue areas would TOTALLY go for this. They'd save on taxes, they'd have smaller closer to home goverment, and more local control. This *should* be a no brainer!

If the folks in the red states want to ban gay marriage and set up a Taliban style goverment, hey, fine with me, as long as they let the rest of us opt the hell out of it, they can go have their theocracy. All their gay folks, leftist, whatever can come live in the blue. Hell, half of them move here on their own accord anyhow!

I think the issue of secession needs to be looked at seriously. Maybe it isn't the solution but we should still look at it.

.. he went on and on about how the RED states are tired of supporting all the welfare people in the Blue States. People don't even know their own country. The majority of poverty is in places like Texas and Oklahoma.. the Red States.

The vast majority of poor in this country are Whites who live in rural areas. Oh, and most are children, too.

The first step was to cut off my extended family - who live in Oklahoma and Texas, BTW. Sadly, they feel they can tell me and my family that we're gonna "burn in hell" and then turn around and ask us to bail them out of difficult times. I'm done.

90% of what I give now goes to local causes that keep their funds and benefits right here in my own community -- the local library foundation, the local animal shelter, the local rescue group, the local school district, etc.

I will only give to Blue State charities.

Let bush* and his minions pay for the rest.

I find it funny that most of the ones whining the loudest about this here are new posters who a spouting Rush-Like logic.

Makes you go Hmmmmmm....

RL

seems to be a freeper invasion today.

Some of us who've been here quite a while find this thread quite wrong-headed.

I may be waaaaaay off base, since I just joined up. But is the author of the thread intimating that I am a freeper 'cuz I disagree with him?

If not, my mistake.

If so, that's rich. After all, you know how those freepers line up to encourage *more* giving to the poor and trying to *keep* progressives engaged in the community.

Are us people from Red states who didn't support Bush. I don't want to further punish people who opposed Bush who you want to deny federal help to.

Why should everyone in my state be punished because Bush got 2% more voter support than Kerry?

This would all play to the right-wing's advantage by reinforcing the stereotype that Bush cares more about the people of the US than Kerry.

1. End farm subsidies...Farmers being paid money to do nothing?

2. End the electoral college system. No electoral college means less power for little red states with low populations

and yeah Federal dollars going to all the "bubbas" and their inbred families is annoying too!

They're always talking about reducing welfare, so let's let'em do it. Get economic conservatives into the Federal office (not Bushies) and let them destroy welfare as we know it.

Which means voting in REAL people and not career politicians who merely up their benefits while licking corporate rump and excreting on us.

that I could find.


Federal Domestic Spending Up 8 Percent in 2002,
Census Bureau Reports

The federal government spent $1.9 trillion in the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and outlying areas during 2002, according to two reports released today by the Commerce Department's Census Bureau. This as an 8 percent increase over 2001.

Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2002 (State and County reas) covers benefits, subsidies, grants, goods and services, and salaries and wages. The largest item excluded is interest on the federal ebt. A companion report, Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2002 ,contains federal agency and program-level data on grants to state and ocal governments.

Californians benefitted the most, receiving $206 billion, followed by the people of New York ($129 billion), Texas ($123 billion), Florida ($105 billion) and Pennsylvania ($86 billion). One-third of all federal expenditures went to people living in these five states, which account for 36 percent of the total U.S. population.

Altogether, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for $890 billion (47 percent) of the U.S. government's 2002 domestic spending.

The largest increases in fiscal year 2002 federal spending were in the categories of "other direct payments," grants and procurement awards.
Other direct payments included Medicare at $251 billion, up 5.8 percent,plus unemployment compensation, excess earned income tax credits and food stamps. The total of other direct payments was $422 billion, a 12 percent increase over 2001.

Grant awards climbed to $412 billion, an 11.6 percent increase over
2001, with Medicaid, the largest, amounting to $148 billion, up 11.1
percent. Federal procurement awards in 2002 amounted to $271 billion, a 10.1 percent increase over 2001, with Department of Defense contracts totaling $166 billion, or 61 percent.

Direct payments to individuals for retirement and disability reached $613 billion in 2002, up 2.2 percent over 2001, with Social Security alone totaling $491 billion, a 1.5 percent increase.

Federal government salaries and wages were $199 billion, up 5.8 percent,with the Department of Defense (38 percent) and the Postal Service (26percent) making up nearly two-thirds of the total.

At the county or county-equivalent level, New York City, N.Y., and Los Angeles County, Calif., both with about $52.9 billion, led the list of recipients. They were followed by Cook County, Ill. ($29.2 billion); San Diego County, Calif. ($23.2 billion); and Maricopa County, Ariz. ($17.3
billion).

Per capita federal spending among states, meanwhile, was highest in
Alaska ($11,746), Virginia ($10,220), North Dakota ($10,151), New Mexico($9,422) and Maryland ($9,076). The rest of the top 10, in order, were:
Hawaii ($8,414), South Dakota ($8,297), Montana ($7,668), Alabama ($7,643)and Missouri ($7,465). Factors affecting per capita spending included the state's population, the number of its federally funded programs and the number of federal employees residing in the state.

Resident population as of July 1, 2002, was used to calculate per capita amounts for the states, counties and county-equivalent areas.

DOD spending

The Department of Defense spent a total of $278 billion domestically in 2002, up 8.8 percent over 2001. This amount included procurement contracts, payroll, military pensions and grants.

Defense Department spending in 2002 was the highest in the following five states: California ($36.2 billion), Virginia ($29.6 billion), Texas ($22.3 billion), Florida ($14.3 billion) and Georgia ($11.0 billion). The top five counties or equivalents in federal defense expenditures were: Los Angeles ($10.3 billion) and San Diego ($10.0 billion) counties in California; Fairfax County, Va. ($6.0 billion); St. Louis City, Mo. ($4.8 billion); and Bexar County, Texas ($4.6 billion).


http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-91.html

If you're really interested in where every dollar is spent, this is a good source.

Breakdown of Federal Aid for each State 2002
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/fas02.pdf