Chef Jim Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Ya right, the heroine epidemic is happening in Conservative areas. What the !@#$ is wrong with you? This kind of rhetoric is troubling for a lot of reasons. Here: This isn't all-encompassing and I don't believe it takes every form of gub'ment handout into consideration, but it's a place to start at least. Pay attention in particular to states #s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Until you can define "Federal Aid" that map is useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 (edited) What the !@#$ is wrong with you? Until you can define "Federal Aid" that map is useless. Their blurb is: 'Such aid takes many forms. It includes federal Medicaid payments, education funding assistance, support for infrastructure projects, housing grants, and more. Federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments have reached $600 billion per year, with Medicaid by far the largest (and most rapidly growing) component. How much states receive in federal aid, and how reliant they are on such assistance, can vary widely.' The specifics can be found here: https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170123145044/FedAidtoStates-011.png They're pretty thorough, from housing to education to agriculture and low-income federal block grants...basically everything in the federal government's purview that can be apportioned to states. You'd be surprised at how much overlap there is between supposedly state-sponsored programs and what the feds can also subsidize. Politicking aside, US government funding is VAST and yet as a % of GDP pretty far below European averages (at least as of 2014 which I believe is the last time they did the research)...Canada is our closest comparison. *Edit: sorry, link for specific info on federal aid categories is actually here: https://www.census.gov/govs/www/class_ch7_ir.html Edited May 12, 2017 by GoBills808 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Does it hurt to be as !@#$ing arrogant as you are? Don't shoot the messenger, broheim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Don't shoot the messenger, broheim. Don't shoot the guy who has an opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Don't shoot the guy who has an opinion? Hey man, once you step back and realize exactly what that idiot is, some things become fairly obvious. Feedback is a gift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Hey man, once you step back and realize exactly what that idiot is, some things become fairly obvious. Feedback is a gift. I take feedback from people I respect. And I really appreciate your advice as to how to best utilize my time here. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 I take feedback from people I respect. And I really appreciate your advice as to how to best utilize my time here. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Well then, by all means, continue to make a fool of yourself in public; and while you're at it "chef" cook up a little bit more of that righteous indignation. It's a great look for you. /golf clap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Well then, by all means, continue to make a fool of yourself in public; and while you're at it "chef" cook up a little bit more of that righteous indignation. It's a great look for you. /golf clap Thank you for your input. Once again I only value the opinions of people I respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Thank you for your input. Once again I only value the opinions of people I respect. No one craves the respect of gatorman's cat toy. I see that's all you have left. Great job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) FAUSTA WERTZ: A week of pearl-clutching. The one thing that is clear from the start of the Trump presidency is that the media insists that it owns the narrative, regardless of the emergence of independent media, or whether, in this instance, people don’t care about a career bureaucrat, who, as Byron York points out (emphasis added),is the FBI director who did not tell the Director of National Intelligence that the FBI had opened a counter-intelligence investigation involving Russia and the 2016 election. The liberal media (I repeat myself) owned the narrative for so long that they took Hillary’s victory as a given. After the American people went against that narrative, the media will do anything to take Trump down, and will clutch ever-larger pearls, to the detriment of actual news. Some of those pearls are the size of ice cream scoops. Read the whole thing. Edited May 13, 2017 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Governor Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 The fake media is being mean to me. No fair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) This kind of rhetoric is troubling for a lot of reasons. Here: This isn't all-encompassing and I don't believe it takes every form of gub'ment handout into consideration, but it's a place to start at least. Pay attention in particular to states #s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Like the "wage gap" myth, the "federal funding" myth is a favorite among liberals (that has already been debunked), but continues to pop up now and then. It's statistical manipulation by taking the broad approach and ignoring the obvious. Why use total "total federal funding" instead of "welfare" or "food stamps"? Also note that it clarifies the cost as a % of the state budget instead of per capita.(and federal infrastructure funding is based on population, not cost of living, which is astronomical in blue states). Why so much statistical manipulation? Now look up the cost of WELFARE per capita for states. The top 10 are all Blue states with the exception of Alaska. Thus proving common sense; that the ones who like entitlements will vote for entitlements. It's not surprising that this information is so difficult to find, yet the federal funding map is spread like a virus. So the people in blue states are getting a lot more welfare money (sometimes 4X more), but the federal government's share of it still feels low. Why? A unintended consequence of higher minimum wages in these blue states, is that it raises costs of living so high, that it disqualifies them from federal aid, while keeping them (relatively) poor; which forces these states to cover a higher % of their population's welfare payments. Edited May 13, 2017 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 The fake media is being mean to me. No fair! Nice debut here. You've got the gator act down to a "t". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 The fake media is being mean to me. No fair! Hahahahahhaha. No one falls for that nonsense deflection. you would do better to actually read the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Nice debut here. You've got the gator act down to a "t". Actually, you guys screaming the referee is throwing the game invites just such a response. You right wingers are in the denial stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) No one craves the respect of gatorman's cat toy. I see that's all you have left. Great job. Oh I have plenty left however craving respect from the likes of you is not part of it. I appreciate your concern just not your opinion. Edited May 13, 2017 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 I guess the media's portrayal of almost anyone/anything is just that: Portrayal - a depiction of someone or something in a particular way. It's fair to say that the various "portrayals" issued by the talking heads have little to do with the actual sequence, specific factual occurrences and direct specific outcomes of events being portrayed. How many interpretations have been attached to an event by the time it gets into the hands of a news deliverer and thus passed to the information consumer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 The GOP talking points from top to bottom are to blame the media. It's the party line. Sheep gonna be sheep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 Like the "wage gap" myth, the "federal funding" myth is a favorite among liberals (that has already been debunked), but continues to pop up now and then. It's statistical manipulation by taking the broad approach and ignoring the obvious. Why use total "total federal funding" instead of "welfare" or "food stamps"? Also note that it clarifies the cost as a % of the state budget instead of per capita.(and federal infrastructure funding is based on population, not cost of living, which is astronomical in blue states). Why so much statistical manipulation? Now look up the cost of WELFARE per capita for states. The top 10 are all Blue states with the exception of Alaska. Thus proving common sense; that the ones who like entitlements will vote for entitlements. It's not surprising that this information is so difficult to find, yet the federal funding map is spread like a virus. So the people in blue states are getting a lot more welfare money (sometimes 4X more), but the federal government's share of it still feels low. Why? A unintended consequence of higher minimum wages in these blue states, is that it raises costs of living so high, that it disqualifies them from federal aid, while keeping them (relatively) poor; which forces these states to cover a higher % of their population's welfare payments. Welfare is included. So are SNAP benefits. It's not statistical manipulation to point out that a higher % of certain states' revenue comes from the federal government, no matter which form it may happen to take. I personally take the broad approach...subsidies are subsidies are subsidies, regardless of whether they come in the form of crop insurance or price floors for commodities or WIC benefits or Medicaid. Welfare is simply one category on that chart, and by no means the largest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts