Did you know dog meat is served in restaurants in South Korea? I didn't. In the United States and most western countries, Fido is a family companion and while it's not ethical to judge another culture by our standards, anyone who doesn't at least (humanely) butcher the animal first is acting without proper care. South Korea relies on western consumerism for their economy and needs to be aware that we do not accept the practice of skinning and boiling dogs alive. Originally shared by April Benney Over 6,000 restaurants in South Korea are still serving dog meat even though it is now illegal. In many Asian countries dogs are boiled alive or skinned alive when slaughtered. It's an unbelievably horrendous & torturous way to die. I know a lot of you hate seeing this kind of posts on G+, but the Asian industry slaughtering dogs & cats is how I first got involved in animal rights & it will always be my main animal welfare concern. It's intolerable what is happen...
Comments
Not what people normally consider 'welfare'.
If you want to talk about welfare as it is generally understood: one third of all welfare recipients in the nation live in Democrat controlled California.
And yourself.
A State getting more than it gives in is usually not because of social welfare programs, but fed spending on roads or military bases or the like. That was my point, which is what is missed by those talking about 'red welfare states'. That is done to mislead people into thinking people that vote Republican are more likely to get welfare. Spending on roads and military bases is not what people consider 'welfare'.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/
Or this one from 2015: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-24093
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-aid-0
So, I believe my premise was correct: red states, those states where the voters tend to vote Republican, are moochers off the remaining, more liberal, states.
From the PolitiFact citation:
"How do you define red and blue states?
The graphic defines Republican states as those "that have voted Republican in a previous presidential election." Because the data is from 2005, that means states that voted for George W. Bush in 2004, which is a larger number than voted Republican in 2008.
But the definition of states as Republican or Democratic isn't immutable. Just four years later, in the 2008 election, six states in the right-hand chart and three states in the left-hand chart switched from Republican to Democratic, making both charts more heavily blue.
We should also note that some of the margins of victory were quite narrow. In fact, a dozen or more states can be characterized in most elections as swing states, which might be more appropriately shaded in purple.
The data is seven years old
As we noted, the data is for 2005. To the author’s credit, this is disclosed prominently, and because it’s the most recent data of its type available, we can hardly fault the creator of the graphic for using it. Still, since the data has almost certainly shifted in the interim, particularly with the 2009 stimulus and the general increase in deficit spending, those patterns could have shifted as well.
"Because of the high deficit spending we’re seeing at the federal level, it’s likely that every state is currently receiving more in federal spending than its population paid in federal income taxes," the Tax Foundation's Morrison said."
Pretty weak.
You know what it is. And it's not based on any reality.
No reason to do so. It was tedious enough the first time.
Wealthy live in NYC for proximity. They tolerate a great deal of shakedown from municipal factotums to do so.
Overtaxing of the wealthy will only drive them offshore, as many have already done.