Forum Post: Rs are not just hypocrites, they are socialist redistributors of wealth
Posted 10 years ago on June 11, 2013, 11:25 a.m. EST by bensdad
(8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars. This graphic has been circulating on the Internet.
Many GOP-leaning states get more in federal funding than they contribute in federal taxes.
That's the point made by a graphic that’s circulating on the Internet, titled "Red State Socialism." The chart suggests that Republicans are hypocritical for bashing the federal government and federal spending, when Republican-leaning states are reaping the lion’s share of federal dollars.
The graphic emphasizes this point by showing two tables side by side. States that send more money to the federal government than they receive in federal spending are on the left, and they are primarily blue (or Democratic) states. The table on the right shows states that receive more in federal spending than they contribute in taxes. This table is predominantly red (or Republican).
The graphic says: "Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC." The source cited is a report by the Tax Foundation, a business-backed group. We checked with the Tax Foundation to see whether the data was legitimate and confirmed that it is.
At lease you agree that Socialism is a bad thing.
What alternatives do you suggest bensdad?
a Social Reserve Bank
or no government ran/funded bank at all. more for the sake of more isnt good and less/or none for the sake of less/or none isnt good.
There should be just as much government as there needs to be. Hopefully when people are ready for No government, there will be No government. Until then though, Good government should come before more or less government.
? .... hmm HC ...
no government is John Lennon's "Imagine" ... I wish for that too ....
however... until everyone treats each other as family, in equality .... a government (of the people) of some sort has purpose....
If we let private business control banking w/o any government (of the people) control ... we will get exactly what we have just seen with the crash.... and worse ...
In older days ... it was important for the Banks..... that the local economy did well ....
today that is no longer the case.... a deposit or loan can be made on the other side of the world as fast as it can be made next door....
so Banks no longer have social or community concerns of any kind ... and are now simply driven by bottom line monetary profits....
that is the problem.... and that is what leads to designs of Socialism type structures ... (forced sharing of monetary wealth) ....
which then in turn taxes the progress of the lending institution.....
So the immediate answer is truly simple .....
and one based on geographical social & economic impact profits ... (ie the gain or loss in the standard of over-all living of the community at large) ....
the monetary profit system to be supplied by the Fed ... as is....
and the social profit system to be supplied by a new Social Reserve Bank ....
when the Federal Reserve Bank gets a buck .... the Social Reserve Bank gets a buck....
taxes go away (no need for them anymore) .... new jobs are created and funded thru the Social Bank .... and a temporary stepping stone to Imagine has been placed....
I suggest that only fools tell me what I believe
I do not suggest it, but I do raise the following question -
"Would the UNION be better off if the confederate traitors won the civil war?"
[Removed]