Should democratic states and counties pay welfare to republican states and counties

@Kwek00 But it actually is of importance where people live. Poor education, poor environmental standards and lesser opportunities that are motivated by state decisions result in a need for more assistance.

@Ynotisay Not really, because if in those neighbourhoods there are citizens that aren't eligble for welfare, they won't get it. In neighbourhoods with the issues you are talking about, there will probably be more people that are eligble for welfare so those neighbourhoods will draw more money from the pot. But there is nothing more destructive for a welfare system organised on a federal level, then citizens and political actors talking about specific groups or territory that get more then others. It's a system that works for all citizens not for specfific groupifcations of those citizens.

@Kwek00 I'm not following you. States make requests of the federal government for funding. More people who need assistance, or if a state has infrastructure needs, get more money. States also have their own pools they pull from. But they're typically less because they aren't receiving as much revenue. The under performing states get more money from the federal government. And they often under perform because of decisions made by the states. And those states are typically Republican-led. It's just how it is.

@Ynotisay We aren't talking about "infrastructure", we are talking about "welfare". If you organise welfare on a federal level, states shouldn't be bothered that undermines the entire idea of creating equal opportunities for your citizens.

@Kwek00 But you don't live in the U.S. though, right? And we're not talking about equal opportunity. It's about people eating. There are more poor people, per capita, in red states than blue states. It is what it is.

@Ynotisay If you have a family, that is able to pay for it's food because the federal governement found them eligble for food stamps. Don't you think that means that those people can spend their money somewhere else? Like get their children to school for instance, maybe pay the doctor bills? So that they get acces to similar opportunities to develop themselves as families that are wealthier off.

@Kwek00 Now you're arguing if welfare is appropriate? That's irrelevant. What's interesting though is that blue states, particularly donor states (like mine), which means they give more than they receive, don't really have an issue with welfare. They don't want people to suffer. But if you were an American you'd know that it's those conservatives in the red states screaming and whining about welfare are the very ones GETTING the welfare. That's my point. And they get the welfare because their under educated and don't have the same type of opportunities DUE to their state's decisions. You can argue it all day long but it won't change a thing.

@Ynotisay No, you just said:

[quote]And we're not talking about equal opportunity.[/quote]

And your example is, that people need food. I've not said anything about being it being appropriate.

You keep talking about states, which gives this conversation the same framework as a conversation about "foreign aid". And those kind of conversations of "us" and "them" are often used to undermine welfare systems. AGAIN if you organise something on a federal level, then states, political affiliations or other forms of territory should be irrelevant. The federal levels main concern is it's citizens.

The reason why states scream and whine about who gets what, is exactly what I warned you for 44 minutes ago. Because bringing in who lives where, in a federal conversation about welfare, is asking for problems that shouldn't even excist. Because it's organised on a federal level.

@Kwek00 You won't admit that you're not an American, huh? And yet you're applying thinking without the nuance, OR the understanding of the role of states in our government, to your argument. Sorry dude. I'm done. Believe whatever you want.

@LvChris If you organise it on a federal level, no state should be involved. That's what: "organised on a federal level" means. States organise on a state level, the federal governement organises on a federal level. These entitities all have their own tasks, ans if the federal level organises welfare then this task belongs to the federal level.

@Kwek00 Serious question. Where do you live? I'm very sure it's not the U.S. but I'm curious.

@Ynotisay In Belgium, it's supposed to be on my profile.

@Kwek00 Ah. Belgium. Now it makes more sense. Do you know the state I live in has about four times the number of people as your whole country? With an entirely different form of government? I'll assume you're applying your nation's sensibilities to a [i]very[/i] different country. You can do that if you want. Doesn't change the reality.

@LvChris IIf the laws of the federal governement state that certain members of society are entitled to a part of the federal treasury, then we are still talking about federal money. Once the federal state has collected it taxes, it becomes theirs. And what the federal governement does with it is [i](hopefully)[/i] part of it's function. So what ever money the federal governement gives out, isn't money from any state in particulair or any citizen in particulair. Jus like when I give you my car, it's no longer mine. That's what federal states do, how those taxes are organised over there, I don't know. But over here there is just a federal taxation system in place that doesn't look to any of the members of it's federation. You jus get taxed as a citizen, not as an indepent state. If your state collects a taxation on the taxes payed on a state level, ... that would be foreign to me but th reasoning stays the same. Once the federal governement collects, it's no longer a state matter what it does with it.

If people ask the question: [i]"[b]Should democratic states[/b] and counties pay welfare to [b]republican states[/b] and counties"[/i]. Then it's almost as if one state collects taxes and freely decides what state it's going to help out. Almost as if a nation is talking about giving foreign aid. But for as far as I know, this isn't happening, because it's on a federal level. And the moment people start talking like this, espescially when it comes to a toppic like welfare, you are basically undermining the idea that welfare should be aranged on a federal level. Because certain states just decided that they wouldn't take care for those citizens that eligble to welfare of another state. On a federal level, you should talk about these toppics as citizens of the federal state.

@LvChris No, you just can't have a conversation about this without politicing it.

[quote][b]They[/b]'re like whiney teenagers who want to make stupid decisions and then [b]beg the federal government[/b]--as teenagers then beg their parents--for assistance. Saying they're against big government and writing policies that make people poor plays well to conservative voters.[/quote]

For this conversation, in this entire whiny part right here, the only thing that is important is the "Federal governement". A state begs the federal governement for a piece of it's treasury. It's the federal governements money so it's not of any particulair state. It's federal.

So the question: [i]"[b]Should democratic states and counties pay[/b] welfare to [b]republican states[/b] and counties"[/i]. Isn't happening. The question in your example is supposed to be: [i]"[b]Should the federal governement pay[/b] welfare to [b]republican states[/b] and counties"[/i].

That's my point. That it's federal. And making it about states just creates a political devide that shouldn't be there. Because this conversation isn't about the states, it's about the federal governement and it's task to it's citizens and the states that fall under them. That's what it means to have a federal level, it transcends state loyalties and should think of the citizens of the federal state.

@Kwek00 That's called "Democratic Socialism" style of government. Anyone who wants to be be wealthy can be as wealthy are they are able to be...........but conversely NO ONE should have kids that die for lack of healthcare or go to bed hungry.

@anythingoes477 No, it's just how a federal governement is supposed to work. Once the money, for what ever issue you can think off, comes from the federal pot. Then it's the federal pot, the states have nothing to do with it. This isn't only so for welfare, it's for anything the federal governement does. If you want to saw discord between the members of the federation, the political tactic is to look at regions that contribute more and to regions that receive less then what they contribute to create the interpretation that there is some form of dishonesty going on. But this is all just an illusion, because the FEDERAL governement is mainly intrested for it's citizens, all citizens, regardless of region or political affiliation. That's what it means to have a federal governement. The moment you start hearing rhetoric that you can pick up in this story about federal funds, well, that's bullshit that politicians use to divide the federation or to hollow out the federal state.

If a state by itself, without the federal governement, decides to help any state. Then we are not talking about the federal but the state level. Then the state should be able to make their descisions independently (because it's the state that decideds) and they can set aside funds to aid other states or other regions. And this kind of conversation, is the same conversation national governements have when it comes to "foreign aid". Because the entity that they are going to help is "foreign" to their entity. This is not the same as the conversation on a federal level on which regions need what part of the federal treasury. It's another conversation, mixing these two up is a recipe for confusing and nonsensical discussions.

@Kwek00 You mean how the federal government in Belgium is supposed to work, right? You're clearly not an idiot, and have thought your take out, but I really don't understand the adamance about the way things should work in a country you don't live in. You don't have the nuance of the U.S. government. Just like I don't know how Belgium operates. I'm not sure you have a handle on the rights of State's in the U.S. or how federal funding is earmarked. It makes sense that you don't. But to keep pushing a point that isn't valid is a little nonsensical to me.

There's three hundred times the number of people in the U.S. than there are in Belgium. Your 'we're all in this together' stance might make sense for a country of your size. But it's just not the U.S. Very different animals.

The REALITY is that states make their own laws and those laws impact the citizens. And there is very little relationship to how people live in the rural south to how they live in big cities. America is not "one thing." This is a country of enormous diversity. And part of that diversity is that some areas are under-educated, lack opportunity and have been systematically trained over the years to fight against what's in their own best interest. Conservative states really DO get the lions share per capita of federal welfare funding. And they really are the people fighting against welfare funding for others and there's a DIRECT correlation to their cultures which are driven by laws. That's the fact. What you may want is not related to what is.

@Ynotisay Loads of countries have a Federal system, federal systems work on the same principles all over the world. The US isn't exceptional in anyway when it comes this. The only thing the US can claim is that it's the first one, and that it's principles have been adopted by other countries. But "federalism" isn't a bizar thing to talk about, or you need to learn anything special to understand the concept which other countries use too.

You can keep pointing at my origin all you want. The principles of a federal state will be the same. The moment the federal state has collected it taxes, the federal governement has a treasury that they can use to do what the federal governement is supposed to do. How the federal governement collects that money, is of little importance because it's just a federal tax. Any state claiming that this money that the federal state has in on its balance, that that money in some way belongs to them because the citizens that contributed lived in their territory are fooling themselves, and these conversations only lead to undermine the federal state.

In other federal countries, states (or members of the federations, in Belgium they are called "regions"), they also have their own laws, their own indepdendence on certain areas. This is normal in a federal system. Those states, what ever they do, is the state level. What the federal governement does is the federal level. The moment we start talking about federal funds, states shouldn't be sawing discord in pretending that their money is going somewhere, because it's not their money, it's the federal treasury.

@Kwek00 You don't understand the machinations of our government, or our society, yet you continue to push. I don't get it. Do you just want someone to say you're right? OK. You're right. Thanks for fixing America. Have a good one.