Not pretty when socialism runs out of money

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jun 16, 2020
372
67
28
34
Atlanta
#42
The ACA for starters. And we've seen previews of what a global warming bill is going to look like. Anybody who can't see the lefts sights focused clearly on those two industries is too hopelessly blinded by bias to have a rational discussion with.

And I wouldn't even know what oan was if not for the Chuba/Gundy kerfuffle. Maybe you need to stop blindly accepting what you see on CNN.
What problems do you have with the ACA?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,069
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#43
What problems do you have with the ACA?
What problems do I have with one of the worst pieces of legislation in our country's history? LOL, Plenty.....but this topic has been covered ad nauseum so anything I mention you will have no doubt heard before.

Besides in this instance I was replying to a question about what the left has done to make me think the will nationalize private industry. The ACA took complete control over what kinds of policies private companies could offer and only the federal government can approve that now. The ACA also put all student loans under the control of the Fed.

So you see, the ACA is a perfect example of why I fear the DNC being in charge and nationalizing private industries. Come on Georgia, don't let us down.
 
Oct 29, 2016
459
213
93
US
#44
Y'all do realize that, well, wouldn't you know it, Republican dominated states receive more welfare than Dem dominated.states, right? Conservative “red” states of the south and west make up eight of the 10 states with the highest dependency on government, and 19 of the top 25.

Oops.

And the reason red states receive more is because they harbor the largest population of impoverished citizens. Those without a high school diploma are far, far, far more likely to obtain assistance from the government. So, instead of absorbing the absurd rhetoric and misinformation spewed from media outlets and government officials, you know, that "liberals are the ones wanting handouts," why don't you direct your attention to the real reason why so many impoverished citizens obtain welfare... High school dropouts.

Obviously, regardless of political affiliation and ethnicity, there are people from all walks of life who at some point in their life had to rely on assistance. This includes citizens who identify as Dem. Also, people who have no political affiliation. Add all other you'd like.

Point is. Please, please, stop getting information from any type of media outlet. I say this because.. I mean, how do people not understand that political commentary is not news, but opinion. And those opinions are from people who earn a living by inciting and enticing absurdly ridiculous 'talking points,' that spin, spin, spin whatever their talking about.. aka 'I own the London bridge. I'll sell it to.you for $15,000.' In other words, "I have absurd talking points that I want to turn into $$$$$.'

If poverty is to be even remotely addressed and remedied in a proper way, you're not gonna stop it by proclaiming liberals want nothing but handouts. It's immature to think that. It's ridiculous. And if anyone brought that type of argument into a conversation with people who actually know what they're talking about, it wouldn't sell. It would be considered highly uninformative. I'm talking about big boy and girl stuff; the type of conversations between knowledgeable people and talking points not associated with garbage that most people consider news.

Liberals are literally and willingly ok with paying a bit more in taxes to reduce as much poverty as possible. NOT HANDOUTS. Stop thinking that right now. Stop it. Now. Stop.

Now, how about them oil rigging boys, huh? Y'all want to 'save' the oil industry because it provides jobs for dropouts and local boys, who do not have the will and initiative within themselves to graduate, go to college, you know, something that, how do you say, something Republicans like to say, right? Now, how about talking point?

Help to remedy the situation, instead of freaking repeating the same old and tired mantras that propaganda machines spew, that so many somehow love to ingest, because they don't have the will and determination to think of words to say for themselves. Pew. Pew. Shooting talking points left to right, I am. And right to left. Know what I'm saying?

Alas, this isn't really about Dems, poverty, socialism, is it? What's REALLY causing Republicans opposing helping others via taxation? Selfishness and immaturity. I bet y'all don't have the maturity to accept that fact about you. You could not give one damn who dies or lives. See: Republicans trying everything possible to remove life-saving medical care for those less fortunate.

For Pete's sake, before Trump slashed TANF, formerly known as food stamps, most people paid no more than $0.05 cents a day in taxation. Do y'all know how many people in Oklahoma who desperately need TANF? Do you people not understand how many impoverished children have been affected by Trump's highly immoral crime against humanity? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND??

You want to know want to know the utter devastation caused by you now saving 2 God damned more cents a day? You message me and you do it now. My wife and I work in social services and I'm gonna tell every single one of you people, who have the AUDACITY to spit out the word "handouts" from your revolting mouths, if it were up to me, I would have it legally obligated for every single one of you pathetic excuses of human beings to witness it first-hand. You message me right now. RIGHT NOW! I will show you exactly wtf your revolting policies do to innocent children... CHILDREN! Do it now.

But, you don't care. I know you don't. And you claim to be the party that does "God's work." No, you don't. You worship the devil. How about that? Don't any of dare to even remotely reply to this without messaging me first. That is, if you can stomach what happens when innocent children receive not even a quarter of the very little they used to get, all because you love saving the cents a day. Cents a day!

Pathetic.

Pathetic.

Yes, you. Can you feel your stomach turning? Let me show you pictures of what your ideologies represent, you devil mongers. That is, if can stomach the reality of everything you detest, impoverished children. Can you handle the vileness of the pictures of what happens when innocent children are the victims of their parents and Republicans? Could you look at yourself in the mirror and still smile and call yourself a good, moral person? I betcha still would, cuz you already do it now.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,075
17,912
1,743
#45
You want to know want to know the utter devastation caused by you now saving 2 God damned more cents a day? You message me and you do it now. My wife and I work in social services and I'm gonna tell every single one of you people, who have the AUDACITY to spit out the word "handouts" from your revolting mouths, if it were up to me, I would have it legally obligated for every single one of you pathetic excuses of human beings to witness it first-hand. You message me right now. RIGHT NOW! I will show you exactly wtf your revolting policies do to innocent children... CHILDREN! Do it now.

But, you don't care. I know you don't. And you claim to be the party that does "God's work." No, you don't. You worship the devil. How about that? Don't any of dare to even remotely reply to this without messaging me first. That is, if you can stomach what happens when innocent children receive not even a quarter of the very little they used to get, all because you love saving the cents a day. Cents a day!
Such hate...
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,075
17,912
1,743
#46
1605804208619.png



I'm not here to say among the American population who cares less or who cares more for those in need based on their political affiliation. We all care and because our opinions are different in regards to how to best address the issue doesn't deserve the hate from those who's opinion differs.

If hate is your position I would suggest you first find a mirror because your hate isn't going to make anything better.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,069
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#48
Liberals are literally and willingly ok with paying a bit more in taxes to reduce as much poverty as possible.
You do understand that the tax rate only limits what the government can take. You can choose to pay more in taxes if you want. Have you literally and willingly been doing that?

Would you literally and willingly take the money I donate to private charities and instead give it to the government? Get off your damn high horse..people can care and think more government is not the solution. People can care without doing it exactly like YOU think they should care.
 
Jul 23, 2018
34
20
58
105
USA
#49
If poverty is to be even remotely addressed and remedied in a proper way, you're not gonna stop it by proclaiming liberals want nothing but handouts. It's immature to think that. It's ridiculous. And if anyone brought that type of argument into a conversation with people who actually know what they're talking about, it wouldn't sell. It would be considered highly uninformative. I'm talking about big boy and girl stuff; the type of conversations between knowledgeable people and talking points not associated with garbage that most people consider news.

.
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019 (census.gov)

The U.S. poverty rate for 2019 was the lowest in history (or ate least since being measured in 1959), and real incomes were growing. Obama's goal was to get as many people a government check as possible, and it will be the goal of every Dem administration going forward. That's what makes me sick to my stomach.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,069
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#50
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019 (census.gov)

The U.S. poverty rate for 2019 was the lowest in history (or ate least since being measured in 1959), and real incomes were growing. Obama's goal was to get as many people a government check as possible, and it will be the goal of every Dem administration going forward. That's what makes me sick to my stomach.
Exactly. People dependent on big government are less likely to vote against big government and less likely to complain when the government tells them they can't leave their house for 6 weeks for their own safety.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,415
208
1,693
Denver
#51
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019 (census.gov)

The U.S. poverty rate for 2019 was the lowest in history (or ate least since being measured in 1959), and real incomes were growing. Obama's goal was to get as many people a government check as possible, and it will be the goal of every Dem administration going forward. That's what makes me sick to my stomach.
I like how the link you provided also detailed out how Obama reduced the poverty level each of his last 4 years in office. Then go on to say how his "goal" was the exact opposite of what he did.

I mean if you want to find an administration that saw the poverty rates go up while he was in office. Look no farther back than W. Bush.


1605893746851.png
 
Jul 23, 2018
34
20
58
105
USA
#52
I like how the link you provided also detailed out how Obama reduced the poverty level each of his last 4 years in office. Then go on to say how his "goal" was the exact opposite of what he did.

I mean if you want to find an administration that saw the poverty rates go up while he was in office. Look no farther back than W. Bush.


View attachment 87216
One would expect poverty levels to decline after a recession/recovery cycle. Your Keynesian brethren advocate printing money and issuing government checks to stimulate the process. If I remember correctly, you have family members who farm/ranch (as do I). Look no further than the explosion of government payments in the 2014 ag bill as an example. Such payments were once limited to crop producers and were on the way out in the late 90's under Freedom to Farm. In 2014, they were extended to livestock producers as well, so now everyone gets a check. I'm sure the big gov't Reps didn't put up much of an argument.

Obama was almost giddy at the record number of people on food stamps, and they desperately wanted a carbon exchange to generate tax funds for redistribution. If memory serves, they wanted to implement a program generating roughly $800-900 billion where $150 billion would be spent toward "researching" renewables or some other slush fund, and the remainder would be paid out to citizens to offset higher energy prices.

You really don't need to take my word for it - just sit back and watch the next 4 years.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,415
208
1,693
Denver
#53
One would expect poverty levels to decline after a recession/recovery cycle. Your Keynesian brethren advocate printing money and issuing government checks to stimulate the process. If I remember correctly, you have family members who farm/ranch (as do I). Look no further than the explosion of government payments in the 2014 ag bill as an example. Such payments were once limited to crop producers and were on the way out in the late 90's under Freedom to Farm. In 2014, they were extended to livestock producers as well, so now everyone gets a check. I'm sure the big gov't Reps didn't put up much of an argument.

Obama was almost giddy at the record number of people on food stamps, and they desperately wanted a carbon exchange to generate tax funds for redistribution. If memory serves, they wanted to implement a program generating roughly $800-900 billion where $150 billion would be spent toward "researching" renewables or some other slush fund, and the remainder would be paid out to citizens to offset higher energy prices.

You really don't need to take my word for it - just sit back and watch the next 4 years.
The 2014 ag bill was pushed more by the GOP. But wouldn't have passed without Democratic votes.
On January 29, 2014, the House voted 251-166 to pass the bill.[2] In the House, a majority of Republicans voted in favor of the bill (163-62) and the Democrats split almost evenly (89-103).
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,425
1,183
743
57
#54
Y'all do realize that, well, wouldn't you know it, Republican dominated states receive more welfare than Dem dominated.states, right? Conservative “red” states of the south and west make up eight of the 10 states with the highest dependency on government, and 19 of the top 25.

Oops.

And the reason red states receive more is because they harbor the largest population of impoverished citizens. Those without a high school diploma are far, far, far more likely to obtain assistance from the government. So, instead of absorbing the absurd rhetoric and misinformation spewed from media outlets and government officials, you know, that "liberals are the ones wanting handouts," why don't you direct your attention to the real reason why so many impoverished citizens obtain welfare... High school dropouts.

Obviously, regardless of political affiliation and ethnicity, there are people from all walks of life who at some point in their life had to rely on assistance. This includes citizens who identify as Dem. Also, people who have no political affiliation. Add all other you'd like.

Point is. Please, please, stop getting information from any type of media outlet. I say this because.. I mean, how do people not understand that political commentary is not news, but opinion. And those opinions are from people who earn a living by inciting and enticing absurdly ridiculous 'talking points,' that spin, spin, spin whatever their talking about.. aka 'I own the London bridge. I'll sell it to.you for $15,000.' In other words, "I have absurd talking points that I want to turn into $$$$$.'

If poverty is to be even remotely addressed and remedied in a proper way, you're not gonna stop it by proclaiming liberals want nothing but handouts. It's immature to think that. It's ridiculous. And if anyone brought that type of argument into a conversation with people who actually know what they're talking about, it wouldn't sell. It would be considered highly uninformative. I'm talking about big boy and girl stuff; the type of conversations between knowledgeable people and talking points not associated with garbage that most people consider news.

Liberals are literally and willingly ok with paying a bit more in taxes to reduce as much poverty as possible. NOT HANDOUTS. Stop thinking that right now. Stop it. Now. Stop.

Now, how about them oil rigging boys, huh? Y'all want to 'save' the oil industry because it provides jobs for dropouts and local boys, who do not have the will and initiative within themselves to graduate, go to college, you know, something that, how do you say, something Republicans like to say, right? Now, how about talking point?

Help to remedy the situation, instead of freaking repeating the same old and tired mantras that propaganda machines spew, that so many somehow love to ingest, because they don't have the will and determination to think of words to say for themselves. Pew. Pew. Shooting talking points left to right, I am. And right to left. Know what I'm saying?

Alas, this isn't really about Dems, poverty, socialism, is it? What's REALLY causing Republicans opposing helping others via taxation? Selfishness and immaturity. I bet y'all don't have the maturity to accept that fact about you. You could not give one damn who dies or lives. See: Republicans trying everything possible to remove life-saving medical care for those less fortunate.

For Pete's sake, before Trump slashed TANF, formerly known as food stamps, most people paid no more than $0.05 cents a day in taxation. Do y'all know how many people in Oklahoma who desperately need TANF? Do you people not understand how many impoverished children have been affected by Trump's highly immoral crime against humanity? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND??

You want to know want to know the utter devastation caused by you now saving 2 God damned more cents a day? You message me and you do it now. My wife and I work in social services and I'm gonna tell every single one of you people, who have the AUDACITY to spit out the word "handouts" from your revolting mouths, if it were up to me, I would have it legally obligated for every single one of you pathetic excuses of human beings to witness it first-hand. You message me right now. RIGHT NOW! I will show you exactly wtf your revolting policies do to innocent children... CHILDREN! Do it now.

But, you don't care. I know you don't. And you claim to be the party that does "God's work." No, you don't. You worship the devil. How about that? Don't any of dare to even remotely reply to this without messaging me first. That is, if you can stomach what happens when innocent children receive not even a quarter of the very little they used to get, all because you love saving the cents a day. Cents a day!

Pathetic.

Pathetic.

Yes, you. Can you feel your stomach turning? Let me show you pictures of what your ideologies represent, you devil mongers. That is, if can stomach the reality of everything you detest, impoverished children. Can you handle the vileness of the pictures of what happens when innocent children are the victims of their parents and Republicans? Could you look at yourself in the mirror and still smile and call yourself a good, moral person? I betcha still would, cuz you already do it now.
Yeah, typical cherry picking of data. Those states are highest PER CAPITA. HUGE distinction that gets omitted. Also, many of the talking points that reference "welfare" are actually talking about government funds in general.

So let us look at welfare. Just the top 10 as I am actually supposed to be working right now.

10 states with the most welfare recipients:
  1. New Mexico (21,459 per 100k)
  2. Louisiana (17,293 per 100k)
  3. West Virginia (17,155 per 100k)
  4. Mississippi (14,743 per 100k)
  5. Oklahoma (14,678 per 100k)
  6. Alabama (14,674 per 100k)
  7. Illinois (14,007 per 100k)
  8. Rhode Island (13,967 per 100k)
  9. Oregon (13,756 per 100k)
  10. Pennsylvania (13,613 per 100k)
Now, take away the PER CAPITA aspect and see the list of actual welfare recipients.
The ten states that have the highest number of SNAP recipients are:
  1. California (3,636,314)
  2. Texas (3,291,843)
  3. Florida (2,779,400)
  4. New York (2,642,450)
  5. Illinois (1,780,778)
  6. Pennsylvania (1,741,489)
  7. Ohio (1,378,556)
  8. Georgia (1,348,973)
  9. Michigan (1,167,928)
  10. Tennessee (891,135)
You (collectively, not you specifically) can make any data/study/trial/survey say whatever you want it to say. But when you do (this time I do mean you specifically), make sure you do not include statements like "And the reason red states receive more is because they harbor the largest population of impoverished citizens." which is patently false.

Let us parse the information a little more. Statements like "Conservative “red” states of the south and west make up eight of the 10 states with the highest dependency on government,..." are false.

In regard to welfare per 100k, five of the 10 highest (NM, IL, RI, OR, PA) are blue states so it is a wash simply by count. In regard to total expenditure, it is 6 blue states (CA, NY, IL, PA, GA, MI) to four red states in the top 10.

Now let us add up the total cost to everyone for the top 10s.

By population:
Blue states = $4.696 million
Red states = $2.850 million

By total expenditure:
Blue states = $12,318 million
Red states = $8.341 million

In each case, the total is higher for blue states.

Also throw in the fact that these models base the definition of dependency on a state's taxes out vs. taxes in. In every instance, low-population states and states without a high GDP will be disproportionately represented....BY POPULATION.

For grins, here is a map of welfare recipients by county (darker reds being the most recipients) from 2013 (the most recent I could find on short notice but I would expect a current one to be relatively consistent).

welfare by county map.jpg


The map all by itself belies the false narrative.

So again, who is getting more?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,075
17,912
1,743
#55
The 2014 ag bill was pushed more by the GOP. But wouldn't have passed without Democratic votes.
On January 29, 2014, the House voted 251-166 to pass the bill.[2] In the House, a majority of Republicans voted in favor of the bill (163-62) and the Democrats split almost evenly (89-103).
Democrats wanted a bigger spending bill, it wasn't because Democrats wanted to scale back spending.

Don't act like somehow the Democrats were somehow against passing a farm bill, they weren't, they just wanted it bigger. That's what they were voting against.
 
Last edited:
Feb 7, 2007
1,415
208
1,693
Denver
#56
Democrats wanted a bigger spending bill, it wasn't because Democrats wanted to scale back spending.

Don't act like somehow the Democrats were somehow against passing a farm bill, they weren't, they just wanted it bigger. That's what they were voting against.
A new one was passed in 2018 when GOP carried the House, Senate, and POTUS. Did that radically reduce spending. Oh yeah that's what I thought.

Also I pointed out it was passed by GOP because the guy was complaining about the spending from it. So I have no doubt democrats could have wanted more. But acting like that spending is the democrats fault from 2014 is a false narrative.
 
Jul 23, 2018
34
20
58
105
USA
#57
A new one was passed in 2018 when GOP carried the House, Senate, and POTUS. Did that radically reduce spending. Oh yeah that's what I thought.

Also I pointed out it was passed by GOP because the guy was complaining about the spending from it. So I have no doubt democrats could have wanted more. But acting like that spending is the democrats fault from 2014 is a false narrative.
Democrats wanting more spending is a false narrative? lol
There are some big spending Republicans, but there are no fiscally conservative Democrats.
I've worked in the federal government for more than 20 years, and I've seen what goes on in agency after agency. The government apparatus feeds on its own momentum, and success is defined by how much money goes out the door. The Democrat party will either self destruct, or it will destroy this country from within.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,415
208
1,693
Denver
#58
Democrats wanting more spending is a false narrative? lol
There are some big spending Republicans, but there are no fiscally conservative Democrats.
I've worked in the federal government for more than 20 years, and I've seen what goes on in agency after agency. The government apparatus feeds on its own momentum, and success is defined by how much money goes out the door. The Democrat party will either self destruct, or it will destroy this country from within.
No, the false narrative is that the democrats are responsible for the current spending. When it was GOP congress that passed it both times. If the GOP didn't want to pass the current bill they could have blocked or altered it...period. Both parties suck at spending. On that we can agree. I feel like GOP wants to go into debt to make the rich richer. I.E. a dangerous pyramid scheme. The Democrats want to go into debt to make poor peoples life easier. I.E. an impossible task.

Both suck, so we really need to never have one party in control for too long.

Let me know which party has given up on democratic elections and gone all in behind a loser. That may be a good barometer to see which party is on a path to self destruct.
 
Jul 23, 2018
34
20
58
105
USA
#59
No, the false narrative is that the democrats are responsible for the current spending. When it was GOP congress that passed it both times. If the GOP didn't want to pass the current bill they could have blocked or altered it...period. Both parties suck at spending. On that we can agree. I feel like GOP wants to go into debt to make the rich richer. I.E. a dangerous pyramid scheme. The Democrats want to go into debt to make poor peoples life easier. I.E. an impossible task.

Both suck, so we really need to never have one party in control for too long.

Let me know which party has given up on democratic elections and gone all in behind a loser. That may be a good barometer to see which party is on a path to self destruct.
I left the Republican party, because they do not follow principles of limited government, among other things, and most of them cannot articulate a conservative message that resonates with voters. I voted for Trump in the general but not the primary, and I will always vote for the most conservative viable candidate. People, parties, institutions, and governments will always let you down, but principles will not.
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,093
14,816
1,743
#60
I left the Republican party, because they do not follow principles of limited government, among other things, and most of them cannot articulate a conservative message that resonates with voters. I voted for Trump in the general but not the primary, and I will always vote for the most conservative viable candidate. People, parties, institutions, and governments will always let you down, but principles will not.
I have always said I'm torn between voting for a party who brags about wanting bigger government or one who says they want smaller government but is lying. That is until Trump, he never really even pretended to be a smaller government guy.