# North Dakota the Welfare State



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

We all hate the welfare state in this country. It's so easy to look at inner city blacks popping out oodles of kids who aren't working and think,

"This is wrong."

As a conservative, I've come to disgust it. What I disgust more is finger pointing and not looking in the mirror and trying to live by the ideals you preach.

All of us living in ND need to look in the mirror and realize we are just as bad as those inner city blacks on welfare. Our state is a WELFARE STATE. We receive double the amount of money back that we pay in to the federal government. The roads we drive on were paid for by hardworking people in other states. Think about that? Doesn't it make you mad? Every North Dakotan should be ashamed by it.

We have a state budget surplus because we won the lottery...we have lots of oil underneath us. I think it is time we start practicing what we preach. We all need to write our representatives in both Washington and here, as well as the governor, and tell them to quit taking all the dang money. We have the money right here to run the state. They need to look at what we pay in and make sure we don't spend more than that.

Our neighbor to the East is a donor state. Minnesota only gets back $.75-.80 for every dollar they pay in each year. They pay in, we get paid.

Unless we stop being WELFARE RECIPIENTS we can no longer complain about the federal government overspending. How can we when we don't pay our way? It's people and states like us that are bankrupting this once great country.

As a conservative I've become disgusted to be a North Dakotan.
North Dakotan=Welfare Recipient

Maybe instead of bytching about Obama, lazy people on welfare, and government spending more money than what they have, we should clean up our act here and quit having other hard working citizens across this country pay for our infrastructure. How dare we complain about Obama and then put our hand out.

Every conservative in North Dakota is a hypocrite and should be ashamed of themselves until North Dakota becomes a DONOR STATE instead of a WELFARE STATE!

Who's with me?


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

The top ten Welfare States

Mississippi: $2.02 
Alaska: $1.84 
Louisiana: $1.78 
West Virginia: $1.76 
*North Dakota: $1.68* 
Alabama: $1.66 
South Dakota: $1.53 
Kentucky: $1.51 
Virginia: $1.51 
Montana: $1.47 
Arkansas: $1.41 
Oklahoma: $1.36

Notice something? They're all Red States.

As a conservative this appalls me and if If you're a conservative you should be disgusted. We need to fix this guys!


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

I've been waiting for years for someone to post this info. never got around to it myself. most people don't realize how much non-residents pay for and never even set foot in their state.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Fraud, Waste and Abuse! The fed operates on these principles. If we as a state said no do you know what the fed would do with that cash? Probably give it away to syria, egypt, or some other entitlement program

Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

It is a reality that won't change, quite simply most of the states listed couldn't operate without it. We are a union of states for a reason.

Also, your looking at dollar for dollar numbers.

Start looking at total dollars and then see your eyes really open. The total amounts that these small states are getting are really peanuts in the grand scheme of things when you look at the total dollar amounts of federal aid other states are getting.

Closest I could find was 2008 numbers for federal aid to states that didn't have the stimulus knocking them all wonky and 2010 populations.

Lowest total federal aid:

DE - 1.363 Billion - 897,000 people - 1.52 billion per million people
ND - 1.402 Billion - 685,000 people - 2.05 billion per million people
VT - 1.441 Billion - 626,000 people - 2.30 billion per million people
SD - 1.473 Billion - 824,000 people - 1.79 billion per million people
NH - 1.692 Billion - 1,318,000 people - 1.28 billion per million people

Highest

CA - 53.8 Billion - 37,700,000 people - 1.43 billion per million people
NY - 44.4 Billion - 19,470,000 people - 2.28 billion per million people
TX - 30.6 Billion - 25,675,000 people - 1.19 billion per million people
FL - 20.7 Billion - 19,057,000 people - 1.08 billion per million people
PA - 18.8 Billion - 12,742,000 people - 1.48 billion per million people

As you can see, the numbers can be twisted any way one wants to look at it. Even above with the numbers I have posted it looks different with the total amount vs the amount per million in population.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

yes, please remember we are a union of states. that applies to hunting and fishing also.


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

southdakbearfan said:


> quite simply most of the states listed couldn't operate without it. We are a union of states for a reason.


Insert "people" for "states" and you just summed up every liberals view on welfare...

"Quite simply most of the people couldn't operate without it. We are a union of people for a reason."

Maybe those states should operate within the budget of their tax base and not spend other people's money. It's a pretty simple concept really. I'd love to live in a bigger and better house and let someone else pay for the mortgage....scratch that....I wouldn't love that, I'd hate it. I'd have trouble looking myself in the mirror if that were the case.

Just like we all should in ND because that is exactly what we are doing.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

you tell the reservations in sd and nd they wont be getting the fed money and see how that goes. Take them out of the equation and numbers would be quite different as they are money pits


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I had to clean off my computer as if you knew me, you would never even think anything liberal about me.

Quite simply, for one example, what you are proposing would eliminate the interstate and us highway system in all rural and large area low population states completely and probably the state highway systems in those areas as well as the states could only afford to keep up the roads in very limited areas, mainly not rural areas. There goes most of your interstate commerce and shipping abilities, period. How would that look on a bottom line tax base for those states? How would that nice corn crop look if the farmer had to go back to hauling in standard grain trucks instead of semi because of severe load limits on terrible roads? How would that new manufacturing plant look that boarded up because they couldn't ship loads in and out? How would all those manufacturing plants in the donor states look when they couldn't ship any product to stores in fargo, bismarck, aberdeen, or any other cities in rural america?

We are all linked together between rural states and urban states. We use their products they use ours.

The problem isn't the rate in which money is given out, it's what it is being given out for. Eliminate the unnecessary crap is the answer.

I'm sorry, I am a true blooded conservative, but I trust none of the main political parties. They have completely allowed the fringes to take over the national parties on both sides of the isle and have their own personal interests and their donors in mind, not the countries and the people they are elected to represent for the most part.

I also believe the federal gov't is needed for certain items, transportation, defense, certain standards/requirements, etc so there are a set national standards followed. These are core items that have been proven in the past that they could not be left up to each state to decide as they became a jumbled mess of missmatched parts that not only didn't serve the best interest of the country, they were dangerous. I also do know they have taken that jurisdiction/regulation too far in many instances though.

The feds need to get out of legislating everything under the sun in day to day issues, get back to the core items, but that's just my two cents.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Amen. :beer:


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

KurtR said:


> you tell the reservations in sd and nd they wont be getting the fed money and see how that goes. Take them out of the equation and numbers would be quite different as they are money pits


...and cut subsidies to farmers since there is a lot more money going to them than any reservation.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Anas Strepera said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> > you tell the reservations in sd and nd they wont be getting the fed money and see how that goes. Take them out of the equation and numbers would be quite different as they are money pits
> ...


the farmers provide a return the reservations none so it is not and apples to apples comparison


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

southdakbearfan said:


> Quite simply, for one example, what you are proposing would eliminate the interstate and us highway system in all rural and large area low population states completely and probably the state highway systems in those areas as well as the states could only afford to keep up the roads in very limited areas, mainly not rural areas. There goes most of your interstate commerce and shipping abilities, period. How would that look on a bottom line tax base for those states? How would that nice corn crop look if the farmer had to go back to hauling in standard grain trucks instead of semi because of severe load limits on terrible roads? How would that new manufacturing plant look that boarded up because they couldn't ship loads in and out? How would all those manufacturing plants in the donor states look when they couldn't ship any product to stores in fargo, bismarck, aberdeen, or any other cities in rural america?


What I'm proposing is for welfare states to pay for their roads, and everything else. ND has a bunch of money at the state level. Why are the feds paying us when they're broke?

If a state wants a decent highway system, make them pay for it. They can raise their gas tax.

Or look at SD, institute a state income tax. It's total BS that people want to live in SD because of low taxes and then they want a bunch of WELFARE given to them by the federal government. If SD wants their roads, then pay for them.

It's funny how "conservatives" like yourself point fingers at inner city blacks but when it comes down to cutting the entitlements you're getting, "you NEED that money," that you get for free.

Pure hypocrisy.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

KurtR said:


> Anas Strepera said:
> 
> 
> > KurtR said:
> ...


 Exactly, what does the rez give us? What do farmers give us?


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Anas Strepera said:


> southdakbearfan said:
> 
> 
> > Quite simply, for one example, what you are proposing would eliminate the interstate and us highway system in all rural and large area low population states completely and probably the state highway systems in those areas as well as the states could only afford to keep up the roads in very limited areas, mainly not rural areas. There goes most of your interstate commerce and shipping abilities, period. How would that look on a bottom line tax base for those states? How would that nice corn crop look if the farmer had to go back to hauling in standard grain trucks instead of semi because of severe load limits on terrible roads? How would that new manufacturing plant look that boarded up because they couldn't ship loads in and out? How would all those manufacturing plants in the donor states look when they couldn't ship any product to stores in fargo, bismarck, aberdeen, or any other cities in rural america?
> ...


funny stuff lets see how many people use roads? How many people get to use shaniquas food stamps? It is not even a comparison that anyone with any little bit of common sense can make. How many jobs are created by building roads? You are dillusional if you think that food stamps and free housing is the same as building the infrastructure that buisness needs to supply product.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> If a state wants a decent highway system, make them pay for it.


Look how the Feds set up the Interstate HWy system. It was taught in my American history class when I was in 7th grade. They nation wanted a uniform hwy system to ship goods and products across state lines with out paying a "Tax" in each individual state for us on the roads....ie tolls or other form of taxes. So the Fed Government set up the interstate HWY system and the only way to make if fair is that the FED Government would pay for the care and maintaining of these roads. This also lead to some degree job creation for road workers. (again the fed government doesn't create jobs.....needs do...ie the need for this road and the maintaining of it). But that is why the Fed gives money to the states for roads.

Your idea of gas tax and what not would be a horrible idea. The cost of goods and services shipped across the US would rise dramaticly. Instead of paying $4 for your gallon of milk it would cost $10, your loaf of bread would go from $3 to $10. Think of all the milk that gets shipped across the US....think of processed grain?

Look at the Semi traffic on the interstate highways. They are all shipping goods.

So there is your answer on why some states are "welfare" states but yet it is going towards other things that "WELFARE". Need to look at what the payments go towards and not the payment itself.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Anas Strepera .... May I ask....What is your age??? This might shed some light on why you have this view point. BTW... I am 35.



> funny stuff lets see how many people use roads? How many people get to use shaniquas food stamps? It is not even a comparison that anyone with any little bit of common sense can make. How many jobs are created by building roads? You are dillusional if you think that food stamps and free housing is the same as building the infrastructure that buisness needs to supply product.


BINGO!!! :thumb:


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

KurtR said:


> funny stuff lets see how many people use roads? How many people get to use shaniquas food stamps? It is not even a comparison that *anyone with any little bit of common sense* can make. How many jobs are created by building roads? You are dillusional if you think that food stamps and free housing is the same as building the infrastructure that buisness needs to supply product.


Eh-hem...I think this sums it up... :wink:


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Anas what are you suggesting? Where are you from? You really sound like you are from a state that is hurting for cash and is very jealous of ND and its oil cash.

Leadership from the front these are words I live by. Our leaders in the fed do not know how to operate in their budget. Well we have not had one for four years. You are correct we need to have drastic chance in our country and the planet as a whole. Yes The United States of America should cut out subsidies by and large. Granted I do not want to be the one who said yes on that order. It would plunge our country into a recession then depression so fast. Granted we would need to keep some to prevent civil war.

The cuts would cripple the railroad, air transport, oil, roads, schools, well you name it. Granted these would be almost nothing compared to the full cut off of the rest of the world. I guess if we have to have a balanced budget so should they. They should not get any of our welfare. I would bet that ONE BILLION would be dead in six to nine months. Then the next billion would not be far behind them.

So lets talk about roads. Why should we be forced to pay for roads that benefit the country? How much oil, manufactured goods, and farm products do you actually think would get to the market without these roads?

Look at TX they have such poor lands for grazing that back in the days of the cattle drives cows actually gained weight on the way to market. Each state has problems that need assistance with

For the record there are way more farmers than humans on reservations. I will not get in to this argument as we screwed them over time and time again but we did not full scale eliminate them when we could have.

You sound just like the conservative Joe Scarborough he is not conservative at all. He is so left he stands just to the left of nancy Pelosi

What do you think of this plan? It would hurt but help.

1.	Everyone has to show ID to vote.
2.	You have to be eligible to vote.
3.	Your vote is recorded and public record.
4.	Polls are always open.
5.	Each polling term is three (3) months long. Yes four (4) votes per year.
6.	The idiots in Washington can not make any more laws they only make the lists of bills we (the citizens ) can vote for.
7.	You do not have to vote.
8.	If a bill passes the voters who voted yes and those who did not vote pay for it.
9.	Your Tax will be broken down to the penny for what you owe and for how long each line is for.

As your screen name is a duck do you think there would be any of them would be left if it was not the gov giving cash to states? Really do you think any would be left? The fed can make what ever law they want but the states could pick and choose what laws they would enforce if the gov was not giving cash out.

Same thing goes for unemployment and social security. Should we stop benefits when a person reaches what they paid in? What if they never did? That would cut off many illegal aliens. Same with letting people into the US. That is welfare for other countries.

Why should we stop being a Union of States?


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Anas Strepera said:


> southdakbearfan said:
> 
> 
> > Quite simply, for one example, what you are proposing would eliminate the interstate and us highway system in all rural and large area low population states completely and probably the state highway systems in those areas as well as the states could only afford to keep up the roads in very limited areas, mainly not rural areas. There goes most of your interstate commerce and shipping abilities, period. How would that look on a bottom line tax base for those states? How would that nice corn crop look if the farmer had to go back to hauling in standard grain trucks instead of semi because of severe load limits on terrible roads? How would that new manufacturing plant look that boarded up because they couldn't ship loads in and out? How would all those manufacturing plants in the donor states look when they couldn't ship any product to stores in fargo, bismarck, aberdeen, or any other cities in rural america?
> ...


First off, I never pointed a finger at anyone except for politicians, so you can take your hypocrisy and look in the mirror.

Second, since you pointed out SD, SD has higher sales and property taxes which more than makes up for not having an income tax, which I am sure you didn't deduct your portion of your state income tax that was allowable from your federal income taxes.

The only people in SD that want a state income tax are people that can hide their income and cheat the system.


----------

