OK conservatives. Crank up the spin machine!

[Ken King]

Yes, DC is an outlier and shouldn't be used. You are correct.

It was referenced in the original link provided and showed that they receive more than $6 for every tax dollar taken in. Not to mention that it shoots the theory opined all to hell. Anyone notice on the red/blue map that Maryland was omitted? I guess no one wants to claim us even if they did color the state blue.

 

[MGKrebs]

Well, this was never going to be a fight to the death. It is just a thrust and parry in a much larger battle.

Would it change anybody's mind if I said that the first link provided by fromTexas was for military construction spending only? Is that supposed to be significant?

Would it matter if I pointed out that in the second link, the story seems to be about how Oklahoma's receipt of federal dollars is largely due to the military installations there, but that in paragraph 10 we discover this "While military spending accounted for a large chunk, it was the financing of retirement and disability benefits that added up to the most spending in Oklahoma. " ?

Would it matter if I mentioned that the third link is just 50 pages, one for each state, of fiscal statistics? While I thank you for the link- it's a lot of good information- unless there is a summary or analysis that I missed, we'll either have to do it ourselves or move on.

No, I don't think it would matter. We're just talking. Folks a lot smarter than me can't agree on these things, so I have little hope that we would come to a consensus by fishing for statistics that support one point or another. However, I would like to think that we could have a discussion based on philosophy and beliefs and opinions. We all have those! I was just using the map as a point of departure for an idea. The idea that conservatives are more selfish than liberals is just an opinion. I happen to think it is self evident. Virtually all conservative behavior exposes this. Tax cuts, privatize everything, affirmative action, my guns, my money, and my God. No concern for anybody else getting a decent education or having a retirement insurance policy or getting shot or having to pay a heftier burden or having to sneak around to worship their God or even get married. Oh, I know there are different rationalizations for each of these positions, but they are just rationalizations. if you don't believe that, I say you are being manipulated. If conservatives really believed that lower taxes were the goal, they would just set a limit. 11% of GDP or something. Tell the liberals where you want the ideal to be, and we'll see if we can help. But tell the truth! How about propery taxes? Sales taxes? What services will have to be cut?

But the true agenda is just to get rid of welfare and social security and public education, because conservatives believe that they will not be the one's to feel the cuts, it is somebody else who is draining the coffers. It's OK to keep spending more and more in Oklahoma on military installations even if retirees in New York (especially New York!) have to go without. We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries COMBINED. And you want to defend that as OK, but social security- meager living expenses- to your parents and grandparents is a waste?

And for conservatives, No Child Left Behind was never about improving schools or helping underserved kids. It was about creating defacto private schools for the kids of more affluent families, those who can arrange to send their kids across town to the school where all the other priveleged kids go. But the parents who have to take a bus to get to work, or be there at 7AM, can't take advantage of that other school. And just to add reinforcement to the point, NCLB wasn't fully funded, and what was left out? Transportation, and before and after child care.

So if you don't think conservatives are more greedy that liberals, tell us why. I agree that teaching a person to fish is better than just giving away fish, but if you really want to teach fishing, you're going to need a pole and some water, and probably some bait to. And maybe even a hat.

 

[MGKrebs]

I have a totally different idea of what is good for the country.

No, I say you can not accuse the states of not cutting it on their own. In fact, I actually said, but if YOU want to talk welfare (you know, as in change in topic). I show you why. I show you that as far as welfare spending, of interest to the individuals receiving it in their state and not a product that everyone enjoys nationally (therefore, only to those in the states), that the BLUE states are the ones who eat that stuff up far more per capita than the red. If it was just welfare spending considered, the red states are SELF-SUFFICIENT. As far as maintaining programs that everyone in the nation uses, the red states are not self-sufficient... which they shouldn't be. Unless you think places like Alabama should be paying the blue states share of national defense.

Anything that is not an entitlement (something given to individuals in those states and not shared as a national benefit for all), would be a national benefit (military, space technology, agriculture, etc...).

I mean, for crying out loud, Social Security Insurance was created because seniors weren't always able to care for themselves when they got to the sunset years. I think paying a little for adequate health care up front saves a BUNDLE in catastrophic costs later. I think a decent education for ALL kids helps the whole community. I don't have any kids, but half of my property taxes go towards schools. If I were a conservative, wouldn't I want the parents who have kids going to the schools to pay for it?

Military spending isn't the only thing that helps the whole community. I am sorry you think so. That to me is a very sad view of how a community works.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Dang. Maybe I am a conservative. And here I was trying to convince ya'll that you were really liberals! Imagine that! Oh well.

I feel like the common ground available to discuss this further has eroded into the abyss, much like the federal surplus! Say, y'all may need to check in on 2nd Amendment. He seems to be wrapped a little tight. Hey 2A, have you got one of those sliding bookshelf things in the basement with all of your guns mounted on the wall behind on red felt fabric? That's always so cool in the movies.

Welcome to the fold.

I am not "wrapped tight". I just find it very hard to fathom how most political liberals are so rabid about their position that the real facts are meaningless to them. There are conservatives that are the same way, but I find that there are fewer conservatives than political liberals of that ilk.

I think most true liberal thinkers as opposed to political liberals are really conservatives. Political liberals are against prayer or religion in any governmental place and liberal thinkers/conservatives are OK with it as long as it is voluntary. Political liberals want to abolish all citizen ownership of guns; liberal thinkers/conservatives think guns are OK in light of the 2nd Amendment and have one or don't as to your own desires. Political liberals want the feds to provide all kinds of services to everyone; liberal thinkers/conservatives think people may need help but it is best handled at the state or local level and that it should be limited wanting to give a hand up not a handout. You get the idea. Of course there are cross overs, but I think this is probably true in the general case. There is a vast gap between liberal thinkers and political liberals. They are certainly not the same.

No, I do not have a "Burt wall"; too unsafe. If I had a secure vault room, then I probably would have a "Burt wall", and I would want to increase my collection.

 

[2ndAmendment]

MGKrebs,
In light of your last two post, I think "welcome to the fold" was premature.

You must be a cross between a political liberal and a liberal thinker or at least I hope so. If you are, then there is hope that an exchange of ideas may take place.

I keep getting back to what is allowed under the terms of the Constitution. Quite frankly none of the entitlement programs are but the common defense is. Now if the general populace wants to allow benevolence by the federal government, then by all means, propose and attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to allow the collection and expenditure of funds for those purposes. Likewise, there is no place that allows funds to be collected or expended for education, the arts, or many of the other programs political and fiscal liberals are so fond of. Again, if you want these things, propose an amendment. On the other hand, the air force and NASA are not authorized either.

Many of these things are rights and powers reserved to the states or to the people under the Constitution. The feds are usurping those powers violating the very constituting document of the republic. Not only are they reserved to the states or the people, they are probably best handled at those levels since there would be less waste, potential for fraud, and overhead.

If the federal government does not operate within the bounds of its own bounding and founding document, then the people that propose and pass these laws, programs, and regulations that are outside the purview of the federal government should not be surprise that people that read and understand the Constitution don't like them.

 

[MGKrebs]

Welcome to the fold.

I am not "wrapped tight". I just find it very hard to fathom how most political liberals are so rabid about their position that the real facts are meaningless to them. There are conservatives that are the same way, but I find that there are fewer conservatives than political liberals of that ilk.

I think most true liberal thinkers as opposed to political liberals are really conservatives. Political liberals are against prayer or religion in any governmental place and liberal thinkers/conservatives are OK with it as long as it is voluntary. Political liberals want to abolish all citizen ownership of guns; liberal thinkers/conservatives think guns are OK in light of the 2nd Amendment and have one or don't as to your own desires. Political liberals want the feds to provide all kinds of services to everyone; liberal thinkers/conservatives think people may need help but it is best handled at the state or local level and that it should be limited wanting to give a hand up not a handout. You get the idea. Of course there are cross overs, but I think this is probably true in the general case. There is a vast gap between liberal thinkers and political liberals. They are certainly not the same.

No, I do not have a "Burt wall"; too unsafe. If I had a secure vault room, then I probably would have a "Burt wall", and I would want to increase my collection.

Thank you for making the distinction. Too often people of one group can see the distinctions within their own group, but lump other groups all together.

Nevertheless, we have to generalize a little bit in order to have a conversation that is not overwhelmed with definitions and caveats and exceptions. But I know where you're comin' from brother. I have almost identical feelings about conservatives!

 

[UrbanPancake]

Are you really prepared to discuss, other than the links you provided, because I can lay it out for you quite easily Muppet...

Let me know when you are prepared. I leave the open invite to Larry and Ken as well; I am sure they can chime in.

Denial. I know its hard for you to see the truth about your money hungry conservative brothers and sisters.