Tax cuts that make it harder for the poor? Please explain
Socialist countries don’t have income inequality..... lol
https://www.businessinsider.com/why...e-of-the-highest-inequality-in-europe-2014-10
OT GAGGING at the big cities and the filth
- Thread starter PalmettoTiger1
- Start date
Tax cuts that make it harder for the poor? Please explain
Socialist countries don’t have income inequality..... lol
https://www.businessinsider.com/why...e-of-the-highest-inequality-in-europe-2014-10
Veterans are being “forgotten?” Really? I’m a vet and I don’t feel forgotten. Post 9/11 GI Bill, expansion of VA benefits to include acknowledgment of PTSD as a disability, corporations that have veteran outreach hiring programs, overall general respect for vets. USERA laws to protect guardsmen and reservists who continue to serve. Vets are not forgotten, they’re honored.
Conservation initiatives? I’ll buy that. I do believe the overwhelming majority of citizens are good stewards of the environment, but there are some sectors of society that obviously don’t give a s—t. Conservation in most cases requires some work and commitment, and for some therein is the problem.
As for socialism v capitalism I’m amazed at how many puss—s we have of late. Folks afraid to stand up to the future and bet on themselves, they’d rather accept “less” than try for “more.”
Have you tried talking to her about visiting Marion, SC? It's beautiful this time of year!
Funny, a lot of people I know in Cali feel the same way. They are tired of their taxes subsidizing you poors in the south. F’n southern state socialists.
Man I really need some of whatever it is you are smoking trying to blame all of this on capitalism. Go back and look who has been running all these large major metropolitan cities for the last 40 or 50 years. Running them in the ground. I’ll hang up and listen.
Sounds like OP and spouse have attended one too many Trump rallies
At least us poor ole southern boys know better than to shit in our own streets. We got sense enough to go off in the woods and bury it.
Lot of fail in this post. Plenty of great things to experience in western cities and the homelessness is rarely a problem in good areas.
And why would you travel all the way across the country only to stay in a motel?
Take the Democrat voters out of SC and I bet we wouldn’t need subsidizing...
what? is that really what you think california is like? shit in the streets?
The worst areas are Chicago, Jersey, Baltimore and California. Liberals have been in charge 40 years there and they’re only getting worse.
California, New York, Connecticut and Louisiana have the highest levels of income inequality in the USA. I guess they practice the tenets of free market capitalism more than the rest of the country
They should probably look to Alaska, Wyoming and Utah (coming in at 50, 49, 48) and copy their Socialist policies
They should probably look to Alaska, Wyoming and Utah (coming in at 50, 49, 48) and copy their Socialist policies
I could take people on a tour of a huge swath of post industrial (Textile) wasteland - - In Greenville. I know about it because I grew up here when it was a solid working class area. Things evolve.
It’s amazing we actually have people that support the shit show that is the left. Scary actually.
It’s not complicated. Democrats are far more likely to take government assistance, which drives the need for subsidization. Do you disagree?
Here’s a quote:
“From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though Red states earn less than Blue states.”
And this:
“we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.”
LOL, i clicked on your link and it said "this blog has been removed". 63% of earners who make less than $50K per year vote democrat. So yes I disagree with your "far more likely" statement. I would not say that is huge advantage, so if you removed all the democrats who are poor you would still be left with a lot of poor republicans. Plus, there are all of the poor people who dont vote at all so dont qualify as either one or the other.
Plus, every trailer park I drive by in SC, GA or TN has Trump signs everywhere. So there is that too.
Here’s a NPR poll that shows “low income” voters are more than twice as likely to be democrats (34% vs 16%). This is the group that requires government assistance.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...ivides-democrats-republicans-and-independents
Maybe those honkeys in the trailer park are self-sufficient and just love ‘Murcia. And why are you driving by so many trailer parks?
Or maybe they vote Democrat because they need assistance(whether legit need or due to laziness...both are reality).
Either way. The point is it’s generally Democrats that result in states like SC needing welfare/food stamp/Medicaid subsidies. Republicans are generally self-sufficient.
Spent 2 seasons of MiLB in Cali mid 2000’s. So much potential and natural beauty! But, its being destroyed by unchecked leadership/power.
Those numbers, along with everything else you have said here, still do not support your statement that "if you get rid of the democratic voters in SC then we wouldnt need subsidies". You know the data doesnt support your statement so you are using cute phrases like "tend to be" and "generally are" to make your points.
If you eliminate the democrats in SC, you're still left with lots and lots of low income people. Plus, you just got rid of shit ton of one percenters that are democrats.
Nothing you have said here refutes my original point by the way, that CA subsidizes SC. Maybe in this "the leftovers" themed utopia fantasy land of yours where poors didnt exist that might not be case, but in the real world it is.
You’re right, it’s true that CA subsidizes SC. And I’m right, it’s true that those subsidies are largely required due to poor Democrat voters receiving benefits from democrat-supported entitlement programs.
Perhaps entitlement spending might be better used to investigate and correct whatever issues exist in the counties along I-95 that result in it being dubbed the corridor of shame. Maybe then we could permanently fix the problem and SC could reduce its need for subsidization.
But I don’t think the Democrat party is really interested in actually solving problems like that. Reducing government dependence would significantly weaken is voter base.
for two years the republicans had control of presidency, congress and senate. How many entitlements did they cut in that period? Trump campaigned on the promise that he would NOT cut entitlement programs. Why have they taken no action? Could it be that they know many of their own voters need these programs?
