Red States Are Welfare Queens

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I was thinking that too as soon as I saw the post count and Obama avatar

Though I was thinking more of a troll and less covert agent

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Just out of curiousity...I take it then you feel union worker's are also entitled to their pensions, benefits, and welfare as well, right?

This is obviously some kind of baited trap as I see it. If I agree that Union members (of private corperations and entities) should certainly receive the benefits for which they contracted at the begging of the employer/employee relationship. Then somehow I am labeled a union supporter. However, if I say they are not then I am a hypocrite? Did I get that right. However, there is a third one the unethical public unions.

I will explain some of the differences in how my benefits are derived and who those of a public or private union are… I was Soldier and later an Officer, not much difference really in the Special Operations branch excepting pay and the level of a mistake from which one can recover a career.

As a Soldier and non union employee I worked under a contract for a certain period of time. As an officer the term was and still is “forever” I am even subject to recall until age 65 even if my status is “retired”.

Promises were made by both sides, grade upon entry, any training to be received , where I’d be stationed for how long etc., regular raises came from congress based on the CPI, and we get free medical care for ourselves and families enlisted get a uniform allowance. Officers do not get uniforms allowance.

I can compete for promotion but merit rather than seniority means everythingunlike a union - excelence is rewwarded not punished. I was promised that if I served 20 years I could retire and receive 50% of the average of the last 36 months pay checks for the rest of my life. I would also get another 2.5% for each year over 20 up to a maximum of 75% at 30 years.

Some of the portions of my contract have just been changed over the years with a vote from congress or a decision from a General. While enlisted – the only option was to finish my time and leave the service with nothing - unsatisfied. As an officer I could resign but 90/10 it’d would be denied – especially in SF.

Changing a contract in the middle without the both parties having a say at the table as a breach of contract IMO but since we have no union (for good reason) - the cheeky military lawyers have it written the rules so they can change about anything they want but that you having taken the oath can only either obey or be punished under the UCMJ.

As an 18 year old kid of two parents who never graduated high school this seemed an ideal profession for me - a Soldier.

I always wanted to be a Soldier anyway – heck they were going to pay me like (Back in 1984 about 12k to skydive, shoot guns, scuba and see the world – who could say no to that. At 12-18k I’d be making more than my parents combined. I even got a 5K bonus for going to Ranger Battalion straight away. I was in heaven.

I learned skills, practical ones, and even the philosophical ones on how to lead men in combat. I was good at it. I then tried out for Special Forces - made that too; even better – less supervision , the more wars and training and the more y mpay.

I made SFC fairly quickly and aside from ruining 3 marriages (each one my fault without a doubt) I guess all was well. I fraught in along the way some known, some unknown contries - all shooting wars.

I did everything asked of me and more volunteering for every mission I could (mostly to make TDY money to keep up with the alimony). I took night classes and eventually applied for ROTC. I did well there too – buut to be honest competeing wit 20 year old kids with zero combat experience for class rank was a joke.

Anyway, I broke my neck on a HALO jump, spent a while in recovery. I have high blood pressure, sleep apnea, several herniated disks in both the t and l spine, myofacial pain issues and check out the best one a diagnosis of Gulf War Syndrome. I had several surgeries, one for bilateral faciotomies for exertional compartment syndrome, fusion of C5/6/7 which also ended with a removal of part of my thyroid and pituitary glands. Then there are the several shrapnel souvenirs that work thier way to the oooutside of my calf muscle – some are metal most are just concrete and rock – hard to remove and track. So lots of infections come and go My neck has enough hardware to set off a metal detector at the airport. Always a treat to be debased by the TSA for a war wound.

(continued sorry too long)

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Just out of curiousity...I take it then you feel union worker's are also entitled to their pensions, benefits, and welfare as well, right?

Originally posted by Golf66
Continued sorry too long)

Anyway – See in a union they pay dues, I don’t I also don’t really get to negotiate with my employer – it’s his way of the high way and then only if they will not make some stop loss BS that makes me a slave for life. I can’t organize or strike, it’s a violation of the UCMJ. I can vote for sure but I have to kind of keep my opinions to myself or risk jail or losing my job. I am surprisingly cool with this because my real employers are the people. All our pay and benefits are available for the public to review. In the interferes of fairness there are some lobby organizations who lobby for more pay and better benefits, less deployments for Soldier’s etc.

I never once joined one (Trust me I got beat up verbally and once physically for not supporting the troops.) because I think to lobby is wrong even if it’s for my benefit. We don’t have a portion of our pay sent to a union boss who “represents” us from his lush offices all the while taking our money and lining the pockets of the politicians who do their bidding. Lobbyists are the scum of the earth.

Now as for private unions who work for a private corporation – hell, a contract is signed both sides have their representatives sit down and either side can just stop working until the other sees the light – if they ever do. A contract is a contract – I think it should be honored. The employees do the work as well as they can and they employer takes the principal and invests it in a low/medium risk ventures so that there will be enough money to pay the obligations when they come due. They shelter and protect the money for their employees. This is hypothetical of course - a good many companies squander or make risky ventured with the pensions, leaving little when needed.

Another main difference is that the union members pay dues and their masters decide which candidates to back based on the desires of their own bosses – which are not always best for America or even the employees of the company.

Now for a union that represents public employees using the same tactics above are the worst of the worst – because they can in effect use their dues to make contributions to the candidate who optimizes their desires the best - to give them the biggest benefit packages, highest pay and most liberal work environment.

So the taxpayers, who pay these union people’s salary – which in turn send their dues (sometimes high) directly to the horse (candidate) they bet on in the race so they can get bigger and better raises and benefits. The problem is their pensions are not protected or even invested in some cases they are just part of the public troth. They have the ability to make sometimes more in retirement even after they retire by working a lot of overtime in the last year. A scam if ever there was one.

So in one case = private company/private union – that’s America, follow the contract law.

There should be no such animal as a public employee unions. Way Too much room for the taxpayers’ dollars to be wasted along with promises made that can’t possibly be kept. The only way to keep them is to borrow the money or go bankrupt. But since governments can just fire up the press all is solved.

Military – no union just a contract that the employer can pretty much change at will and we can’t do a thing about it. Retiree benefits are reduced each and every year in some way to save a few bucks so the generals can keep their DC3’s flying and Nancy can ferry her kids to vacation on an Air force plane with a 100k bill for alcohol. (Know what my budget for alcohol is on a chartered flight for an SF team flying across the nation – 0.00. To even have it is a violation of the UCMJ.

Anyway, everyone has a personal threshold for when they will rebel – if they significantly screw with my retirement plans, medical, dental, or monetary to the point they become worthless.

If that happens they will find out just how well I learned to recruit and train agents, set up a funding network, disperse arms and cache items, plan and conduct reconnaissance and later direct action missions. I don’t think they will mess with the veteran groups and our benefits too much once they realize that heavily armed and trained in guerrilla tactics we are not a group they want to piss off.

Perhaps we don’t have a formal union – but I know someone up there wants to keep us just satisfied enough to take out benefits, comply, with the peace and make no trouble.

I've seen this poster make thread after thread, yet hardly ever reply to anything. It seems as though they are just "stirring the pot" and nothing else. That's part of what makes me feel they are actually a republican and just trying to get people riled up with posts they know will bring a lot of controversy.

en.wikipedia.org...:Social-expenditures-2001-OCSE.png
The Usa spends less as a percentage of GDP than almost any other developed nation....GET SOME PERSPECTIVE....

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
The REALLY funny part is that there are more republicans than democrats that recieve welfare, then the republican candidates make promises to do away with welfare and the welfare drawing republicans back them up and vote for them thinking "well he means everybody else, not me". How dumb can people get??

Proof of this would be nice.
Unless pulling magical statements out of your half hatched egg is now the running standard these days.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
The REALLY funny part is that there are more republicans than democrats that recieve welfare, then the republican candidates make promises to do away with welfare and the welfare drawing republicans back them up and vote for them thinking "well he means everybody else, not me". How dumb can people get??

Proof of this would be nice.
Unless pulling magical statements out of your half hatched egg is now the running standard these days.

Actually, if you look at the statistics instead of go by stereotypes those receiving government aid are more likely to be republican. Here's the facts.

According to the statistics, whites form the largest racial group on welfare:

Race
--------------
White 38.8%
Black 37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4

The majority of these are women and children. Since children don't vote, that leaves the women which are mostly between the ages of 20-29.

Now if you look at the demographic makeup of the republican versus democratic party. The republican party has a larger percentage of it's members being white. According to polls of delegates conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, 93 percent of the Republican delegates are white (compared with 85 percent in 2004 and 89 percent in 2000), while 5 percent are Hispanic and 2 percent are black. The Democratic delegate pool in Denver, according to the survey, was 65 percent white, 23 percent black and 11 percent Hispanic, roughly the same as at other recent Democratic conventions.

So if you look at the statistics. A welfare recipient is more likely to be a white female republican. Looks like Ann Coulter will have to rethink her new book........

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Where are this statistics from?

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by matthewgraybeal
The OP is on a payroll, I'm sure.

2nd, Most of Those Red-states are accepting the punishment of a lost Civil War, where they Opposed The Federal Government.

WOW...gotta love it when the same pundits who won't tolerate any blame being dolled out to the President that held office just 3.5 years ago...the same folks who loudly deny that the institution of slavery has any social or economic consequences for present day African Americans...all of sudden want to explain away the welfare state of the Red States as a leftover consequence of the Civil War!!???


Wow...great stuff.

edit on 30-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

so you think slavery is an excuse for African Americans now, but the Civil War angle isn't legit- what say you?

I think the civil war was over a long time ago and the south and African Americans can no longer use it as an excuse for anything.

I also think present day racism is less relevant to African Americans today and less prevalent, but certainly still exists and those idiots should be confronted whenever the opportunity arises.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Where are this statistics from?

US.gov go find them, I'm not doing your homework for you

reply to post by PurpleChiten


All that figure shows is that whites are under represented on welfare rolls since they make up 72% of the population.

Blacks are over represented since they make up only 12% of the population. That is not a condemnation of Blacks there are historical factors involved with slavery, Jim Crow Laws and such.

Southern States have a large percentage of blacks and minorities historical factors and generational factors play a roll in these figures. The south did not not fully recover from the American Civil War until after World War 2.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

All that figure shows is that whites are under represented on welfare rolls since they make up 72% of the population.

Blacks are over represented since they make up only 12% of the population. That is not a condemnation of Blacks there are historical factors involved with slavery, Jim Crow Laws and such.

Southern States have a large percentage of blacks and minorities historical factors and generational factors play a roll in these figures. The south did not not fully recover from the American Civil War until after World War 2.

So why, again, are these states listed in the top 15 for receiving welfare? The number designation is their respective ranking in terms of "percentage of black people"

New Mexico - 42nd
Alaska - 32nd
North Dakota - 48th
South Dakota - 44th
Idaho -49th
Montana -50th

Personally the Dakotas are really pissing me off right now.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I think you will find that all of the states listed have a high number of Native American Reservations, and or high Hispanic minorities both legal and illegal. Alaska is a special case because of distances involved and high percentage of Native Americans also.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

I think you will find that all of the states listed have a high number of Native American Reservations, and or high Hispanic minorities both legal and illegal. Alaska is a special case because of distances involved and high percentage of Native Americans also.

Wait a second. Now it's the Native Americans and Hispanics? Sheesh. Native Americans comprise 1.1% of the TOTAL US population.

In 2000, the states with the largest Native American populations were California, Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico

Additionally, native born US citizens take advantage of welfare more often than immagrants.

• In 2006, 0.6 percent of natives used
AFDC/TANF, compared to 0.3 percent
of naturalized citizens and 0.7 percent
for non-citizens.
• For Medicaid: 13.1 percent of natives
used Medicaid, compared to 10.8 percent
of naturalized citizens and 11.6
percent of non-citizens.
• For SSI, which most natives would not
use because they are eligible for Social
Security benefits, 1.6 percent of natives
used SSI (Supplemental Security
Income) in 2006, compared to 3.0 percent
of naturalized citizens and 1.3 percent
of non-citizens. (See Table 7.1.)
• And 7.7 percent of natives used the
Food Stamp program, compared to 3.9
percent of naturalized citizens and 6.2
percent of non-citizens.

link

CJ

Its not simply a matter of ethnic background. It is a matter of where those in poverty live, I am not placing blame on any group of folks. The whole situation is much more complicated than red state or blue state. Which States have the highest percentage of Millionaires and Billionaires? Probably the States that put in the most in taxes.

Also the original source article does not specify that all of this money is welfare money or just total federal outlay to a state, so this could be military spending road projects anything

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Also the original source article does not specify that all of this money is welfare money or just total federal outlay to a state, so this could be military spending road projects anything

Good question !!

I asked the same thing back on page one.

..... Never did get an answer.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Its not simply a matter of ethnic background. It is a matter of where those in poverty live, I am not placing blame on any group of folks. The whole situation is much more complicated than red state or blue state. Which States have the highest percentage of Millionaires and Billionaires? Probably the States that put in the most in taxes.

Couldn't agree more with you. The whole thing smacks of furthering the "us" against "them" agenda. The reality is the issue is in ALL states, regardless of specified political leanings. Regarding the actual OP article, indeed there is quite a bit missing.

CJ

Originally posted by artnut
reply to post by Golf66

 

Wow, 65% eh? My husband served twenty years as an enlisted man, he does not receive that much. What he does receive, is not that much more than minimum wage. We pay more than you for medical care, and our drug copayments start at 9$, sounds like a good thing for you. By the way, my husband's knees are shot, from physical labor. Just curious, what physical labor does an officer do? Not saying you did not do any, I just never saw officers do physical labor when my husband served
'

Sounds to me you don't know much about the military - did you marry after he retired?

First off I was enlisted for 10 years before I became an officer and made SFC. (Which is the rank most common for enlisted men to retire - I pinned SFC in 9 years 7 months.)

Second, the MOS's I served in were Infantry in a Ranger Battalion, then I was a Special Forces Engineer Sergeant. (I also went to 97B MOS so I had a badge and credentials for a Special Mission Unit.) Then I was a Military Intelligence Officer (all of 3 years) until I could go back to Special Forces as an Officer. I went to Ranger School, and the SF Q Course not once but twice once as an enlisted man once as an Officer. I served in every combat action from 1984 - 2010. I did three years in Afghanistan, and two in Iraq alone not counting the other unnamed actions. I think I did my share of physical labor.

I carried a 100lb ruck most of my military career. If you don't know anything about an ODA the officers don't sit around. When we load out - I loaded things, when we recover I cleaned and loaded right along with all the other men on my 12 man team. SF Officers do everything their Soldiers do there are only 12 men on a team no one sits around while others are working.

Third - one's military retirement is based on several factors; however, not one of them has to do with a commission. The benefits are exactly the same for every Soldier and Officer and are a matter of public record.

However, it could be that your husband retired quite some time ago - retired pay is based on the amount of pay you got when you retire. So to explain say a guy who retired as an E7 in say the 70s would only get 50% of what an E7 made then +1.5% cost of living raise each year. Probably not a lot of money an E7 in 1974 made less than I made as an E3 in 1984. Another example - in 1990 a Colonel with 20 years did not make what I made as a Major with 20 in 2010. So his retirement even with 2 more pay grades would be less than mine.

I enlisted in the early 80's when the retirement benefit started at 50% for 20 years and then you get an additional 2.5% per year beyond 20. It is also based on the pay your husband received. In the late 80's the Army changed retirement to 40% of one's base pay at 20 years + 2.5% per year thereafter. So it could be that is the issue; however, any officer who also entered service after the same date would get the same rate. However, note - its the same for officer and enlisted.

Forth - Tricare is all the same price for everyone sorry. However, you could have chosen Tricare Plus instead of prime which lets you see any Dr. but you pay 20% of the cost. However Prime is available to everyone. Its 35.00 deducted from my pay once a month or about 560.00 a year for the whole family you just have to use the network facilities. Also Tricare charges the same for everyone my meds have a 5.00 copay but my wife takes some that have as much as 22.00 copay. Depends on the med and generics and such. I pay 12.oo a visit to the local non military facility. I could and so could you go to any military facility for zero dollars and get any script for zero dollars.

There is no secret club or special benifits for being an officer - sorry.

States with most Billionaires

States with the most Millionaires

just information

Millionaires by State