Who is Really Government Dependent?

[calamity]

With their many governmental demands, I will say Republicans are the more Government Dependent Americans.

Farmers vote R, but they cannot even keep their farms operating without subsidies.

Military people vote R, but they cannot even eat without government feeding them.

Defense industry types vote R, but they cannot even stay in business without big fat government contracts.

Anti-gays vote R, but they cannot block gays without government putting up obstacles for them.

Slam dunk, IMO.

Anti-abortionists vote R, but they cannot get their laws to ban abortions without government.

 

[HumblePi]

It's not even a contest here. Hands-down red-state economies are far more dependent on funding from the federal government than blue states. People in red states enjoy greater returns on their federal-income tax — and that federal funds make up a greater portion of their state's revenue.

So when Trump supporters rail and cry about people receiving public assistance, they're referring to their own populations, whether they're aware of it or not.

 

[DarkWizard12]

It's not even a contest here. Hands-down red-state economies are far more dependent on funding from the federal government than blue states. People in red states enjoy greater returns on their federal-income tax — and that federal funds make up a greater portion of their state's revenue.

So when Trump supporters rail and cry about people receiving public assistance, they're referring to their own populations, whether they're aware of it or not.

Hmmm, I wonder when liberals will grow some balls then, and support ending social welfare programs then, hmm?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

With their many governmental demands, I will say Republicans are the more Government Dependent Americans.

Farmers vote R, but they cannot even keep their farms operating without subsidies.

Military people vote R, but they cannot even eat without government feeding them.

Defense industry types vote R, but they cannot even stay in business without big fat government contracts.

Anti-gays vote R, but they cannot block gays without government putting up obstacles for them.

Slam dunk, IMO.

Anti-abortionists vote R, but they cannot get their laws to ban abortions without government.

Most of the donor states, as in states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back in federal spending, are blue states. Retired people, which vote Republican more than they do Democrat, are by far the biggest group on the dole when you consider Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So when you get down to it, the Republican base benefits far more from government largesse than the Democrats.

The difference is the Republican base: Farmers, Rural States, Retirees, want a boat load of government spending for themselves, but don't want anyone else to get a cent. Basically, they think government spending is for white Christian people like themselves, and anyone else that gets it is lazy and a leech. How many old Republicans in terrible health on Medicare have you heard bitching about people having kids they cannot afford and getting SCHIP for the kids. Ignoring the fact they will cost the government more in an average year in healthcare expenditures than those kids will in their entire childhood.

 

[Helix]

Who is Really Government Dependent?

the wealthiest.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill...-for-the-rich-and-corporations_b_4589188.html

 

[Verax]

High-output America vs low-output America

Our observation: The less-than-500 counties that Hillary Clinton carried nationwide encompassed a massive 64 percent of America’s economic activity as measured by total output in 2015. By contrast, the more-than-2,600 counties that Donald Trump won generated just 36 percent of the country’s output—just a little more than one-third of the nation’s economic activity.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

High-output America vs low-output America

I forgot that one. The vast majority of our country's GDP is produces in areas that voted for Hillary in 2016.

 

[HumblePi]

Hmmm, I wonder when liberals will grow some balls then, and support ending social welfare programs then, hmm?

Liberals have a heart and possess empathy for those in need, unlike the hateful right that resents government assistance to those people in need whether they're in the South, in the Heartland, or in Chicago. When people are hurting and needy, it's our obligation both morally and as a government to help them out. We certainly don't resent our tax dollars going to people in Kentucky, or Idaho or anywhere for that matter. If they need it, they should have it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

High-output America vs low-output America

OK, so which political party should be called "the party of the rich"?

 

[Verax]

OK, so which political party should be called "the party of the rich"?

As far as leadership is concerned both parties are the party of the rich. As for constituents Republicans generally support policy which favors the wealthy and Democrats generally support policy which favors everyone else.

 

[ttwtt78640]

As far as leadership is concerned both parties are the party of the rich. As for constituents Republicans generally support policy which favors the wealthy and Democrats generally support policy which favors everyone else.

Keep kidding yourself. Income inequality - the official boogie man that demorats claim to want to slay is alive and well in both blue and red states.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/us-states-with-the-highest-levels-of-income-inequality.html

 

[bongsaway]

Hmmm, I wonder when liberals will grow some balls then, and support ending social welfare programs then, hmm?

You misunderstood, it's the red republican states that benefit the most from the social welfare programs you are cursing. I guess that's why so many republicans keep voting against their own best interests.

 

[Waddy]

Democrats sure like to throw money at problems. If it were as simple as that, we wouldn't have any poverty. But we still got plenty of it. How do you teach ambition, a work ethic, and good decision making?

Income inequality is more a result of intelligence and tech savvy than some conspiracy to keep the masses down.

 

[Greenbeard]

Hmmm, I wonder when liberals will grow some balls then, and support ending social welfare programs then, hmm?

The Dems lost the House for almost a decade by acting to put Medicare on a more sustainable footing. The olds turned out in droves in 2010 in retaliation.

Greedy Geezers?

In the 2006 midterm election, seniors split their vote evenly between House Democrats and Republicans. This time [2010], they went for Republicans by a twenty-one-point margin. The impact of that swing was magnified by the fact that seniors, always pretty reliable midterm voters, were particularly fired up: nearly a quarter of the votes cast were from people over sixty-five. The election has been termed the “revolt of the middle class.” But it might more accurately be called the revolt of the retired.

The real sticking point was health-care reform, which the elderly didn’t like from the start. . . Misinformation about “death panels” and so on had something to do with seniors’ hostility. But the real reason is that it feels to them as if health-care reform will come at their expense, since the new law will slow the growth in Medicare spending over the next decade. It won’t actually cut current spending, as Republicans claimed in campaign ads, but between now and 2019 total Medicare outlays will be half a trillion dollars less than previously projected. Never mind that this number includes cost savings from more efficient care, or that the bill has a host of provisions that benefit seniors—most notably the closing of the infamous drug-benefit “doughnut hole,” which had left people responsible for thousands of dollars in prescription-drug costs. The idea that the government might try to restrain Medicare spending was enough to turn seniors against the bill.

 

[bongsaway]

the wealthiest.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill...-for-the-rich-and-corporations_b_4589188.html

I disagree, it's all those old folks on food stamps getting forty one dollars a month that's killing america.

Really sad the difference what people believe and what actually is...after all the wealthy pay forty five percent of all the taxes in america and when you reduce that down to the individual person, they might be paying seventeen percent taxes because their money isn't 'earned income'.

 

[bongsaway]

OK, so which political party should be called "the party of the rich"?

Who cares? One party wants to share, one doesn't.

 

[Verax]

Keep kidding yourself. Income inequality - the official boogie man that demorats claim to want to slay is alive and well in both blue and red states.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/us-states-with-the-highest-levels-of-income-inequality.html

What am I kidding myself about exactly? Yes, income inequality exists on a state as well as county level. What is your point?

 

[ttwtt78640]

What am I kidding myself about exactly? Yes, income inequality exists on a state as well as county level. What is your point?

States are free to enact income redistribution programs and to have very progressive income taxation rates.

 

[Verax]

States are free to enact income redistribution programs and to have very progressive income taxation rates.

Like what exactly?

All of the big ticket items that deeply effect economics are controlled at the federal level: Income tax, corporate income tax, estate tax, SS, Medicare, Medicaid.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Like what exactly?

All of the big ticket items that deeply effect economics are controlled at the federal level: Income tax, corporate income tax, estate tax, SS, Medicare, Medicaid.

Of those which you listed I pay only Medicare premiums. I also pay state sales tax and, indirectly (via rent), property/school taxes.

 

[Verax]

Of those which you listed I pay only Medicare premiums. I also pay state sales tax and, indirectly (via rent), property/school taxes.

You can pay zero at the state level and it still isn't a game changer. To tackle income inequality will require a massive change in wealth distribution from the federal government.

 

[Conaeolos]

Although, I would agree that Republican demographics often receive a lot of federal/state benefits. Dependant indicates 'could not do without'. Republican agenda points can operate despite even large reductions in government where as Democratic require expansion to be effective.

"Dependant" would better fit the Democratic agenda exactly because their priorities are more frivolous and excessive(with the possible exception of health).

Farms subsidies for example are about counterbalancing rural areas lack of support by urban infrastructure. Military a required function of government…

 

[ttwtt78640]

You can pay zero at the state level and it still isn't a game changer. To tackle income inequality will require a massive change in wealth distribution from the federal government.

The federal "safety net" programs already account for 19% of federal spending and nearly double that if you add in PPACA subsidies and Medicaid spending. What "massive change in wealth distribution" do you propose be made?

 

[Verax]

The federal "safety net" programs already account for 19% of federal spending and nearly double that if you add in PPACA subsidies and Medicaid spending. What "massive change in wealth distribution" do you propose be made?

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

 

[ttwtt78640]

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

Bernie Sanders is not a demorat but runs under their banner for POTUS.