A few days back I posted this graphic which ruffled a few feathers. I always chuckle when this happens because the more acute the mouth foaming, the closer I know I am to reality, facts and bursting the bubble that surrounds the conservative utopia that the base has created for itself. The land where Ayn Rand and Jesus are worshiped side by side every night while the Constitution and the Bible are never EVER questioned. And liberals are statist thugs bent on penetrating that bubble-taking away guns, rights, and letting their women use contraception in their never ending pursuit to bankrupt this country with social welfare programs that take the fruit of hard earned worker's labor and give it to black people who use it to get a flat screen TV.
The simple fact is, as I pointed out the other day, the people who bitch about government handouts are usually the ones that benefit from them the most.
Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.
Oh really? Was this before or after he made his Tea Party T-Shirts? In fact, it was both.
More interesting is this map which shows the areas of the country that take the most money from the federal government. Let's see we have darker red in Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona (really, Jan Brewer?), Florida, Texas, Alaska (hee hee), Kentucky, Tennessee, and Oklahoma-states that always or mostly deep GOP. Scroll over Oklahoma, for example, and see the various counties that are receiving over 30 percent of personal income from programs like food stamps and Medicare.
Dean P. Lacy, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College, has identified a twist on that theme in American politics over the last generation. Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates.
Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to support Democratic candidates. And Professor Lacy found that the pattern could not be explained by demographics or social issues.
As I have suspected, these people are completely full of shit. Bitching about the government is like a hobby for them and, if their little slice was taken away, they'd shit themselves silly. Of course, this is another shining example of the adolescent who bitches about his parents but then comes running to mommy and daddy when he or she gets into trouble.
Lately, the government has been very good, indeed. The county, with federal financing, bought a corner of Mr. Peterson’s farm to build a new interchange for Interstate 35. He used the money to open a gas station at the edge of the farm in 2008 to serve the traffic that rolls off the new ramp. The business is prospering, and he no longer worries that he will need to depend on Social Security.
Yeah, they're "independent" alright.
Given this data, shouldn't Democrats be the ones that bitch considering that OUR taxes are actually paying for several million conservatives on the dole? Nope.
Because we understand what it means to be a grown up.
11 comments:
Actually M most of the foaming around here seems to be from you fap-fap-fap'ing away.
What kind of "safety net" should even exist for the middle class? Isn't the whole point of a safety net to help those most at the lowest end? The broader the base for benefits, the less that is true. Instead it turns into a game of getting a free [school] lunch at someone else's expense. Who's expense doesn't really matter as long as I get the goodies - right? No wonder you splooged all over this - it is the grand proggie wet dream, to turn everyone into a dependent on govt largesse. And govt into a giant game of cost-shifting based on political allegiance.
You always bitch that the rich aren't paying enough, well the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax. If that isn't enough, what is? Sure, you won't ever be in that top 10%, so you don't care about how much they pay, but I'm just below that - so it does matter to me.
If the safety net is supposed to cover everyone, who is supposed to pay for it? I thought the safety net was to help those at the bottom, not the middle class. Now all it appears to be is the wish for a free [school] lunch. Who cares as long as someone else pays! The great proggie wet dream - a perpetual voting majority as a dependent of the govt.
It appears comments are being eaten - if my first one is there please feel free to delete my second (and this as well).
M would you please check the spam filter. I posted a response here and it disappeared. Thx
well the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax.
Tell the other part of the story, please, because you are not being fully honest.
Tell the other part of the story, please, because you are not being fully honest.
Like 49.5% pay no taxes at all? Yeah, that isn't good.
Or the people paying taxes are a dying breed!
Or are you trying to make the lame and ignorant attempt at using the income inequality as your 'mantra' again? Not what you think it is.
What is the 'other part' of the story?
Tell the other part of the story, please, because you are not being fully honest.
What, about the amount of income they make? They don't make 70+% of all income, they earn a bit less than half. Are you going to argue that some of them are getting money that would otherwise go to you?
Now, how about you discuss the concept of the safety net and how you believe it should provide benefits to the middle class - not just to those most needy.
BTW - thanks for retrieving my posts.
What, about the amount of income they make?
No, about the fact that the richest 5 percent of Americans have seen their income rise by 56 percent over the last 30 years while the share of every other income group has declined...about the fact that the marginal tax rate has been steadily dropping, far more than any other income group...about how that rate is still 5-15 percentage points lower than in other industrialized countries...about how the top 400 earners pay an effective rate of 18 percent...that part of the story.
No, about the fact that the richest 5 percent of Americans have seen their income rise by 56 percent over the last 30 years
And as expected with a progressive income tax they pay a larger share of all income taxes than they did 30 years ago. So what is the problem? Are you still assuming that the total growth of income should've been divided differently? That you haven't gained as much as you should have? You don't want to talk about that, do you? Instead you just want to whine about how evil the rich are - boy that sure is original.
about how the top 400 earners pay an effective rate of 18 percent
Tax free municipal bonds. You want to take away that tax break, you raise the cost of municipal finance. Is that what you want?
You sure are bound and determined to not discuss what your original post was about - the safety net.
So M not a word about the safety net and how far it extends?
Okay, this is a bit cruel, but if M does read it, the foaming and frothing ought to be most entertaining.
Post a Comment