If this "HuffPo thesis" is silly, BS, whatever, then isn't the same reasoning used in reverse also BS?
Absolutely. Its total BS both ways. We're all way better than that.
[Edited on 3/25/2015 by DougMacKenzie]
I agree. And I can't think of one good reason why the ordinary citizens, regardless of ideology, continue to pick at each other. We're all in the same boat. We should save that stuff for the politicians. Keep their feet to the fire, insist on a higher level of performance and better governance.
Um, yeah. Right.
You don't agree?
With your sincerity when making such a statement? No, not at all.
Food stamps: this info does not rank the states, you would hav3e to go through and rank them individually. Not important enough to me to dod that. This is the synopsis:
"As a share of all households, Oregon (19.8 percent), Mississippi (19.4 percent) and Maine (18 percent) had the highest SNAP participation rates in 2013, according to Census estimates. Wyoming (5.9 percent) recorded the lowest SNAP participation rate of any state."
Throws a bit of a wrench into the "mooching" theme of the original article.
Education: Only gives the top 10 states by total $, not per capita. Ranks as follows:
Ca. 3.7B
Tex 3B
New York 2.3B
Fla. 1.7B
Ill. 1.4B
Ohio 1.2B
Penn. 1.2B
Mich. 1.1B
Georgia 1B
North Carolina 8.9M
Again, this does not truly support the original thesis.
The FEMA report, as you stated, gives no dollar amount. Fifty tornadoes in Texas may not come close to the dollar amount of one Sandy or the effects of all the winter weather this year in the northeast It would be very difficult to assume the original thesis of "mooching" by red states without being able to see the raw data that was used. Often times when sources are skewing data to promote an agenda they will not include the raw data. Not saying that is the case here, but it is certainly a possibility, and without the raw data it is difficult to lend much credence to the thesis, at least for me, especially in light of the direction of these other reports, though they are limited in scope.
It appears my point has been completely lost. My belief is that every State needs to "mooch" more. I have no problem with States getting Federal funds. I have a problem with the beneficiaries of those funds complaining about big government. Kinda like the guy who wants the Federal Government to keep their hands off his Medicare.
I love this country. But my love of country does not blind me to our infrastructure, education, medical and health needs of the land I love.
Take a trip on the Circle Line around New York City. That boat ride around that little island is amazing. You see bridges that rise up on pulleys, that turn around on a big wheel, that open in the center, it is a trip that will make you proud of the technological marvels of a great and innovative society.
Unfortunately you won't see one bridge younger than 50 years old.
The Empire State Building was built in one year's time during the Great Depression without a lot of the modern tools or building techniques used today.
How long did it take to build the Freedom Tower?
Because of the war in Iraq tax payer dollars have been used to modernize Baghdad. Our tax dollars have built schools, hospitals, water and power plants in Iraq. We are paying in part for a massive dam in Afghanistan. Why aren't we rebuilding America.
I'm all for cutting waste in government but a simple honest look around America reveals that this country needs a huge infusion of money to take us into the future.
I don't have kids so, at 55 years old, I don't have much of a dog in the fight. But I do have pride. I know that when I ride the DC Metro I'm impressed by the engineering and cleanliness. But the DC Metro stands out as one of the best in the country. How much money does the NYC subways system need to be updated? The Moscow subways are ornate artistic masterpieces. The Russian people take pride in that feat. Why don't Americans want their country to be a shining symbol of engineering and prosperity?
I didn't make up the title of this thread. It came from Huffpo and it is a reaction to the Republican talking points about the takers and entitlements. But the truth is the Republican Party has no problem giving billion dollar corporations all kinds of welfare. Why are those corporations worthy of Federal funding when the People are not?
How many people in Oregon, Maine and Mississippi could get off food stamps if jobs were provided by the government in order to rebuild and update our infrastructure?
I just don't see the government as the enemy. We are supposed to have a government By the People, For the People - what's wrong with the government providing services, jobs and infrastructure that make the People's lives, their Pursuit of Happiness, easier and more fulfilling?
2. Do you disagree with saving for a rainy day?
No. Not sure how that justifies shutting down the government though. Loss of income is loss of income. It's damage, whether you have savings or not.
2. Do you disagree with saving for a rainy day?
No. Not sure how that justifies shutting down the government though. Loss of income is loss of income. It's damage, whether you have savings or not.
Exactly. Somenofnusnare saying for retirement someday, if a rainy day intervenes then, that's why they call it a rainy day.
2. Do you disagree with saving for a rainy day?
No. Not sure how that justifies shutting down the government though. Loss of income is loss of income. It's damage, whether you have savings or not.
Nobody lost any income.
2. Do you disagree with saving for a rainy day?
No. Not sure how that justifies shutting down the government though. Loss of income is loss of income. It's damage, whether you have savings or not.
Nobody lost any income.
That is not true. But let's put that aside for the moment. Government services were shut down. We, as taxpayers, did not access to services that we paid for. Or, are you going to say that nothing was shut down?
No furloughed government employee has ever lost a lost a dime in wages due to a "shutdown." Hopefully this will ease some needless distress.
No furloughed government employee has ever lost a lost a dime in wages due to a "shutdown." Hopefully this will ease some needless distress.
No effect whatsoever.
http://wgntv.com/2013/10/01/government-shutdown-800000-workers-without-pay-it-doesnt-stop-there/
Alloak is correct in that Congress voted to pay furloughed workers about 2 billion dollars for the hours they lost. Smart move there Congress. But, hey - what's another 2 billion?
Alloak is incorrect in that the workers who lost 20% of their pay due to sequestration were compensated. They lost that money forever. It won't be coming back.
Still the wisdom of the Republicans who shut down the government should be questioned. For a bunch of guys whining about the debt they sure as hell don't mind contributing to that same debt.
Workers to get $2 billion in back pay after government shutdown
By JIM PUZZANGHERA NOVEMBER 7, 2013, 1:32 PM
W ASHINGTON -- Federal workers furloughed during last month's partial government shutdown will receive about $2 billion in back pay, the White House said Thursday.
About 850,000 federal employees were furloughed for at least part of the 16-day shutdown, leading to a loss of 6.6 million work days, the Office of Management and Budget said in a report detailing some of the costs of the fiscal standoff.
"As the president has said, the shutdown that occurred last month inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy and took a toll on families and businesses across the country," OMB Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell said in a White House blog post.
The report was the first time the Obama administration estimated the cost of back pay for furloughed workers, which OMB described as one price of lost federal productivity. Counting the cost of benefits for those workers, the price tag was about $2.5 billion, OMB said.
Congress authorized back pay for all furloughed federal workers. Furloughs peaked at about 850,000 the first week of October, Burwell said. About 400,000 civilian military workers were called back to work the following week.
The White House Council of Economic Advisors already had estimated the shutdown cost 120,000 private sector jobs and would reduce fourth-quarter economic output by 0.2 to 0.6 percentage points.
The OMB report tried to highlight some of the shutdown's costs to the economy. Among the examples:
The Bureau of Land Management was unable to process about 200 applications to drill on federal land.
The National Park Service lost about $7 million in revenue because of closed parks, with surrounding communities losing about $500 million in visitor spending.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-shutdown-back-pay-furlough-workers-white-house-20131107-story.html Page 1 of 3
?Workers to get $2 billion in back pay after government shutdown - LA Times 3/31/15, 11:51 AMThe Internal Revenue Service delayed almost $4 billion in tax refunds.
In addition, the federal government also will have to pay an undetermined amount of money in interest on late payments to contractors and other recipients, OMB said.
No furloughed government employee has ever lost a lost a dime in wages due to a "shutdown." Hopefully this will ease some needless distress.
So, you've changed from saying "no one" to now saying "no furloughed government employee" which suggests you know that say "no one" was incorrect. There seems to be a lot of question whether "no furloughed government employee" is correct either, but if for the sake of argument I give you that, what about the non-government employees who were impacted? The hotel and tour operators who lost business because national parks were shut down, the contracted employees who did not get compensated because they are not technically federal government employees, etc.? How was the shutdown good for them?
No furloughed government employee has ever lost a lost a dime in wages due to a "shutdown." Hopefully this will ease some needless distress.
So, you've changed from saying "no one" to now saying "no furloughed government employee" which suggests you know that say "no one" was incorrect.
Not really. I meant the same thing all along.
No furloughed government employee has ever lost a lost a dime in wages due to a "shutdown." Hopefully this will ease some needless distress.
So, you've changed from saying "no one" to now saying "no furloughed government employee" which suggests you know that say "no one" was incorrect.
Not really. I meant the same thing all along.
Ok. I don't think you are correct either way, but thanks for clarifying.
No furloughed government employee has ever lost a lost a dime in wages due to a "shutdown." Hopefully this will ease some needless distress.
So, you've changed from saying "no one" to now saying "no furloughed government employee" which suggests you know that say "no one" was incorrect. There seems to be a lot of question whether "no furloughed government employee" is correct either, but if for the sake of argument I give you that, what about the non-government employees who were impacted? The hotel and tour operators who lost business because national parks were shut down, the contracted employees who did not get compensated because they are not technically federal government employees, etc.? How was the shutdown good for them?
alloak - Do you view the spillover as just collateral damage for actions well done and good governance by the conservatives in DC?
No furloughed government employee has ever lost a lost a dime in wages due to a "shutdown." Hopefully this will ease some needless distress.
So, you've changed from saying "no one" to now saying "no furloughed government employee" which suggests you know that say "no one" was incorrect. There seems to be a lot of question whether "no furloughed government employee" is correct either, but if for the sake of argument I give you that, what about the non-government employees who were impacted? The hotel and tour operators who lost business because national parks were shut down, the contracted employees who did not get compensated because they are not technically federal government employees, etc.? How was the shutdown good for them?
alloak - Do you view the spillover as just collateral damage for actions well done and good governance by the conservatives in DC?
Absolutely not. I've said if before. They're just being unreasonable mainly from being hate-filled tightwads for no reason. Every government agency and department should triple it's spending immediately. Every government program should quadruple it's budget.
The reason so many are so unhappy is that the government just hasn't spent enough money. That would fix everything.
[Edited on 4/1/2015 by alloak41]
Irony?
Swing!
And a miss.
[Edited on 4/1/2015 by alloak41]
No furloughed government employee has ever lost a lost a dime in wages due to a "shutdown." Hopefully this will ease some needless distress.
So, you've changed from saying "no one" to now saying "no furloughed government employee" which suggests you know that say "no one" was incorrect. There seems to be a lot of question whether "no furloughed government employee" is correct either, but if for the sake of argument I give you that, what about the non-government employees who were impacted? The hotel and tour operators who lost business because national parks were shut down, the contracted employees who did not get compensated because they are not technically federal government employees, etc.? How was the shutdown good for them?
alloak - Do you view the spillover as just collateral damage for actions well done and good governance by the conservatives in DC?
Absolutely not. I've said if before. They're just being unreasonable mainly from being hate-filled tightwads for no reason. Every government agency and department should triple it's spending immediately. Every government program should quadruple it's budget.
The reason so many are so unhappy is that the government just hasn't spent enough money. That would fix everything.
[Edited on 4/1/2015 by alloak41]
What a pathetic response. From your cynical sarcastic dance around, we'll just take your response to mean that you agree with the conservatives that shut down the government.
Absolutely not. I've said if before. They're just being unreasonable mainly from being hate-filled tightwads for no reason. Every government agency and department should triple it's spending immediately. Every government program should quadruple it's budget.
The reason so many are so unhappy is that the government just hasn't spent enough money. That would fix everything.
[Edited on 4/1/2015 by alloak41]
What a pathetic response. From your cynical sarcastic dance around, we'll just take your response to mean that you agree with the conservatives that shut down the government.
Why not assume I agree with the progressives? That government should continue should continue to grow in scope and expense until the end of time. That it will work out fine just accumulating debt year after year into eternity. The blank check and credit cards will work out just fine, sleep tight. Let the wack jobs and extremists worry about it.
Now that Republicans control Washington, they have the power to reverse our spending policies, correct? I assume that they are working on that right now and new laws will be passed to prevent further damage. Correct?
Now that Republicans control Washington, they have the power to reverse our spending policies, correct? I assume that they are working on that right now and new laws will be passed to prevent further damage. Correct?
It's going to take both parties to accomplish that. Only a portion of one of them seems concerned about doing so.
Why not assume I agree with the progressives? That government should continue should continue to grow in scope and expense until the end of time. That it will work out fine just accumulating debt year after year into eternity. The blank check and credit cards will work out just fine, sleep tight. Let the wack jobs and extremists worry about it.
Do you not see that closing the government cost money? Nothing was saved. Revenue was lost.
You also like Republicans are actually interested in cutting spending, waste, and fraud. When was the last time a Republican President turned debt into surplus? What actions have the Republicans taken, beyond posturing, that stopped the growth of government? It seems to me that with their morality legislation and their security measures they continually extend government reach.
Why not assume I agree with the progressives? That government should continue should continue to grow in scope and expense until the end of time. That it will work out fine just accumulating debt year after year into eternity. The blank check and credit cards will work out just fine, sleep tight. Let the wack jobs and extremists worry about it.
You also like Republicans are actually interested in cutting spending, waste, and fraud. When was the last time a Republican President turned debt into surplus? What actions have the Republicans taken, beyond posturing, that stopped the growth of government?
it's going to take both parties to accomplish that (as was the last time a deficit turned into a surplus.) Only a portion of one of them seems interested in accomplishing that.
