Red states are welfare queens?

[Toad]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
are recieving less than they are collecting, while N & S dakota and montana recieve more.  

So that example can't possibly have anything to do with population density or farm vs professional income or anything like that?

And that makes it like welfare how?

[capt. apathy]

you're right, it does have to do with type of income.  many of the "welfare" states are farm country, and a lot of that $$ is farm subsidies, and the like.   I'm for them but that is a type of welfare.  a gov't hand-out.  a necessary gov't hand-out, but still a hand-out.

and thats kind of the point (At least one of them),  many of the pro-republican, anti-welfare (or gov't health plan, or any other type of gov't social programs) are very blind to the hand-outs or "welfare" that they take.

[Toad]

I doubt that. It's probably more that there's no way to stop this "welfare state" attitude of "entitlements for all".

The idea that theft of some persons income above a certain level is not "theft" but merely taking something they don't "need" is the problem. IMO, of course.

But comparing the Feds building a highway to giving away money to someone that could work but doesn't is a long reach.

As for ag subsidies..... what happened to that free market thingie? I get so confused when some guys rail against NAFTA and the loss of jobs but then want a "free market".

End the ag subsidies. See what happens. Maybe you guys can get Kerry to stick that in as a plank.

[capt. apathy]

I don't want to end ag subsidies, but then I don't have a problem with gov't health-care, or feeding the poor either.

I just find it very hypocritical for people to get all up in arms about entitlements, but then when when you get right down to it they only have a problem with others entitlements, they're pretty much OK with the entitlements they get.

[Toad]

You view a Federal highway, a durable, long term capital improvement, used by the entire nation's populace as the same sort of entitlement as that given to an individual.

I don't. I doubt very many people do.

[capt. apathy]

I veiw it the same as a national healthcare plan.  not all who pay in are getting out of it equal to what they put in,  but in the end it is in the best interest of the country as a whole.

not much difference there.  but many here would (and have) called a gov't healthcare system welfare,  if it's welfare then I guess a hwy is too.

[lasersailor184]

Lol, first time anyone's really smacked down STRK.  Most of the time he weasels out of it.


Good job Nuke.

[Toad]

Now you're just redefining "welfare queen" to fit your current post.

Again, a national Health Care plan..... IF the Feds could ever come up with one that was actually better...... isn't an individual getting a check to cash, which is what "welfare queen" is all about.

[capt. apathy]

if thats how you define it, then I'll have to agree with you.

 when the argument started I made some assumptions (maybe unfairly).  one was that you'd figure things like gov't provided health-care, and other social services are  considered 'welfare' (many here do classify them as such).

 but if we are only classifying welfare is cash handouts to people who don't even help with their own expenses(let alone contribute to the society as a whole), then you're right.

I was arguing from a broader definition, without even checking to see if we where on the same page.  sorry about that.

[Toad]

I'm not opposed to a National Health Care plan.

Mindful, however of the "first do no harm" aspect of health care, I'd have to see a plan that was not worse than what we have now.

You get "big government" involved and that's going to be tough.

It appears that in Vermont, rates went up sharply under Dean's touted plan. Sounds like "harm" to me.

I don't want to end up with "rationed care", which some of the poorer HMO's are pretty close to right now, IMO. It reminds me of some of the tales I hear from Canadian and English friends.

So, I'm open to it, but it'd have to be better than what we have. Might be a lot easier just to provide basic HMO coverage for those that can't afford it.

[capt. apathy]

Kerry actually had a interesting plan. I've just had it described to me, and haven't had a look at it 'word for word".

but as it was explained to me, the gov't would pick up the bigger ticket items and relieve health insurance companies from that expense.  the idea being to lower the cost of premiums, while not having the gov't get involved in the day to day care (lowering the administrative costs and gov't involvement).

this would be a good thing for guys like me who have health-care but continue having a bigger chunk taken from my wages to keep up with rising premiums.

 however I'm not sure how much good it'll do for those who can't afford any insurance at all.  it'll be cheaper to buy your own but maybe not enough (I guess it'd be better than what we have now).  it will also make it more affordable for companies to provide health-care, but thats no guarantee they will.

[Thrawn]

What difference does it make if the "welfare" public treasure is delivered in in the form of cash, a cheque, roads or health services.  It's all the same resource being expended, wealth confiscated from taxpayers.

[Toad]

Well, according to Strk, there's some level, some line you can draw on a person's income. Above that line, all the money is "not needed" so the state should apparently feel free to confiscate it and spend it. Apparently, that's not confiscation though. It's "fair" or something.

[Thrawn]

Heheh, at least Americans talk about having a flat tax.  Up here we take screwing over our most productive people as a matter of course.

[strk]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Lol, first time anyone's really smacked down STRK.  Most of the time he weasels out of it.


Good job Nuke.

snork!