Happiness !

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV


OK !

So of the Federal expenditures in, say, West Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Alabama, . . . on what does forkushV believe the excessive Federal dollars are spent and what would forkushV suggest be cut first?
Who, exactly, in those fiendish "Taker States" ends up with all that filthy excessive Federal money?
they say ignorance is bliss...but maybe hypocrisy is an attribute of happiness too. Imagine if all those "happy" states were forced to abide by the spending principals their elected leaders pretend to believe in.
Wait just a minute...!!!



Could it really be that 'Happiness is a Warm Gun'?
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV


OK !

So of the Federal expenditures in, say, West Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Alabama, . . . on what does forkushV believe the excessive Federal dollars are spent and what would forkushV suggest be cut first?...
None! I think that Mississippi should wean itself from the federal teat by doing a better job running the place. They are last in just about everything, such as education, health, median income, and transportation, and they don't want to do anything about it because...(you'll never guess)...it would help those people. And Alabama is pretty much second to last for the exact same reason.

West Virginia is a tougher case. In order to improve that place you'd have to get rid of most of the West Virginians. And who would be willing to take them?

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
. . . I think that Mississippi should wean itself from the federal teat by doing a better job running the place. They are last in just about everything, such as education, health, median income, and transportation, and they don't want to do anything about it because...(you'll never guess)...it would help those people. And Alabama is pretty much second to last for the exact same reason.

West Virginia is a tougher case. In order to improve that place you'd have to get rid of most of the West Virginians. And who would be willing to take them?
Hmm, . . . well lookie here:


It turns out that the States receiving more Personal Government Benefits [Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Income Assistance, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, Veterans Benefits, Education Assistance, Payments to Native Populations, etc.] correlate pretty well inversely with State Median Household Income. Mississippi is lowest in household income; Alabama is not second, but sixth; and West Virginia is second lowest.

So, . . . forkushV is pretty close in his assessment, . . . although he does seem to have something personal against West Virginians.

In any case, forkushV and DonDiego agree. It would be better if poorer States did not mooch off wealthier States. And that would be very, very easy to fix.
In fact it is just the ways things used to be, . . . back when poor old DonDiego was Little DonDiego, . . . back when the individual States each provided welfare to its own citizens, . . . before Medicaid and Federal Income Assistance, and Federal SNAP, and lots of big federal programs existed.
The whole idea behind federalizing all those programs was because folks in different States were getting different benefits based on State incomes/Revenues. The whole idea was to have everyone in every State share the responsibility for caring for the poor among us. Apparently forkushV doesn't believe in sharing.
DonDiego would also prefer if this all these Federal programs were abolished and the responsibility for taking care of the poor returned to the State-level, . . . or even the individual-person-level where one could decide one's propensity for charity on one's own.

It is good to see forkushV figuring these things out. The more that power is centralized, in this case that Government redistribution of income is centralized, the less fair it is going to be; the bigger the Government gets, the more expensive it is.

Where forkushV and DonDiego do disagree is on his "solution" to the problems of West Virginia, . . . to "get rid of most of the West Virginians". Or should DonDiego have said the "Final Solution" ?
DonDiego does not approve of getting rid of US citizens.
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
. . . I think that Mississippi should wean itself from the federal teat by doing a better job running the place. They are last in just about everything, such as education, health, median income, and transportation, and they don't want to do anything about it because...(you'll never guess)...it would help those people. And Alabama is pretty much second to last for the exact same reason.

West Virginia is a tougher case. In order to improve that place you'd have to get rid of most of the West Virginians. And who would be willing to take them?
Hmm, . . . well lookie here:


It turns out that the States receiving more Personal Government Benefits [Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Income Assistance, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, Veterans Benefits, Education Assistance, Payments to Native Populations, etc.] correlate pretty well inversely with State Median Household Income. Mississippi is lowest in household income; Alabama is not second, but sixth; and West Virginia is second lowest.

So, . . . forkushV is pretty close in his assessment, . . . although he does seem to have something personal against West Virginians.

In any case, forkushV and DonDiego agree. It would be better if poorer States did not mooch off wealthier States. And that would be very, very easy to fix.
In fact it is just the ways things used to be, . . . back when poor old DonDiego was Little DonDiego, . . . back when the individual States each provided welfare to its own citizens, . . . before Medicaid and Federal Income Assistance, and Federal SNAP, and lots of big federal programs existed.
The whole idea behind federalizing all those programs was because folks in different States were getting different benefits based on State incomes/Revenues. The whole idea was to have everyone in every State share the responsibility for caring for the poor among us. Apparently forkushV doesn't believe in sharing.
DonDiego would also prefer if this all these Federal programs were abolished and the responsibility for taking care of the poor returned to the State-level, . . . or even the individual-person-level where one could decide one's propensity for charity on one's own.

It is good to see forkushV figuring these things out. The more that power is centralized, in this case that Government redistribution of income is centralized, the less fair it is going to be; the bigger the Government gets, the more expensive it is.

Where forkushV and DonDiego do disagree is on his "solution" to the problems of West Virginia, . . . to "get rid of most of the West Virginians". Or should DonDiego have said the "Final Solution" ?
DonDiego does not approve of getting rid of US citizens.


We're a nation of states and we should all share in the responsibility for caring for the poor. It's just ironic that the conservative states that can't take responsibility for their poor often point at the more prosperous states as liberal and mismanaged. ya get it?
Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
[We're a nation of states and we should all share in the responsibility for caring for the poor. It's just ironic that the conservative states that can't take responsibility for their poor often point at the more prosperous states as liberal and mismanaged. ya get it?
Umm, . . . yes, poor old DonDiego gets it, . . . although he's not sure it's ironic.

Each State has gotta work with whatever it's got. Some States will never be wealthy. Better management won't change that; better management won't raise the household income of Mississippi from $37,000 to $57,000, that of California. DonDiego opines one of the greatest advantages of living in a federation of States is that one is not prohibited from choosing to move from one to another. The more things are federalized, the less choice is available for individuals.

If "we should all share in the responsibility for caring for the poor", then the poorer States receiving a larger share of the alms is an inevitable result. If one favors federalization of charity, one should not complain about the inevitable result.
forkushV complained; DonDiego offered a solution, . . . based upon historical precedent. He hasn't seen another solution proposed.
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
[We're a nation of states and we should all share in the responsibility for caring for the poor. It's just ironic that the conservative states that can't take responsibility for their poor often point at the more prosperous states as liberal and mismanaged. ya get it?
Umm, . . . yes, poor old DonDiego gets it, . . . although he's not sure it's ironic.

Each State has gotta work with whatever it's got. Some States will never be wealthy. Better management won't change that; better management won't raise the household income of Mississippi from $37,000 to $57,000, that of California. DonDiego opines one of the greatest advantages of living in a federation of States is that one is not prohibited from choosing to move from one to another. The more things are federalized, the less choice is available for individuals.

If "we should all share in the responsibility for caring for the poor", then the poorer States receiving a larger share of the alms is an inevitable result. If one favors federalization of charity, one should not complain about the inevitable result.
forkushV complained; DonDiego offered a solution, . . . based upon historical precedent. He hasn't seen another solution proposed.


Better education will surely have a positive effect on the household income. Maybe it's just my bias but I see these poor states worrying more about gay marriage and creationism than about the schooling of their citizens.
Isn't Disney World the happiest place on earth?
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now