Hypocrisy

G

Greymage

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
406
Location
Austin, TX
I actually don't have a problem with conservatives or faith. I have nothing but respect for those who live their faith, as opposed to just preaching it, and for those conservatives who practice what they preach.

I do have an issue with those who preach one thing, and practice another. Look at this article, for example.

If you look at the distribution of taxes, it turns out that the low-population states, filled with conservative Republicans all in favor of states rights and less government, are the ones taking money from others.

Just think about it - where do agricultural subsidies, which benefit mostly corporate farms and do lots of damage to the economy of poor countries, tend to end up? The heartland states.
 
Silviron

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
So, Just because I live in a state in which the Federal Government spends a lot of money, I'm a hypocrite huh?

Please remind me: who was it that was complaining about people generalizing just 12 hours ago?

Just so you know, the bulk of the Federal money spent in my state is Defense and Energy related.

One of our biggest recipients of farm subsidies is that great food producer, and arch-conservative Sam Donaldson. Another big recipient (although he receives it through a proxy) is that Leading Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Ted Turner.

And since those people don't actually live here, they take the money and spend it in the "blue states".
 
C

Charles Bradshaw

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
2,495
Location
Mansfield, OH
Any Lavendar States? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Intersting Rant article. Silviron, did you see the blurb at the end of the article??
 
G

Greymage

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
406
Location
Austin, TX
[ QUOTE ]
Please remind me: who was it that was complaining about people generalizing just 12 hours ago?


[/ QUOTE ] The difference is, I know I'm trolling /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Greta

Greta

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
16,007
Location
Arizona
I'll admit to not reading through all of that drivel... my eyes glazed over at around the third or fourth sentence... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/huh.gif

Greymage... c'mon... you're smarter than this, I know you are. But if you want to go with this, then here's the same type scenario that I have some major issues with and I wonder what you propose to do about this?

.... the taxpayers who receive the most in refunds and credits are the ones who pay in the least if any at all... the under $22K crowd. In the form of government subsidies and tax credits and refunds and "welfare", they get the bulk of the money that people like me pay in taxes. Well if we apply the same principles of your article above to this scenario, then this scenario is unfairly balanced as well. Those who have the most, pay the most with the least return. And those who have the least, pay the least with a return in excess of what they paid. It's the Liberal American way... gotta love it... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif
 
Silviron

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
Which blurb? the one about "Not all red staters..." If so, I wasn't addressing the article, I was addessing the post in that specific.

I wish I could figure out how that chart was put together.... Assuming he (the author) didn't just make all the numbers up, it just doesn't compute on a dollar for dollar basis.

The "contributors" only "contribute" about 1/3 of what the greedy welfare recipient states spend. It might work out on $ per capita or as a percentage of apportioned income taxes or something, but I'm too tired to do the research or the math.
 
G

Greymage

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
406
Location
Austin, TX
[ QUOTE ]
the taxpayers who receive the most in refunds and credits are the ones who pay in the least if any at all... the under $22K crowd.

[/ QUOTE ] But liberals receiving government assistance is not hypocrisy, liberals believe in redistribution of wealth /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Also, this calculation is on a per-capita basis, which is debatable... Should military expenditures be split out on a per-capita basis, or should rich people pay more? Arguably the latter, since they have more to lose.

And... retired people living primarily on Social Security pay few taxes, so that skews the numbers.

There's another item for the conservative hypocrisy column (I'm not saying liberals aren't, I just prefer to pick on conservatives /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif) Most of the budget is "entitlement" programs... Not many legislators have the guts to trim these down. Conservatives, especially, should try harder to do away with Social Security... it's basically welfare, most people get out a lot more than they ever paid in.
 
Greta

Greta

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
16,007
Location
Arizona
[ QUOTE ]
Greymage said:
The difference is, I know I'm trolling /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You're last post proves this... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon8.gif

I would suggest that you quit while I'm still in somewhat of a liberal tolerant mood this morning. I would also suggest that you read CPF's Posting Policies... paying particular attention to #4. Enough, Greymage... blatant (admitted) trolling and baiting won't be tolerated.
 
G

Greymage

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
406
Location
Austin, TX
[ QUOTE ]
The "contributors" only "contribute" about 1/3 of what the greedy welfare recipient states spend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't look at the numbers... but, maybe the words "budget deficit" ring a bell?
 
Silviron

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
Hmm. Now that I know that you are just trying to irritate people, rather than actually believing this stuff yourself, I'll try to not be irritated in the future.

Heck, I've agreed with a few of the specifics you have mentioned here and on other threads, just not the "tone" in which they were presented or the assignment of blame.

And on that note I'm going to bed.
 
S

stockwiz

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
412
Location
Brookings, SD
You act like you actually think republicans are fiscal conservatives. During the last 20 years, republicans have outspent democrats by a considerable margin, much of this spending has been on their (in my opinion) pointless military conquests in the middle east and elsewhere. I have yet to see real factual evidence to suggest we have more freedom or security from our often hypocritical meddling in foreign affairs. We put saddam and bin laden there ourselves in the 80's, and 20 years later we waste billions more to remove them. What was accomplished? Seems to me we are the reason for middle east instability.. and for what reason? Well that is becoming more obvious by the day as “anti Semitism” continues to rise globally and the lies and misinformation of the “neoconservatives” within our government becomes more known.

Even at the state level, our former governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin was loved and praised despite his massive spending he was able to get away with because the economy was growing. Now doyle, despite his screaming liberal bias on many issues (such as vetoing a bill to require a photo ID when voting... shows you where he gets his votes from), is managing to keep our fiscal situation in check pretty well all things considering.

At the same time, the democrats have no interest in fiscal conservatism either. They'll spend money on one entitlement program after another, encouraging the lazy to stay lazy and not get jobs, while undermining the hard qualified workers in favor of the less qualified minority worker. They'll continue to give the power to the trial lawyers who sue companies into leaving this country. Bill Clinton’s spending, although not as extreme as Reagan’s and Bush’s, was excessive and he should have been using the boom of the 90’s to more aggressively pay down debt. Much of his spending was masked by him removing money from the Social Security Trust Fund as well… we remained in a deficit for every year except 2000, which we broke even. Both parties estimates on paying down the deficit were based on completely unsustainable economic growth levels showing how little they know about economics or how stupid they think we are, one of the two.

Neither party has any interest in reducing spending, rather they collude to make sure any third party doesn’t mess up their fun (campaign finance reform) Sure they bicker back and forth about petty issues, but in the end this bickering is meaningless. In the end, I don’t believe the politicians have any clue as to how the federal reserve operates, and how debt effects economic growth in the long run. They are good storytellers and spinmeisters, but that’s about it, and only think short term. This is part of the reason we are in such a dire situation now… see the chart in my signature. Our debt to GDP ratio is at historic levels, and only hyperinflation or a depression will help us now. Reckless government begets reckless individuals and corporations leveraging themselves beyond help.
 
G

Greymage

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
406
Location
Austin, TX
Sorry, I wasn't trying to irritate people, just encourage debate. Although, I guess that's one definition of trolling /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
S

stockwiz

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
412
Location
Brookings, SD
The truth hurts. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Although I do disagree with the conclusions this particular article comes to, it's clear to me that republicans are far from fiscal conservatives even though that's why so many people vote for them. There is no party for the fiscal conservative right now, outside of perhaps the libertarian or constitution parties.
 
Top