What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
235 Comments
- parisii, on 10/29/2008, -6/+92actually, Alaska is one of the biggest welfare states based upon Federal $$ received per capita. So, the 3k that Alaskans get back actually belongs to all of us, since this money isn't returned to the federal treasury.
See Tim Noah- "Sarah Palin, big government hypocrite.
http://www.slate.com/id/2199357/
Her latest lies about Obama's financial philosophy are also ridiculous. She's trying to claim that western democracies with universal health care aren't free. Even tho they have a better educated population, more vacation time, better health care systems and higher quality of life indices. But Palin isn't speaking to anyone who actually has knowledge of these other systems. She's speaking to her base. And they are just that.
Because we can also look at which states are "welfare states" and which states contribute to this welfare. Yep, you betcha! States that went for Bush were welfare states. If you all hate big government so much, why do you keep feeding off the federal teet?
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/ ...
"Thirty of the U.S. states reap more in federal spending than their citizens contribute to the federal government in taxes. The other 20 states provide more in taxes than they receive in spending. In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. A state’s ratio of federal spending to tax dollars, particularly non-defense spending, is a statistically and substantively significant predictor of Bush’s margin of victory across the states. A state’s per capita federal tax burden is also associated with the election result: states with higher tax burdens gave higher vote margins to Gore"
So, those of you with your panties in a wad about "socialism" are ALREADY the beneficiaries of socialist tax policies...but, as this article from a conservative think tank notes - you're also uninformed about how much the rest of us pay for you to bitch about us paying for your welfare.
I don't mind paying taxes for the general welfare and infrastructure - I just wish those of you who are the welfare states would recognize you're booing yourselves at Palin rallies. - Homerr, on 10/28/2008, -3/+82Hopefully the Alaskan legislature will have to spend that oil money on their own infrastructure now since Uncle Ted likely won't be bilking the rest of us for billions to send to AK.
- grbradsk, on 10/28/2008, -9/+84This "socialist" Obama voter lives in CA and so pays the rent for many red states. Of course, there are no red and blue states, the divide is really urban and rural. We urbanites subsidize living out on the farm, or off on some Alaska hill. Without this kind of socialism, the rural places would depopulate. They can thank me later.
- inactive, on 10/28/2008, -12/+63I figured I educate the Republican shills on a word they clearly don't comprehend: honor.
I know you get a kick out of being dishonest,but come on, don't you have the honor to feel bad for trying to FOOL your fellow citizens?
Your brand of dishonesty is vile.
Does it make you proud? - mbrownerhamlin, on 10/28/2008, -2/+43The issue isn't whether Alaska uses its money for infrastructure - it does and still has tons left over. The pork from Stevens is only icing on the cake.
- inactive, on 10/28/2008, -16/+53she is nuts, how come the red states don't see this? oh that's right, they are busy staring at her boobs
http://anncoulterisaretard.com/ - inactive, on 10/28/2008, -6/+38Are you kidding? I want all these ***** screaming about socialism to send me a ***** check.
You want to pretend you got that 40k/year dead-end job all on your own? Fine, gimme my money back.
Otherwise, STFU, get educated and quit being a parasite on the patriotic citizens of New York and San Francisco. - twiztidsinz, on 10/29/2008, -5/+28Learn the difference between people unable to debate/refute what you say, and people knowing they'd just be wasting their time....
WHERES OBAMAS BIRTHCERTIFICATE???
HE WENT TO MUSLIM SCHOOL!!!!
HE WAS A SUPPORTER OF BILL AYERS AT THE AGE OF 8!!!!
FLAGPIN!FLAGPIN!FLAGPIN!FLAGPIN!FLAGPIN!FLAGPIN! - parisii, on 10/29/2008, -6/+29I'd like to educate you so please look at the breakdown of federal welfare states. Red state voters=welfare queens.
you can read about this also from an article by the conservative Hoover Institute Think Tank. You cannot claim that a think tank that is Bork's baby is liberal.
In other words, you are wrong and you've been owned... by blue staters who vote for democrats. That's reality, not propaganda. Suck on that federal teet, baby, and cry. - dwittSF, on 10/29/2008, -4/+27Yup, the irony is those Red States are all taking tax money from teh Blues. They'd hate it if they got to keep their slice of the pie, and we Californians kept ours. Funny that CA is solid for Obama and his 'socialism.'
- bigbangbuddha, on 10/29/2008, -4/+25Of course she's a Marxist, she can see the "Communist Manifesto" from her house.
- BossKey, on 10/29/2008, -1/+19You're one of the few people who recognizes the real divide, urban/rural. The whole red/blue state thing is a dangerous distraction because it is inaccurate, and since people are acting on that bad theory, it's therefore misleading.
In just about every state, it comes down to all of the liberal residents of that state's big city (or its major college town, like Austin TX) vs. all the conservatives in the rest of the state. - rotundo, on 10/29/2008, -4/+22@AnotherDiggGuy -- so are you implying that honor is a bad thing because Hitler used the word? But honor appears in the Bible too! What's going on? How could God and Hitler both refer to honor?!?
Your comment is meaningless.
The context and intent of the "honor" matters. - Zyvo, on 10/29/2008, -2/+18Your comment makes zero sense.
- kingofinternet, on 10/29/2008, -5/+20if he did the marxists would sue him for slander and defamation of character.
- chillypacman, on 10/29/2008, -1/+16It isn't socialism if a republican does it (tm)
- BoxAdorable, on 10/29/2008, -3/+18Dread, you were dugg down because your comment was another generic insult, much like a lot of the stupid bickering that gets dugg down.
And AnotherDiggGuy, you can pull any sort of quote out of context to suite your purpose. You've just proven that you have the intellectual research abilities of an 8th grader. - iofthestorm, on 10/29/2008, -1/+16Godwin's law already?
- sugarazor, on 10/29/2008, -5/+19She could maybe... ya know, not call the kettle black?
Obama's plan is raising taxes on the wealthy to where they were under Clinton. McCain is proposing government nationalization of private property with his $300 billion purchase of every bad mortgage in the country. That is a much better example of socialism than anything Obama has proposed. - parisii, on 10/29/2008, -2/+16here's the graphic version:
http://www.bradblog.com/Images/RedStateWelfareQuee ... - johnhummel, on 10/29/2008, -1/+15I actually wonder what will happen - Alaska gives money directly to taxpayers, who don't seem to have an interest in funding roads or the like - the things that traditionally government does.
Instead, they get the federal government to pony up the money, while giving $2000+ checks to Alaskan citizens.
So what happens when Alaska says "You know what, we can't just give you money, citizens of Alaska, because we need to build the roads and schools you need." Will people go "Oh, well, that does make some sense - after all, that's what taxes on the oil company was for", or will they complain that the money is gone? - inactive, on 10/29/2008, -1/+14@AnotherDiggGuy
Wow...how topical. Honor just happens to be an overused vessel of indignation. Who would have thought of such a thing. False claims and misdirection have been used since the dawn of man.
Google seems to think it was used only of about 154,000,000 entries. I'm sure Hilter used the word "baby" or "puppy" before. I can assure you, the world we actually live in is deeply lacking in honor despite the over use of the term.
The reason why most critical-thinkers scoff at this overly republican (in fairness not exclusive) tactic of redirection is because it's just simply painfully obvious. I personally find it an insult to my intelligence, and it pains me more that it actually works on people. So that's when honor comes in. Does the ends justify the means?
All a politician needs to do is make the right talking-points, and they are awarded the keys to the cupboards. It's no big secret in this modern world, there is an abundance of gullible mouth-breathers who can be easily influenced. We are marketed every aspect of our lives based upon this. "Politics as Usual" has become a consumable good. We concede completely the times that we are giving partial truths and sometimes completely fabricated information and just shrug it off as this being the process of things. We term this action as "politics" It's gotten to the point where we overlook primary issues concerning us and our government on the principle of supporting the political process.
Everyone across the board knows that Iraq/Afghan was a total quagmire, yet because our current administration and it's supporting political party use pride as a currency we continue on the same poorly drawn, and redrawn plan of invasion. For what? Where are the gains? What made this a worth while endeavor? It's absurd that with the resources we have given-up we didn't approach taking down the DIRECT people involved in making a mockery of our National Security.
The only gains for entering this made-to-order war have been minuscule spoils in comparison to the expense. Strategic positioning at the cost of loosing local and supporting factions has only served to cancel-out any benefit of the gained positioning in the region. Delaying our economy entering a recession was another major failure, which only ended up crashing our already flimsy markets. Asserting ourselves to the rest of the world that we are a great military "Super-Power" was not only inappropriately boisterous to do in such a reckless way, but we ended up weakening our defenses, causing further animosity towards our nation, and digging us deeper into deficit which is owned by questionable allies. These decisions have been disastrous to our nation and we need to audit our previous-strategies and reassess what needs to be done to win back our economic strength, our defensive capabilities, our national prestige, and our allies.
It's our responsibility as American citizens to keep our government honest and acting in the interest of it's people and not it's office. As a voter, we should make policy-makers accountable for their lack in leadership. We should NOT re-elect those who share the same reckless disregard for the people's will as our administration of the last 8 years. Regardless of which political party you align with. The sooner Republicans can distance themselves from the failed vision of neo-conservatism the better it ill be for the party. As it is now, the party has lost itself by creating this over-sensationalized version of itself. - sulthernao, on 10/29/2008, -4/+15Because they don't care/are ignorant of what's really going on. Red states (especially in the South) see a lot more federal money than they pay in taxes. It's just ironic that they call the people in the blue state *coughunamericanstatescough* the liberal wealth redistributors. Well, yeah it's true - they are redistributing wealth to YOU. Maybe Republican red really stands for communist red?
- dafragsta, on 10/29/2008, -1/+12God you people are pathetically desperate for a straw to grasp.
- SoulGrub, on 10/29/2008, -0/+9You mean Palin can dish it out but can't take it back. This Marxist nonsense is coming from the Republicans and this is a fair refutation.
- ValDeV, on 10/29/2008, -3/+13And we're supposed to believe Obama is a terrorist and went to an Muslim school, that was Republican Propaganda
The best way to explain this is, propaganda is taking the little known facts and making them the biggest facts. For example once again Obama went to a school that's majority Muslim, Big fact is he went to school (but the small fact is he was around mostly Muslims!). Sarah Palin is Govn of a state who gets most its money from oil, big fact she is the Govn (Little fact they get money from oil!)
Point being, shut the ***** up your just as guilty as we are. There is no such thing as left or right, just people who want to change and welcome the future, then there are people who pretend our country can stay the same and time can stand still.
Ugh - auto98, on 10/29/2008, -2/+11When posting a topic calling someone a marxist, it may be a good idea to learn what a marxist is first
- Divector8, on 10/29/2008, -1/+10Your moron makes sense, zero.
- MrSquirrel, on 10/29/2008, -1/+10Is she a Groucho-Marxist?
- orlandogeek, on 10/29/2008, -1/+10Not only is she not against it, she worked with the state legislature to increase the payouts from the program and voiced her opinion that every American should have this benefit.
- avrygoodfrnd, on 10/29/2008, -0/+9Ouch, buried for being a moron... Ron Ayers?? Are you half asleep or something? Proves you don't really know much about what you're talking about, but when you heard the words "socialism" and "Obama" in the same sentence all hell broke loose in your mind. Maybe you were thinking about Ron Paul? Ron Paul + **** Ayers (i'll let you figure that out yourself) = Ron Ayers?? Who knows, only you do.
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -0/+8They will claim that the checks were a fundamental of a capitalist free market economy or something to make them hypocrites as usual.
- avrygoodfrnd, on 10/29/2008, -0/+7OMG OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST.
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds, especially coming from Palin? - Mujokan, on 10/29/2008, -1/+9When the GOP makes some silly claim, like Obama has a deep association with Bill Ayers that reflects badly on his judgment, then people will turn around and find some similar level of connection (i.e. superficial) tying someone like G. Gordon Liddy to John McCain.
Here it's stupid to call Obama a socialist. As he said yesterday, the tax burden under his plan is lighter than under Reagan. So was Reagan a socialist? What they are saying doesn't make sense.
One way to illustrate this is to simply show up their hypocrisy. In this case, redistributing wealth from people who "earned it" (the shareholders of the oil companies) and giving it to people who "didn't earn it" (Alaskan citizens).
Of course there is some justification for this "windfall tax" in that no-one makes money in a vacuum. We rely on the rest of the country to provide the platform that allows us to make money. Someone has to pay to run things, and every dollar you don't take from someone rich is a dollar you have to take from someone poor. It hurts less at the top. So the point here is the hypocrisy that shows how empty the GOP talking points are, not that it's bad to redistribute money using taxes and social programs (like every developed country does).
Now some people may take it too far and start thinking that a weak association with Liddy makes McCain a terrorist or something, I don't know. But in general this kind of move just is intended to highlight absurdity. - draculthemad, on 10/29/2008, -0/+7Actually, I think Biden handled it pretty superbly. Went along right up to the point where she was completely over the line by any reasonable measure then called her on it. Then he answered it anyways.
No histrionics or name-calling, just calm and reasonable.
He answered in complete sentences too! - voxlisa999, on 10/29/2008, -1/+8Sarah the Socialist! Palin brags that she is a SOCIALIST and that Alaska is a socialist state, just 2 months ago right before she was picked! It's in the New Yorker magazine that interviewed her! What a FRAUD and a LIAR she is scaring folks about Obama when she is the real SOCIALIST.
She gives private company profits to every man, woman and child in Alaska whether they pay taxes or not. She says that "we share the wealth in Alaska collectively!"
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Palin_Alaskans_S ... - bjornski, on 10/29/2008, -0/+7Gee, Alaska is basically a big commune then, right?
Collective ownership, taxing the companies to spread the wealth....
You really don't see it, do you? - sulthernao, on 10/29/2008, -1/+8You're exactly right. It's all based on demographics. When Hilary won OH, that was not a comeback - that was a manifestation of the demographics of OH. Why is Obama winning in VA? Because the demographics are rapidly change to more democratic.
- bjornski, on 10/29/2008, -0/+7Which is being paid in a LARGE part by the rest of the nation that keeps giving them federal money.
- oo7evan, on 10/29/2008, -2/+8Thank you. I've been waiting for more people start to realize one of the greatest (of many) hypocrisies of the McCain campaign, that of Palin and her so called handling of the "good ole boys" "up there in Alaska".
- turkoftheplains, on 10/29/2008, -0/+6ANOTHERDIGGGUY: a dramatic re-enactment
Part the First: in which he retorts by summarizing parisii's argument and punctuating it with a question mark
Part the Second: in which he recycles tired old buzzwords Republicans use to wave the bloody shirt
Part the Third: in which he claims that only news outlets without a known conservative slant are biased.
Part the Fourth: in which he calls us all sheep using a sentence fragment
Dramatic conclusion: in which I tell him to get the ***** off my internet and gb2/fox news. - Lewie, on 10/29/2008, -3/+9That money is coming from the Federal Government. Alaska takes more from the Federal Government than it gives in taxes. In essence, my state of Michigan (one of the top 10 donor states) is subsidizing Alaskans (the top donee state); 'spreading the wealth' if you will.
The point is that Palin is calling Obama "socialist" as if it's a bad thing, while her state is the number 1 receiver of "socialist" benefits. She acts as if the red states are more "American" than blue states, yet it's the blue states that turn a profit to help the red (welfare) states.
The UAE and Alberta, Canada do give their citizens money. But not at the expense of other tax payers. - avrygoodfrnd, on 10/29/2008, -0/+6Well, that depends on what perspective you look at socialism from. The idea behind socialism and communism is a great one, but therein lays the problem; It'll never be more than an idea. People have a need for private property, and as we were shown by the Russians that greed often overshadows everything else.
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -0/+6"Later, the progressive income tax was supported so heavily by Republican Teddy Roosevelt that the Constitution was amended to accommodate the income tax, and Roosevelt made it clear, in a speech delivered in 1910, why he thought a progressive tax was the right way to go." Teddy Roosevelt is the Prez McCain says is is role model. hahahahaha
- rotundo, on 10/29/2008, -1/+7Stop taking federal money? At least if that lines up with your professed ideals.
- rotundo, on 10/29/2008, -3/+9She isn't against that program, though. I don't believe I've ever heard her speak against it and in fact (though I forget where) I believe I heard her speak in favor of it.
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -2/+8What the ***** do you people have against Marx?! Really, he just hypothesized about a few things about government. Leave the guy alone!
- homercles337, on 10/29/2008, -1/+7You are correct, but we are talking about socialism on the federal level. The urban/suburban/rural thing is really state issue. When you average across these areas the state will be either blue or red. Overwhelmingly, at the federal level, the red states receive FAR more welfare from the blue states.
- Lewie, on 10/29/2008, -0/+6I never disputed Palin's role. But using "evil socialism" and "wealth distribution" against Obama while ignoring the fact that her state is the BIGGEST recipient of such principles is deceitful.
What if Palin said "We'll get those evil socialists out of Washington, and my first duty as VP is to end the socialist welfare the great state of Alaska receives" ? Do you think Alaskans would be so eager to vote for her?
You right-wing nutjobs can complain about socialism all you want. But what you often fail to realize is how many socialist programs are currently in place that you benefit from. I only use so many miles of highway 99% of the time, why should I pay taxes for more than I use? Because society as a whole benefits. If you don't want to be part of society, go move to the woods. We won't miss you. - elo91, on 10/29/2008, -6/+12marxist, fascist, neo-con, socialist....call them all whatever you want, but the fact still remains that politicians don't have your best interests in mind if it's at the expense of their own.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 246 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 