OT: Red States to Secede

every

Fred believes in an ideal world where everyone hates everybody else with equal ferocity.

John

Stranger yet: The 'blue' states are net importers of food, fuel, underwear, hats, concrete, etc. So: Without your money, we'll eat our wheat, beef, beer, and Twinkies. You'll eat....superior philosophy? How long do you think that will last? (Karl Marx discussed this issue at length...and got it exactly backwards.)

And I don't think the red states ARE "net recipients of federal subsidies".

...Jim Thompson

I'd say yes. And on a more serious level than the kind of socialism that the blue states are reputed to support. Red state socialism involves subsidies and protectionist legislation of industrial and agricultural production. Blue state socialism tends to emphasize assistance to individuals (health care, welfare, etc.).

Countries that have extensive social welfare systems but open markets tend to have higher standards of living and respectable GDPs. Countries that have pursued government control and subsidies for their means of production have faired far less well (look at the Soviet Union, N. Korea and China of a few decades ago for good examples).

AKA "jobs". As in "work."

AKA "welfare". As in "don't work."

John

You wanna walk a road in Hell? Go to Iraq.

Geez Fred...realax a bit...but hey...on the original comment...the red states are far from socialist....but at least you didn't leave a link to amazon.com....what was with that??...maybe I missed something.....Ross

"John Larkin" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Agreed...it is a misused term I don't agree with but used to make a point!....Ross

Then you agree. Good.

Jobs in inefficient industries. Better to let them die and shift the work force to businesses that produce economic value.

Just costs that society will pay one way or another. Businesses aren't very efficient when it comes to purchasing things like health care benefits for employees. They would be better off if they didn't have to concern themselves with such expenses.

"John Larkin" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

"Welfare is when government transfers net funds to an entity in exchange for nothing." What a nebulous definition! "In exchange for nothing...." Welfare for individuals is society's way of supporting people who enter "tough times." Whether that be through unforeseen tragedies, medical expenses, bad investments, etc., it is a way for people to get by until they can get back on their feet. And when children are involved, it seems only civilized. The New Deal pulled tens of thousands of families out of poverty - ironically, many of whose ancestors today cry for an end to social programs which helped their own grandparents survive.

Corporate welfare vs. individual welfare - each has a benefit to society. Yes, corporate welfare can help a businesss entity stay in business, provide more jobs through expansion, etc. And yes, individual welfare can help people get by until they can land a better paying job or pay off extreme debts. And yes, both can be abused. But I submit that it is coporoate welfare that should justify itself - the benefits to society - just as much as individual welfare must justify it's benefits to society. However, I rarely see ANY examples in the media of corporate welfare abuses or inefficiencies. Representatives just come out and say "it creates jobs," and that is the end of that story, with rarely, if any, "empirical evidence" to support that claim. (Don't conservatives just love that word "empirical"?) Unfortunately, families and individuals who need food stamps and other welfare programs rarely have the means to hire Hill & Knowlton or other public relations firms to represent them in the media. That is why people walk down the street thinking welfare mothers are lazy kid-popping drug addicts and corporate welfare helps create jobs.

Any capitalist society needs corporate welfare - otherwise the economy would be too unstable. Any capitalist society needs individual welfare - otherwise there would be people starving in the streets, and massive public health problems.

It is just a matter of compassion and civilization. I am always amazed how right-wingers use phrases such as "bleeding-heart liberal" and "johnny do-gooder," and yet go to church every Sunday, AND LET EVERYBODY KNOW that they go to church on Sunday. Wasn't Jesus a bleeding heart liberal? Isn't there an order of the sacred heart which shows Jesus's heart bleeding? What is wrong with trying to do good? And didn't Jesus say to pray alone, in private, that it is uncouth to show off your piety?

It does not. All it needs is a vigorous free market and less-then-crushing levels of taxation. Competition will take care of the rest.

John

John, Don't waste your breath. Leftists just can not cope with the concept that LESS taxes is a GOOD thing. Leftists throw up this "corporate welfare" BS to confuse the masses... the masses who have NO CLUE what it really is to PAY massive taxes... the masses who have NO CLUE that it is THEY who are on welfare.

...Jim Thompson

It is really quite simple: If I pay more taxes, so you can pay less, I am paying your way, and you are on welfare.

-Chuck

Even simpler: if I pay taxes, and you don't, and we both receive benefits, you are on welfare.

John

Yup. Just what I said. I'd just like to pay LESS of your way.

I pray for tax reform... but I doubt that it will ever happen... the leftists won't allow anything that approaches fair taxation.

...Jim Thompson

The only rational taxation is a universal sales tax, with exemptions for basics. That would reduce the huge disadvantage that domestic manufacturers/employers face.

Income tax is a job-destroying machine.

John

That's what "W" wants. But watch the Demonkrauts block it :-(

...Jim Thompson

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin wrote (in ) about 'OT: Red States to Secede', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:

It sounds OK initially, but then what to make of these big corporations that pay minute amounts in tax? How do they fit in?