does make the point that quite a few countries have more egalitarian income distributions than the US, and score quite a bit better on considerable nu mber of indices of social well-being.
Perfection may be some one can only aspire to, but a more perfect union tha n the US currently offers is clearly attainable, and Scandinavia and Northe r Europe seem to have attained something that looks distinctly more prefect than anything the US can offer.
James Arthur is probably going to tell us that his experiences in the Democ ratic Republic of (East) Germany prove that this can't be right, but he doe s have the convenient right-wing delusion that the DDR was both socialist a nd democratic, neither of which were true.
I've heard that bullshit from every liberal I don't get a chance to dismiss fast enough.
You quote figures not knowing how they are derived. You act like all the po or people get a check, nobody works, there are no farm subsidies or payment s for not growing crops. no federal highways and all that shit, and I bet t hey include people's SS retirement benefits WHICH THEY WORKED FOR. Remember , nobody goes north to retire.
I have tried to find exactly what kind of variables are included in these f igures but came up with nothing comprehensive. You are welcome to try, but until you find something with a dot gov at the end of it you are nothing mo re than the usual bullshit spouting liberal who quite frankly would not und erstand how to use the information if you could get it, and correlate it wi th the demographics of the area.
You probably think Obama created jobs. you probably believe that some 95 % of the employable are employed. And you probably think you can eat an ipad because inflation is so low.
And now the ACA has everything so f***ed up that keeping it would cost a fo rtune and dumping it would cost a fortune, but that will be Trump's fault. Even dumping it, people with pre-existing conditions DID have insurance but completely dumping the ACA now would mean they can't get insurance. It was all conceived and written for the benefit of the medical, drug and insuran ce industries. They are going to make a fortune at our expense because of i t. All because liberals cannot do real math. the oil companies would suck a mile of donkey dick to make 20 %. And since it is a percentage, the more p rice gouging by the medical and drug industries the more the insurance indu stry makes.
"Just Medical Insurance" leaves out many details. It is a medical policy with an increased price for the majority, and then taxes are increased to give a Large subsidy to most of the recipients. Even people making $80,000 can get $10k to $12k in the subsidy. For those with a lower income they may have a small monthly insurance payment but they can't afford the $6k to $12k of deductible. Many doctors won't deal with Obamacare. The good part, sick people can get and afford health insurance. Young people up to 26 yrs old can stay on their parents policy.
Also the 20 million stated as being on Obamacare aren't, a large portion of them are on Medicaid. The data seems a little cryptic, but it looks like 8M to 9.5M people went on medicaid because they didn't qualify for Obamacare.
Mikek
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
There is no contest. DC wins the federal spending per capita hands down. DC gets $73,920 per person compared to number two Virgina with $16,710. DC ha s the highest per capita income in the country. Blue states get rich off th e Federal government. Red states get welfare. And we're not counting how mu ch money is made by lobbying and controlling regulation in this country to pick the winners and losers in this economy.
Here I sorted the states by per capita spending. Sorry about the screwed up formating.
That's not 'cured,' that's 'obscured.' Simply giving a household $60k/yr(* ) does not correct/cure the reason(s) the household was poor.
(*) The approximate amount the United States' poverty program actually spends annually per household.
Education was free in America long before Johnson created the welfare socie ty. Before public schools, all you needed were books.
If anything, the quality of public education has precipitously dropped sinc e Johnson's Great Society, as has been so eloquently illustrated by Dr. Ben Carson's examples.
After all that spending, it boils down to that, doesn't it? That ultimatel y the federal government has no power to fix the root problem with mere handouts--spend what you will on her, a person has to advance herself, and has to want to.
No, you have to show that all of that has happened, and resulted from the $22+ trillion in spending.
If we've made a large dent in poverty, why are we spending more than ever on it, with more than ever receiving assistance, and legions and multiple generations still on it?
From your link (NYT's smear piece, for the easily misled)
"But at the same time, he asserted that he paid ?hundreds of millio ns of dollars in taxes,? calling it a ?simple? thing. ? ??I pay tax, and I pay federal tax, too,? he said."
when
That's not what you said. You said that Trump "proclaimed that he pays no taxes," a false statement.
You seem dedicated to smearing Trump over innocent matters, a treatment that should be reserved for actual transgressions, if & when they happen.
I'm basically libertarian, believe in math, not spending more than you have, and that freedom to run our own lives is what made America soar. When you can pick your own toilet paper, you pick a better roll--that suits your needs better--than the one President Obama would've chosen for you.
Oh, I don't think the "liberal experiment" works at all; I've seen it to be extremely destructive and hurtful. I see that we've tripled spending on K-12 schools, while simultaneously lowering the standards. I see that paying mothers to stay single has destroyed the black family, and created generations of young black men growing up without fathers. I see that unemployment rates among young black men have soared since the 1960's, cutting off the primary avenue to escaping poverty.
My home state of California has among the worst inequality, the most people left behind, the highest despair and dependency in the country, plus a $1T pension debt that threatens to crush the whole state. California, New York, Massachusetts -- they're partying on borrowed money.
But aren't you judging that on the Massachusetts / New York / California standard, where it costs 50-250% more for everything?
Are the red states really poorer? Or is that simply an artifact of their lower cost of living putting more people below the federal Borg's arbitrary thresholds?
I just looked--where I live you can currently buy a nice family home for $400 a month. What wouldn't pay the rent on a big blue city apartment is more than enough to buy a house, raise a family, and save for the future.
Someone you'd consider poor from the feds' one-size metrics might not be poor at all.
And it could even be that federal monies encourage people to move places where they get the most for their (our) money, or that the corrosive effect of federal welfare programs is worse--more tempting--in places where you can more easily live off the amounts offered.
But, to answer your question, I look at Los Angeles, New Orleans, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Santa Ana, Memphis, and the various places that have been rioting recently, and wonder "why on earth would/do people think that paying people to be and stay dependent is / has been 'helping' them?"
Hold it, the subject was mooching. It's misleading and unfair to count things like Social Security retirement payments (where we paid into a trust that bought govt bonds), purchases of goods and services (2/3 defense purchases), research grants, military personnel payments, etc., as mooching. These make up the bulk of your link's analysis. Interesting, yes, but not relevant.
It's simpler than that. People who work hard to earn money, naturally resent having the reward for their labor taken to support people who are not working as hard, or who have decided to make poor choices.
You're assuming the workers are all white--which is what we used to call "race prejudice." And you're assuming that they're all rolling in dough, which what Marx called "class warfare."
Then there is the further difficulty that your prescription doesn't work-- giving money to people who did not earn it, to fix their poverty, does not fix their poverty, nor encourage them to fix their poverty.
If they're so freaking productive, why does federal aid have to flow from the blue states to the red states? And if they're so consistently red, why do they consistently accept the aid instead of declining it?
Maybe the red states do well because they're effective at mooching.
--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
I'm looking for work -- see my website!
That "wealth is relative" argument is suspect too, since people are free to move. A New York homeowner could sell their million dollar house and move to Mississippi, buying an equivalent house and pocketing the difference.
Typically those living "on the edge" are less willing to take risks than the more comfortably well off. That's perfectly rational, since the penalty of making an error is more severe.
It takes some wealth over and above the minimum necessary before people are comfortable trying new and less conservative things.
You mean they had no I-deer. And your p.o.s. Senator Mark Warner, who's sup posed to be a Democrat, just voted against Bernie's amendment to H.R. 34 al lowing Americans to purchase drugs from Canadian pharmacies with valid pres criptions, at greatly reduced cost. I wonder how much of his $257M net wort h is invested in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Time for him to go!
I
Nah- the operative word is Obama- they don't want anything with a black man 's name attached to it.
That all has to do with the Obama word...
A quote from Thomas Paine is appropriate here:
?To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.?
I think you're missing the "pomposity" element... particularly New Yorkers.
To compare incomes in various states you should adjust by the Cost of Living Index and Local Purchasing Power Index...
Plus there are intangibles, like low population density... I HATE crowds ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I'm looking for work... see my website.
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
First, it is relevant. The excuse for big government is helping those in ne ed. The reality is that it makes bureaucrats rich. DC has the highest per c apita income in the country. Like Mr Bumbles in Oliver Twist they spoon out government gruel while getting fat.
Second, Federal Aid as a Percentage of State Revenue is nonsense. If a stat e has zero state taxes, the Federal Aid as a Percentage of State Revenue is 100%.
And here of the numbers if we strip out everything except Non-Retirement be nefits.
State Nonretirement benefits Florida $3,403 Rhode Island $3,252 Mississippi $3,181 Michigan $3,179 Pennsylvania $3,158 West Virginia $3,158 Massachusetts $3,107 New Jersey $3,106 New York $3,046 Alabama $3,033 Louisiana $2,994 Maine $2,993 Kentucky $2,958 Tennessee $2,938 Connecticut $2,927 District of Columbia $2,887 Delaware $2,882 Ohio $2,868 South Carolina $2,856 Arkansas $2,810 Illinois $2,776 Vermont $2,760 Arizona $2,756 North Carolina $2,750 Missouri $2,749 Indiana $2,682 Oregon $2,669 Oklahoma $2,636 New Mexico $2,624 California $2,570 Georgia $2,561 Maryland $2,552 Kansas $2,511 Iowa $2,491 Wisconsin $2,469 Texas $2,455 Hawaii $2,453 Nevada $2,448 New Hampshire $2,440 Washington $2,394 Montana $2,356 Minnesota $2,354 South Dakota $2,348 Nebraska $2,301 Idaho $2,251 Virginia $2,168 Alaska $2,162 North Dakota $2,072 Colorado $2,068 Wyoming $1,986 Utah $1,740
Articles like the one you posted are to meant con people whose eyes glaze o ver when you show them numbers.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.