How do you define "American workers"?
Trustafarians sipping fruity drinks and snorting coke by the pool.
How do you define "American workers"?
Trustafarians sipping fruity drinks and snorting coke by the pool.
I doubt he meant that, but I would like to understand his definition.
1. The CBO
Not according to the url of the image.
[Edited on 3/27/2015 by gondicar]
Congressional Budget Office - 06/07/2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2704794/posts
1. The CBO
Not according to the url of the image.
[Edited on 3/27/2015 by gondicar]
Congressional Budget Office - 06/07/2010
So the source of the chart you posts is freerepublic.com, not the CBO. Thanks for clarifying.
What about my other question, ie how you define the "American workers", all of which you champion?
1. The CBO
Not according to the url of the image.
[Edited on 3/27/2015 by gondicar]
Congressional Budget Office - 06/07/2010
So the source of the chart you posts is freerepublic.com, not the CBO. Thanks for clarifying.
What about my other question, ie how you define the "American workers", all of which you champion?
1. The source of the actual data is the CBO.
2. The American workforce.
1. The CBO
Not according to the url of the image.
[Edited on 3/27/2015 by gondicar]
Congressional Budget Office - 06/07/2010
So the source of the chart you posts is freerepublic.com, not the CBO. Thanks for clarifying.
What about my other question, ie how you define the "American workers", all of which you champion?
1. The source of the actual data is the CBO.
2. The American workforce.
Lots of people and organizations on all sides of the political spectrum use CBO data for all kinds of things, just as freerepublic.com did here. To say that the CBO was your source for the chart was disingenuous and misleading. Your source was freerepublic.com. Not sure why you didn't just say that in the first place.
The American workforce includes both public and private sector and those currently unemployed. I know you don't champion them, at least not on this board.
[Edited on 3/27/2015 by gondicar]
1. The CBO
Not according to the url of the image.
[Edited on 3/27/2015 by gondicar]
Congressional Budget Office - 06/07/2010
So the source of the chart you posts is freerepublic.com, not the CBO. Thanks for clarifying.
What about my other question, ie how you define the "American workers", all of which you champion?
1. The source of the actual data is the CBO.
2. The American workforce.
Lots of people and organizations on all sides of the political spectrum use CBO data for all kinds of things, just as freerepublic.com did here. To say that the CBO was your source for the chart was disingenuous and misleading. Your source was freerepublic.com. Not sure why you didn't just say that in the first place.
The American workforce includes both public and private sector and those currently unemployed. I know you don't champion them, at least not on this board.
1. But the Congressional Budget Office IS the source of the data that I posted in the form of a chart. Free republic did not compile the data.
2. Being that they are paid through taxation, I fail to see how pubic workers are germane in a tax rate debate. Their salary and benefits are priced into our tax bill. Nor do I understand how you get the idea that I have some grudge against the unemployed. I don't.
I think someone is just out to start trouble...
[Edited on 3/28/2015 by alloak41]
1. The CBO
Not according to the url of the image.
[Edited on 3/27/2015 by gondicar]
Congressional Budget Office - 06/07/2010
So the source of the chart you posts is freerepublic.com, not the CBO. Thanks for clarifying.
What about my other question, ie how you define the "American workers", all of which you champion?
1. The source of the actual data is the CBO.
2. The American workforce.
Lots of people and organizations on all sides of the political spectrum use CBO data for all kinds of things, just as freerepublic.com did here. To say that the CBO was your source for the chart was disingenuous and misleading. Your source was freerepublic.com. Not sure why you didn't just say that in the first place.
The American workforce includes both public and private sector and those currently unemployed. I know you don't champion them, at least not on this board.
1. But the Congressional Budget Office IS the source of the data that I posted in the form of a chart. Free republic did not compile the data.
2. Being that they are paid through taxation, I fail to see how pubic workers are germane in a tax rate debate. Their salary and benefits are priced into our tax bill. Nor do I understand how you get the idea that I have some grudge against the unemployed. I don't.
I think someone is just out to start trouble...
[Edited on 3/28/2015 by alloak41]
You posted a chart from a website called freerepublic.com. That was your source. You knew saying your source was the CBO was untrue otherwise you have have included a link at the outset. By the way, if you follow the links provided at freerepublic.com to the CBO you'll find they are dead so can't even verify the CBO source info.
Causing trouble? That's rich coming from you. No, I'm just trying to square your statement about championing all American workers with what you have posted in the past. By the way, public employees, which include a very wide range of professions, are part of the American workforce..they do their job, pay taxes, often times struggle to make ends meet.
[Edited on 3/28/2015 by gondicar]
I'm just trying to square your statement about championing all American workers with what you have posted in the past. [Edited on 3/28/2015 by gondicar]
What do you feel my posting history reflects in this regard?
I'm just trying to square your statement about championing all American workers with what you have posted in the past. [Edited on 3/28/2015 by gondicar]
What do you feel my posting history reflects in this regard?
That you do not "champion all American workers, regardless of income" as you claimed.
Alloak championed shutting down the government. Saying that he would love it. That Americans who are furloughed get a paid vacation. That they get to fish all day.
He went on to say that if they didn't have enough money saved to get through the days without a paycheck it was there own fault and that they were irresponsible, inferring they deserved to suffer.
Of course he ignored the fact that the vast majority of HSA workers would have to report for work even though they wouldn't get paid.
He thinks all government employees just clock in an collect a paycheck. That they don't earn their outrageously high pay.
Alloak championed shutting down the government. Saying that he would love it. That Americans who are furloughed get a paid vacation. That they get to fish all day.
He went on to say that if they didn't have enough money saved to get through the days without a paycheck it was there own fault and that they were irresponsible, inferring they deserved to suffer.
Of course he ignored the fact that the vast majority of HSA workers would have to report for work even though they wouldn't get paid.
He thinks all government employees just clock in an collect a paycheck. That they don't earn their outrageously high pay.
I don't have any problem with the "essential" ones. The government workforce should be limited to essential personnel only, pretty much like anywhere else. That's all there should be. The rest of your post is an exaggeration but thanks for playing.
1. I would love for my company to shut down and still get paid for the down time.
2. Do you disagree with saving for a rainy day?
3. They did get paid. They always do. None have ever lost a dime due to a furlough.
4. Never said either one of those things.
[Edited on 3/28/2015 by alloak41]
"Essential" doesn't mean only the people needed to do the job.
No they have not all gotten their money back. The sequester cut many government workers pay by 20%. They will never see that money again. That cut came before government shutdowns. Having your pay cut by 20% kinda makes it hard to "save for a rainy day".
"Do I disagree with saving for a rainy day?" Wow. Aren't you superior. You are so much better than other working people who might have been saddled with unexpected bills and hardships that keep them from saving.
Hold on to that Mitt Romney superiority. It is so very Christian of you to judge your fellow man and flaunt your good fortune.
Where's the compassion man? Where's the love for your fellow man?
Oh! Now I remember. That doesn't fit into the Republican thought process.
"Essential" doesn't mean only the people needed to do the job.
No they have not all gotten their money back. The sequester cut many government workers pay by 20%. They will never see that money again. That cut came before government shutdowns. Having your pay cut by 20% kinda makes it hard to "save for a rainy day".
"Do I disagree with saving for a rainy day?" Wow. Aren't you superior. You are so much better than other working people who might have been saddled with unexpected bills and hardships that keep them from saving.
Hold on to that Mitt Romney superiority. It is so very Christian of you to judge your fellow man and flaunt your good fortune.
Where's the compassion man? Where's the love for your fellow man?
Oh! Now I remember. That doesn't fit into the Republican thought process.
1. Particularly if your employer can print money.
2. That sounds pretty rough.
3. You never answered. Do you disagree with that philosophy?
4. Superiority? Try pride and just plain old good sense to live and work without burdening others.
5. You disagree with me. That must mean you "care" more.
6. As far as you know.
I don't have any problem with the "essential" ones. The government workforce should be limited to essential personnel only, pretty much like anywhere else. That's all there should be.
What do you mean by "essential"? And when you say "pretty much like anywhere else" what does that mean exactly? I thought you were championing "all American workers"?
I don't have any problem with the "essential" ones. The government workforce should be limited to essential personnel only, pretty much like anywhere else. That's all there should be.
What do you mean by "essential"? And when you say "pretty much like anywhere else" what does that mean exactly? I thought you were championing "all American workers"?
Remember that alloak is the guy who says he does not need medical insurance because he has save hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for any emergency medical care he and his family might need. Obviously, if he could do it, everyone else should be able to as well. These government workers should stop wasting money on food and housing and save for catastrophic emergencies. 😛
Hold on to that Mitt Romney superiority. It is so very Christian of you to judge your fellow man and flaunt your good fortune.
Where's the compassion man? Where's the love for your fellow man?
Oh! Now I remember. That doesn't fit into the Republican thought process.
Let's not get all high and mighty. A quick look at your comments leads one to believe it's perfectly fine for YOU to judge people.
Who started this thread, an ugly and divisive one at that from the title on down? Nothing says compassion like pointing out who the "moochers" are. Love your sweeping generalization about Republicans, too.
You are one piece of work, fella.
I don't have any problem with the "essential" ones. The government workforce should be limited to essential personnel only, pretty much like anywhere else. That's all there should be.
What do you mean by "essential"? And when you say "pretty much like anywhere else" what does that mean exactly? I thought you were championing "all American workers"?
Comments or questions like these serve as example #237 why the government will just continue growing larger and larger into eternity. A reversal at some point? Ain't gonna happen.
I don't have any problem with the "essential" ones. The government workforce should be limited to essential personnel only, pretty much like anywhere else. That's all there should be.
What do you mean by "essential"? And when you say "pretty much like anywhere else" what does that mean exactly? I thought you were championing "all American workers"?
Comments or questions like these serve as example #237 why the government will just continue growing larger and larger into eternity. A reversal at some point? Ain't gonna happen.
Actually, comments like these try to pin down your vague comments like "who is an essential employee" . But you get evasive. Why don't you stand behind your comments and explain who you consider "American workers"?
Let's not get all high and mighty. A quick look at your comments leads one to believe it's perfectly fine for YOU to judge people.
Who started this thread, an ugly and divisive one at that from the title on down? Nothing says compassion like pointing out who the "moochers" are. Love your sweeping generalization about Republicans, too.
You are one piece of work, fella.
Ugly and divisive? Where do you think I got the whole moocher/taker parlance? That comes directly from the Right Wing hatred expounded by you and your Party daily. You miss the whole point... which I actually restated in this thread. The people who need and use government subsidies the most are the idiots who want to get rid of those subsidies.
My sweeping generalizations!!! WOW!!! WOW!!! WOW!!! With all the "all you liberals" talk on this board? You got some nerve Pal.
I'm the one who wants government to do more for those who haven't saved the money for a rainy day. Who need help with education, health care, job creation, and by God even food!
I must have hit too close to home for you alloak. But I ain't apologizing. When the Red States stop taking hand outs from the government I'll stop pointing out the hypocrisy.
Me pointing out who the moochers are? It is the moochers who whine the most about the moochers. I can't help it if they don't recognize themselves.
You hear that?
Another glass house breaking dude. Keep throwing stones.
Hold on to that Mitt Romney superiority. It is so very Christian of you to judge your fellow man and flaunt your good fortune.
Where's the compassion man? Where's the love for your fellow man?
Oh! Now I remember. That doesn't fit into the Republican thought process.
Let's not get all high and mighty. A quick look at your comments leads one to believe it's perfectly fine for YOU to judge people.
Who started this thread, an ugly and divisive one at that from the title on down? Nothing says compassion like pointing out who the "moochers" are. Love your sweeping generalization about Republicans, too.
You are one piece of work, fella.
Now that is funny. You have never judged anyone, right?
Hold on to that Mitt Romney superiority. It is so very Christian of you to judge your fellow man and flaunt your good fortune.
Where's the compassion man? Where's the love for your fellow man?
Oh! Now I remember. That doesn't fit into the Republican thought process.
Let's not get all high and mighty. A quick look at your comments leads one to believe it's perfectly fine for YOU to judge people.
Who started this thread, an ugly and divisive one at that from the title on down? Nothing says compassion like pointing out who the "moochers" are. Love your sweeping generalization about Republicans, too.
You are one piece of work, fella.
Now that is funny. You have never judged anyone, right?
Not as funny as calling someone out for it, then doing the exact same thing one sentence later. Then managing to top himself in the very next sentence.
Just check the thread title. That pretty much seals the deal.
Non-judgmental compassion.
Done.
[Edited on 3/29/2015 by alloak41]
I don't have any problem with the "essential" ones. The government workforce should be limited to essential personnel only, pretty much like anywhere else. That's all there should be.
What do you mean by "essential"? And when you say "pretty much like anywhere else" what does that mean exactly? I thought you were championing "all American workers"?
Comments or questions like these serve as example #237 why the government will just continue growing larger and larger into eternity. A reversal at some point? Ain't gonna happen.
Actually, these questions are meant to clarify what you mean by "essential" and "pretty much like anywhere else". No idea how they are an example of anything??? Why can't you just answer the questions? Or are you purposefully being vague?
I'v got a question for BillyB: Do you know, or is there some way to find out, what portion of the money these states receive is actually in the form of entitlements of some kind? And does it include money for FEMA/disaster declaration kind of stuff? I'd love to see what portins are for education also. Just curious.
I'v got a question for BillyB: Do you know, or is there some way to find out, what portion of the money these states receive is actually in the form of entitlements of some kind? And does it include money for FEMA/disaster declaration kind of stuff? I'd love to see what portins are for education also. Just curious.
____________________________________________________________________
A very good question.
The article conveniently omits each states debt. The States with the so-called lowest Fed. Gov't "dependency" are also the States with the greatest debt and the highest amount of Federal jobs.
I'v got a question for BillyB: Do you know, or is there some way to find out, what portion of the money these states receive is actually in the form of entitlements of some kind? And does it include money for FEMA/disaster declaration kind of stuff? I'd love to see what portins are for education also. Just curious.
Hello Doug. The Huffpo article has a link that takes you to the actual source. As we all know Huffpo is the first "journalistic" enterprise to receive a Pulitzer for "linking" to other folks work. Much of the money the States receive is in the form of Government contacts, grants, as well as subsidies for insurance and even direct payments.
I'm no expert, never claimed to be, but the information is in the original article. If you follow the link you will find that Wallethub.com describes their methodology and even has a panel of 7 experts in the fields of economics and public policy that answer these three questions:
What makes states more or less dependent on federal dollars? Is this good or bad?
What programs should be a state/local responsibility and what should be a federal responsibility?
What measures should be undertaken in order to ensure a fair redistribution of federal resources?
That should help you answer your questions.
I didn't hide anything. The modern internet is a tricky source of information. Links are often substituted for footnotes. The original Huffpo article provided the source link.
So short answer to your question, no I don't know. Follow the link for methodology and additional source information.
I stand by this post as germane to political arguments comparing the values of America's right and left. I also still firmly believe that many of the people casting aspersions on entitlements, the takers, the moochers, the 47% are quite often beneficiaries of entitlements and, in my view, hypocrites.
Here's the link: http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#
Thanks for the response Billy. Unfortunately neither the article nor the explanation of the methodology of the report answer any of those questions. That's why I was wondering if you had researched or sourced the info from anything other than the short article referenced.
This site breaks down which States get the most food stamps.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/food-stamp-snap-benefits-enrollment-participation-totals-map.html
I've not done an analysis.
Here is a nearly year old article on the ten States that receive the most Federal Funding for Education: (Consider the Source)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reboot-illinois/how-much-federal-funding-_1_b_5214762.html
I was able to find this about FEMA, not amount of money but amount of disasters:
Top disaster-prone states
The list of Top 9 states by number of FEMA disaster designations:Texas, 75
Oklahoma, 45
California, 24
New Mexico, 13
Arizona, 12
Tennessee, 12
New York, 11
Kansas, 10
Nebraska, 10
That information is from 2011.
Here's an interesting article on how educational funding helps keep the poor disadvantaged.
Wow, that's some searchin' Billy! May take me a little time to sift through it all. I had just thought maybe you had some kind of link to the raw data for the report cited in this thread. Thanks!
