Wasteful.
January 15, 2012 12:10 PM Subscribe
In South Carolina, a discrepancy on federal spending. 'Campaigning Republicans draw cheers with their calls for cuts to government programs. But the state benefits from such programs to a greater extent than many others.' 'When Rick Santorum stood in front of voters at a yacht club in this small town and pledged to slash government spending, especially entitlement programs, Nancy Garvin knew she had found her candidate. Garvin, 54, said she was sick of seeing government squander money through agencies that don't do anything, and wants expenditures cut "in half."'
'But Garvin, whose husband, a carpenter, has been out of work for four years, depends on the very government she wants to see cut back. She collects disability insurance — it is what she and her husband have survived on as he's looked for work. Her mother is on Social Security. Garvin herself used to work as a nurse at a hospital where many patients paid for services through Medicaid, another program using federal money.
Garvin's views are similar to those of many Republican voters in this conservative state, where candidates pledging to cut government spending were met with resounding applause last week, and where former Gov. Mark Sanford tried to refuse federal stimulus funding on principle.'
'South Carolina and its residents benefit from government spending, more so than many other states. For every dollar the state pays in federal taxes, it receives $1.35 in federal government benefits. By contrast, California receives only 78 cents for every dollar it pays in taxes.'
'One in five residents in South Carolina receives Social Security benefits — compared with just 13% in California. As an aging state, South Carolina will be more dependent on federal programs such as Social Security in the coming decade, according to AARP.'
'There is some evidence that South Carolina's opposition to government spending might further strangle the state's already weak economy — if it leads to cuts in Social Security. Roberto Gallardo of the Southern Rural Development Center says that economies in many small towns in South Carolina are increasingly dependent on Social Security payments.
The percentage of total personal income in South Carolina coming from Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance programs was 7.6% in 2009, up from 3.8% in 1970. South Carolina ranks eighth in the nation on the group's Social Security Dependency Index, which measures how reliant local economies are on Social Security payments for job creation and consumer spending. Neighboring North Carolina ranked 23rd.
That means candidates have to walk a fine line here — promising to cut government to alleviate voters' fears, while still preserving the programs that require most of the spending. How else to appeal to such voters as Clifton Anderson of Camden, who went to see Rick Santorum speak in a diner in Ridgeway?
"His ideas of downsizing government are most important to me," said Anderson, about Santorum. He continued, in the next breath: "I also like his idea about strengthening defense."'
'But Garvin, whose husband, a carpenter, has been out of work for four years, depends on the very government she wants to see cut back. She collects disability insurance — it is what she and her husband have survived on as he's looked for work. Her mother is on Social Security. Garvin herself used to work as a nurse at a hospital where many patients paid for services through Medicaid, another program using federal money.
Garvin's views are similar to those of many Republican voters in this conservative state, where candidates pledging to cut government spending were met with resounding applause last week, and where former Gov. Mark Sanford tried to refuse federal stimulus funding on principle.'
'South Carolina and its residents benefit from government spending, more so than many other states. For every dollar the state pays in federal taxes, it receives $1.35 in federal government benefits. By contrast, California receives only 78 cents for every dollar it pays in taxes.'
'One in five residents in South Carolina receives Social Security benefits — compared with just 13% in California. As an aging state, South Carolina will be more dependent on federal programs such as Social Security in the coming decade, according to AARP.'
'There is some evidence that South Carolina's opposition to government spending might further strangle the state's already weak economy — if it leads to cuts in Social Security. Roberto Gallardo of the Southern Rural Development Center says that economies in many small towns in South Carolina are increasingly dependent on Social Security payments.
The percentage of total personal income in South Carolina coming from Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance programs was 7.6% in 2009, up from 3.8% in 1970. South Carolina ranks eighth in the nation on the group's Social Security Dependency Index, which measures how reliant local economies are on Social Security payments for job creation and consumer spending. Neighboring North Carolina ranked 23rd.
That means candidates have to walk a fine line here — promising to cut government to alleviate voters' fears, while still preserving the programs that require most of the spending. How else to appeal to such voters as Clifton Anderson of Camden, who went to see Rick Santorum speak in a diner in Ridgeway?
"His ideas of downsizing government are most important to me," said Anderson, about Santorum. He continued, in the next breath: "I also like his idea about strengthening defense."'
This post was deleted for the following reason: A dozen pull-quotes doesn't make the actual article any more substantial - this is really just more "Republicans are dumb amirite?" fodder. -- restless_nomad
Vote Republican and get more and more of this--regular Americans voting against their own interests because EVERY Republican candidate is driven by one false ideology or another--all designed to make the rich richer and the other 99% poorer. It makes you wonder how spectalurly ignorant most conservative voters actually are.
posted by Sparkticus at 12:18 PM on January 15, 2012
posted by Sparkticus at 12:18 PM on January 15, 2012
This just a half of the quotes from the first link and link to a single sheet of paper, dressed up as a "Look at this Republicans AMIRITE" post. Surely there's more informative links about why people might vote against their own interests.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:18 PM on January 15, 2012
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:18 PM on January 15, 2012
This line of argument has always struck me as kind of a lame gotcha. It's the left's version of "but a-ha! affirmative action meets the dictionary definition of 'discrimination' based on 'race' and I thought that was bad!"
Everyone knows that smaller government means less government spending for welfare queens, pornographers, atheists, environmentalists, etc. You're not being clever by pointing out that the meaning of the term "smaller government" commonly used in political discourse isn't derived directly and compositionally from the meaning of each word.
posted by planet at 12:21 PM on January 15, 2012
Everyone knows that smaller government means less government spending for welfare queens, pornographers, atheists, environmentalists, etc. You're not being clever by pointing out that the meaning of the term "smaller government" commonly used in political discourse isn't derived directly and compositionally from the meaning of each word.
posted by planet at 12:21 PM on January 15, 2012
« Older Warning Warning — Danger Danger | Understanding Adobe Photoshop Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by leotrotsky at 12:15 PM on January 15, 2012 [3 favorites]