| Author | Message | ||
     Jimidan |
Mr. FB, a high school civics class might have helped you understand how the government is structured. State and local governments are just subdivisions of the federal government...and really, government is government is government. Ever heard of federal grants? Do you understand how they work? It is all paid from revenues collected from taxes, so therefore, by definition ("collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"), is socialism. And we would be in a world of hurt without it. The citizens of Texas and Tennessee pay for very little if anything in California. States send federal taxes to Washington and receive federal spending in return. However, some states benefit more from federal taxing and spending policies than others. Some "beneficiary" states receive a positive return from Uncle Sam, making other states "donors" who pick up the tab. The most important factor determining whether a state is a net beneficiary is per capita income. States with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax. Other factors include whether states have powerful Members of Congress, the number of federal employees present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements. Fact of the matter is that California only gets back $0.78 for every dollar it pays in to the federal government, so it subsidizes Tennessee programs and projects. Tennessee gets back $1.27 for every dollar is sends to Washington and if it seceded from the Union, it would immediately turn into a third world country (as would nearly all of the Southern states). Mississippi gets back $2.02 for every dollar, Louisiana $1.78, WV $1.76, Alabama $1.66, KY $1.51, VA $1.51, Arkansas $1.41, South Carolina $1.35, Missouri $1.32, AZ $1.19, North Carolina $1.08...you get the point. Why should citizens of all of those wealthier northeastern, Canadian border and Pacific states have to pay to keep all of the good ol' boy states going? Because they would be insolvent immediately if they did not. We live in a market economy that is dependent upon a strong middle class to buy things. Without the federal intervention, the whole country would fail, and as the US goes, so goes the world markets. You say that Social Security is a failure, which is patently false. Poverty among Americans 65 and over is statistically unchanged in recent years because of Social Security. The news that the U.S. poverty rate is now the highest it has been since the early '90s, nearly one in six Americans now living in poverty. And the specifics are even worse: Child poverty rose from under 21 percent to 22 percent. Poverty among Hispanic Americans went from more than 25 percent to more than 26 percent. Poverty among African-Americans went from just under 26 percent to over 27 percent. Poverty among white people is much lower than those other groups but it is rising, too, and fast. It went up from 9.4 percent to 9.9 percent. The only large segment of the American population that serves as any sort of silver lining in these poverty numbers is older Americans. Poverty among Americans 65 and over is statistically unchanged, even as it is getting so much worse for so many other groups of people. And that, of course, is because we have something in this country that keeps older Americans out of poverty. It's called Social Security. And the fact that Social Security works, that it is keeping old people out of poverty in America, even as everybody else is slipping into it, the fact that it works means that in Republicanland, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination is someone who says that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a failure. This is what I mean by saying that folks like you are living in an altered state of reality, or the fact free zone. | ||
| Sifo |
State and local governments are just subdivisions of the federal government  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
State and local governments are just subdivisions of the federal government...and really, government is government is government. Umm.....no. Are you familiar with the concept of Federalism? I actually DID attend civics and government classes. Did you? The citizens of Texas and Tennessee pay for very little if anything in California. Simply a falsehood. Local governments spend beyond the ability to provide funding and request support of county governments. County governments spend beyond the ability to provide funding and request support of the state government. The state government spends beyond the ability to provide funding and request Federal financial aid. That aid comes from ALL tax payers (not just those in California). Therefore, people in Texas and Tennessee (as well as other state) are paying for benefits provided to citizens of California without receiving any benefits. States which are better at managing their financial situations or provide fewer socialized programs are paying for those states that do provide socialized programs. The "wealth" of the citizens of a better run state is a function of the tax base and controls on spending (see Detroit/Michigan). Runaway spending, unsustainable government programs, high taxes drive out business and drive down incomes. You say that Social Security is a failure, which is patently false. Poverty among Americans 65 and over is statistically unchanged in recent years because of Social Security. It is a failure. It is unsustainable. If it is such a success, make it voluntary. | ||
| Jimidan |
Reindog, right out of the gate said: "He (President Obama) must and will attack using his proven methods of class warfare and racism...". Republicans want to abolish the Minimum Wage, and push the poor into more misery and poverty, and hating the poor is related to hating minorities which is linked to RACISM. Cowboy sez: "Romney the white obama." Moxnix sez: "I won't vote for Obama. I'm certain he hates me (let me go wayyy out on a limb here...you are white, right? Why? Because the President is a "near"DONG, no dad'blamit, the President is a "near"DONG..., and everyone knows that "nearDONG"s hate white people, huh? Oldog chimes in with a rich one: "it is crucial that Obama be removed and ALL of the crap that has been done by the "welfare party" be undone..." "Welfare party" or "food stamp President" are all thinly veiled racist attacks...the base knows exactly what these code words mean. | ||
| Hootowl |
"hating the poor is related to hating minorities which is linked to RACISM." I can't decide whether that, or your assertion that local governments are part of the federal government is the most ignorant thing I've ever seen on this board. It's a toss up. FYI - Most poor people in America are white. | ||
| Blake |
>>> the base knows exactly what these code words mean. Uh yeah, "Democrat"  What Jeff (Hootowl) said. Jim, you're way out of line. You need to retract and apologize to folks here for calling us racists. On Martin Luther King's birthday no less. How despicable! (Message edited by blake on January 16, 2012) | ||
| Jimidan |
FB, read up on it some more: The political units and divisions of the United States include: The 50 states (four of which have the official title of Commonwealth) are subdivided into counties (Louisiana uses the title parish and Alaska uses the title borough). The counties may be further subdivided into townships, or towns in New York and New England. Urban areas of a state may be organized into incorporated cities, towns, villages, and other types of municipalities, and other autonomous or subordinate public authorities and institutions. The original 13 States each consider their statehood to begin with the United States Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Each of the other 37 states were admitted to the Union by an act of the United States Congress. The District of Columbia, the capital city of the United States, which contains the U.S. Capitol. Although the District of Columbia is not a state and does not have voting representation in Congress, D.C. residents can vote in presidential elections and are afforded three electors in the Electoral College. Native American reservations have quasi-autonomous status. While residents may vote as residents of a state and pay federal taxes, the reservations are generally exempt from state laws. The ambiguous nature of their status has created both opportunities (such as gambling in states that normally disallow it) and challenges (such as the unwillingness of some companies to open up shop in a territory where they are not certain what laws will apply to them). Territories of the United States may be incorporated (part of the United States proper) or unincorporated (known variously as "possessions", "overseas territories" or "commonwealths") Territories may also be organized (with self-government explicitly granted by an Organic Act of the U.S. Congress) or unorganized (without such direct authorization of self-government). Thirty-one of the current 50 states were organized incorporated territories before their admission to the Union. Since 1959, the United States has had only one incorporated territory (Palmyra Atoll), but maintains control of several unincorporated territories, both organized and unorganized. The federal union, which constitutes the United States as a collective of the several states, exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the military installations, and American embassies and consulates located in foreign countries; and the District of Columbia. Such quasi-political divisions as conservation districts and school districts, which are typically special, geographically designated subordinate public authorities. Recognized bodies, such as homeowners associations, which fulfill government functions, and have since been bound by subsequent court decisions to certain restrictions normally applying to local governments. Altogether, there are an estimated 85,000 extant political entities in the United States. Political units and divisions of the United States are a subset of the total United States territory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_o f_the_United_States | ||
| Jimidan |
I never called you a racist...I said that some of the comments here were thinly veiled racist in nature. As self-avowed Tea Party members, I would say that you guys owe the President an apology. http://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+racism+si gns&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa =X&ei=z5AUT6jPDJG2twf92pHzAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQsAQ&bi w=1680&bih=963 | ||
| Blake |
| ||
| Ft_bstrd |
FB, read up on it some more: I don't believe that to be necessary in any way. I'm completely clear on the role of Federal, State, and Local governments. It is you who are confused. Simple questions: What is the role of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution? What is the role of the 10th Amendment? | ||
| Jimidan |
By race/ethnicity and family status: Among married families: 5.8% lived in poverty. This number varied by ethnicity with: - 5.4% of white persons, - 8.3% of black persons, and - 14.9% of Hispanic persons living in poverty. Among single parent families: 26.6% lived in poverty. This number varied by ethnicity with: - 30% of white persons, - 40% of black persons, and 30% of Hispanic persons living in poverty. Among unrelated individuals living alone: - 19.1% lived in poverty. This number varied by ethnicity with: - 18% of white persons - 27.9% of black persons and - 27% of Hispanic persons living in poverty Poverty and race The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty: - 9.9% of all non-Hispanic white persons - 12.1% of all Asian persons - 26.6% of all Hispanic persons 27.4% of all black persons. About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white (19.6 million in 2010), but poverty rates are much higher for blacks and Hispanics. Non-Hispanic white children comprised 57% of all poor rural children. Irregardless, we all know that when referring to the "gang banging" "poor" on "welfare", we ain't takin' 'bout no white folks, don't we. Jes' sayin'... | ||
| Jimidan |
quote: "Jimidan Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2012 - 11:34 pm: ... I said that many on this very web site were racists as evidenced by their thinly veiled comments." And I still believe this to be true...but I never called you a racist. | ||
| Oldog |
Oldog chimes in with a rich one: "it is crucial that Obama be removed and ALL of the crap that has been done by the "welfare party" be undone..." "Welfare party" or "food stamp President" are all thinly veiled racist attacks...the base knows exactly what these code words mean. Blake Thats Democra-P, Jimi, YOU must not be paying attention to what is going on in the world... Racist ????? You mean factual, I don't give a $hit what color the prez is he is a total failure by every one of MY metrics, I am not as well off as i was several years ago, Unemployment is out of control, We are on a precipice of debit that we had better settle soon or else, We need oil and have the opportunity to build a pipe line and purchase it from Canada, and a whiney misguided few hold up the process WHY Because he wants their votes not whats good for the country, Oh and the banks and other institutions are plugged up with regs and red red tape.. Great Job there Barry Oh and its not Bushes fault, Its now yours Mr Commander in Thief..... some other highlights, "take the wealth and spread it around" Debit limit crisis, Super committee, F&F, Obama care, Solyndra, solar Power "we have to do it now" From the party that brought you "We have to pass it to find out whats in it..", The Only thing thats good about this being and election year is that he is out campaigning and not at home wreaking havoc on the country In the words of MLK, "I have a dream", yeah bo will be FIRED BY WE THE PEOPLE, in 13 Jimi, Friend step back from the table and put the coolaid glass down.. its making you look well not very smart... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Irregardless Irrespective or Regardless not Irregardless, FYI. | ||
| Blake |
Don't let the distractors and deceivers win. Don't let any of the deeply intellectually dishonest leftists ever put you on the defensive for opposing any of their or Obama's records, policies or views. If they call you a bigot, simply laugh in their face. It's all they warrant. They are nothing but miserable race-baiting liars. It's how they operate and who they are. For more information, see Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals, their most highly esteemed playbook of miserableness. Let truth win. They hate Fox News as it is not in their pocket doing their bidding like the other networks. So they have been incessantly trying to malign and smear the fair and balanced news channel. Rather than debate, they seek to stifle opposing views. Sorry. Not here. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The think I like most about Obama is that he is black. His policies, though, suck. | ||
| Blake |
Jimi, You stated that "This whole thread is thinly veiled racism" and then asserted that "many on this web site" are racists, so you owe "many on this web site", especially those participating in this thread a sincere apology. Either apologize for calling us racists or take a hike. Simple. Your behavior is despicable. (Message edited by blake on January 16, 2012) | ||
| Oldog |
let him read my post first.... how are my facts racist sir? | ||
| Reindog |
That is perhaps one of the stupidest and most condescending statements ever made. How you arrive at point B from point A requires travel through some hateful wormhole that only you have access to. America is about taking personal responsibility and risk in a framework of equal opportunity. We Conservatives most vehemently believe in and strive for equal opportunity. This has nothing to do with hating anyone, much less the poor. Then you hyperspace through reality and then equate poverty with racism when the majority of poor are white. I have read "Rules for Radicals" and this is exactly what Zero is doing with the help of his legion of useless, I mean, useful idiots | ||
| Hootowl |
"As self-avowed Tea Party members, I would say that you guys owe the President an apology." What does the TEA party have to do with racism other than being a victim of leftist smear campaigns trying to paint them as racists? Are you one of those, or simply an unwitting victim of their propaganda? Also, the percentages you cite are meaningless as a rebuttal to the fact that I stated: Most poor people in America are white. In sheer numbers, there are more poor whites than any other race. If a white person hating the poor is racist, would that not mean that the majority of people that person hates are their own race? Fail. | ||
| Reindog |
Exactly how does Obama's and Holder's racism make ME a racist, sir? The League of Tinglers is doing Zero's dirty work by calling anyone who opposes Zero as a racist. (Message edited by reindog on January 16, 2012) | ||
| Reindog |
Jimidan, Exactly WHO are you calling a racist on this thread? You have admitted that you are charging some Badweb posters on this thread as racist. Who? Man up, dude, don't be a little girl. Who? Your continued silence says a lot about your character. I work in perhaps the most diverse cultural and racial company on the face of the earth and I love and respect EVERYONE. Your spew is done on MLK's birthday to boot. Shameful, dude. | ||
| Reindog |
This thread is about President Romney and it got sidetracked by some who cling to their Zero. Romney's momentum is picking up and he is on track to be the next President of the United States. The paradoxical thing is that Romney has something to offer everyone yet everyone can find a reason they don't like him. The folks occupying the "Leftward Ho the Wagons" side can take comfort in that he was the governor of one of the most Liberal states in the union. RomneyCare is something they might identify with yet he will correctly do away with ObamaCare when the Republican led Congress provide him with the legislation. The Right can respect him because of his business experience. Perry and Gingrich are doing him a favor bringing this Bain Capital nonsense out early. President Romney will be an acceptable president but no one is going to get all they wanted. | ||
| 86129squids |
I'm still for Colbert, with Kinky Friedman as VP.  | ||
| Kenm123t |
Jimi your smoking too much dope | ||
| Aesquire |
Racists see race in everything. Pizza cold? racism. Gas expensive? racism. Object to those who don't work given money taken from those who do, at gunpoint? Racism. Gotta be. No other explanation. None accepted. Mind closed. Then again, other mono maniac types see the world from their own perspective. For example. Anti-Communists see the class struggle of the worker vs. the bush-wa-zee as Communist propaganda. People paid by millionaires to attack Wall Street? Commies. People waving Communist Party USA flags at Occupy protests? Commies. President's mentor hard line communists? Commies. President's spiritual advisers church of Liberation Theology? Commies. President's staff & minions give speeches at Communist Party USA functions? Commies. Eric Holder the AG refusing to prosecute voter intimidation by the Black Panthers? Commies. Because they are "his kind" and therefore cannot be evil? Commie racists. See, same answer for all those isolated things. Just because the President has surrounded himself, by choice, his adult life, with racial communist revolutionaries, doesn't mean he's at all influenced by the people HE claims are his influences. Right? So, other than actual facts being involved, it's the same. Right? | ||
| Jimidan |
FB sez: "Simple questions: What is the role of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution? What is the role of the 10th Amendment?" Ah yes, the Tenthers, you guys have an intense devotion to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Recently, attempts have been made to use this "tenther argument" against our health care reform law, but it extends back to whether the government had the right to establish programs Social Security and Medicare. The US Supreme Court has generally accorded the federal government broad power to regulate economic activityand therefore, the individual mandate for buying insurance is framed as a tax (a position which BOTH Romney and Gingrich have advocated for in the last 5 years), which Congress has the right to levy. This also applies to when the federal government pulls the reins on personal freedom when it suits a national purpose, like when it forced hotels and restaurants to serve African Americans with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Tea Partiers like Rand Paul still haven't gotten over that one, have they? As practiced by the out-there alternate universe crowd, er ah, that would be most of you guys, being a tenther may mean declaring yourself sovereign and immune from federal laws and taxes (filed your taxes lately?), issuing your own ID papers and calling your home an embassy. But the U.S.Constitution clearly allows the Federal Government to provide for the common good. Let's keep in mind Section 8, which states that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States; But the tenthers are trumped by the eighthers... According to About.com, "When the Tenth Amendment was originally proposed, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; it applied only to federal law. States had their own constitutions and their own bills of rights. Some states also had slavery, which was protected under the Tenth Amendment. The American Civil War made it clear that this wasn't a workable system, so the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights and made it applicable to both state and federal law. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment, while still relevant, no longer holds as much power as it once did." So what is your point? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ah yes, the Tenthers, you guys have an intense devotion to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It either applies or it doesn't. It's either the law, or it isn't. Is it the law or not? As practiced by the out-there alternate universe crowd, er ah, that would be most of you guys, being a tenther may mean declaring yourself sovereign and immune from federal laws and taxes (filed your taxes lately?), issuing your own ID papers and calling your home an embassy. But the U.S.Constitution clearly allows the Federal Government to provide for the common good. No it would mean that the Federal Government is permitted ONLY the powers granted to it under the Constitution. If the Constitution is amended to grant the Federal Government a power, that power supersedes the state power. But the U.S.Constitution clearly allows the Federal Government to provide for the common good. So it's your contention that the Federal Government may abrogate ANY law or right that it feels is "for the common good"? Let's keep in mind Section 8, which states that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States Yes, but those powers are not unlimited are they? Again, it is your contention, then, that the Federal Government can abrogate any right or law that it deems in the best interest of "providing for the general welfare"? NDAA ok then? Free wire tapping? Confiscation of property without due process? According to About.com, "When the Tenth Amendment was originally proposed, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; it applied only to federal law. States had their own constitutions and their own bills of rights. Some states also had slavery, which was protected under the Tenth Amendment. The American Civil War made it clear that this wasn't a workable system, so the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights and made it applicable to both state and federal law. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment, while still relevant, no longer holds as much power as it once did." With all due respect to the Constitutional scholarship of about.com, relevance or not, the Tenth Amendment is still law just like the Eighteenth Amendment was law until it was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment. What if slavery was found to be beneficial in the promotion of the "general welfare"? What is to stop the Federal Government from simply declaring Thirteenth Amendment "not as relevant" as it once was. | ||
| Moxnix |
Not mine, but someone else's-- Personal Quote: Live and let live. My response-- Or not. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
So if I disagree with the democrats Im a RACIST according to Jim . I will take my APOLOGY NOW !! Im a POOR WHITE person . |
