Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Customer Service | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

State should help the poor

September 8, 2013

Cody Stanley, Grand Forks Jesus said to help the needy. We have many poor folks in North Dakota—over 80,000 people in our own state live below the poverty line. Luckily, with a $1....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Sep-08-13 2:07 AM

Instead of figuring out better ways of spending the surplus, how about returning the surplus back to the state's taxpayers in the form of across-the-board income tax cuts and/or sales tax rate cuts? Individual North Dakotans could then apply those tax savings as a matter of choice to specific charities. Or not. That's the point. Charity should always be a matter of free will, not government mandate. Government, at every level, needs to get out of the business spending our money on "worthy" causes. Give the money back to the citizens and let each person decide for himself or herself which worthy causes to support.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-08-13 7:28 AM

Jesus said YOU are to help the poor, he says nothing about government doing it. All He says about government is to render unto Caesar what is Caeasars and unto God what is Gods. In other words pay your taxes. If YOU want to help the poor have at it... Charity starts at home not with government. I agree with anger

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-08-13 8:51 AM

Your mistake is in assuming we are a Christian Nation and would act accordingly. We are a capitalist nation that worships money and success so you should not be surprised by our actions. As to the point about government versus individual giving, the government should be all of us doing together what we cannot do individually such as building roads and schools and yes helping the least among us.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-08-13 9:04 AM

I am wondering if Anger and subman should re-read the article again. You are both so concerned about the government helping disadvantaged children you passed on the real questions you should be following. How does the State government give 80% of its tax breaks to out of state corporations? Did you two get any of that? NO. But, you are more concerned about helping ND kids get a good start in life while not the least bit concerned about the giveaways of the state government. I am sure that you were also less concerned about the tax breaks of the 2002 federal tax revisions that went to the richest people/corporations at 80% as well. You both want tax relief and are more concerned about kids getting some help and not concerned about politicians helping the very wealthy and big corporations. Typical.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-08-13 11:08 AM

I'm wondering if Center should re-read my comment. I specified accross-the-board tax RATE cuts. I'm very skeptical of the 80 percent number that Cody threw out and Center gleefully regurgitated. I am opposed to Federal, State and local authorities picking winners and losers by selectively applying "tax breaks" to specific types of enterprises or industries, not to mention individuals.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-08-13 11:24 AM

"How does the State government give 80% of its tax breaks to out of state corporations?" You tell me. You're the one always asking for the facts, but you throw out figures like this and we're supposed to regard them as fact. Specify these tax breaks for us. Who's getting them? In what form(s) do they come? Which entities are granting the breaks? How are they being applied unequally to out of state corporations vs. those that have operated within the state for a number of years? What exactly qualifies an entity as an "out-of-state" corporation? How long would a company have to operate within the state to be considered in-state? Would it have to move the corporate headquarters into the state?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-08-13 11:59 AM

Wow, WillGarr. That certainly is a lot of money these industries need to pay out to influence government decision-making. I'm glad you brought it up, and I think it's a matter of perception.

So what is the point of all this? Is it to demonstrate the inequity of resources available to influence government policy? The the big players in the energy and insurance industries have the most money, so they can buy the most influence? Do I have that about right, WillGR?

From my perspective, I see it a little different. Government, especially at the Federal level, is too powerful. It can pick winners and losers within an industry at the stroke of a pen. It can even bankrupt and restructure entire industries (just watch the fallout from the Affordable Care Act).

The problem isn't how much each player pays to play, or even that our politicians are peddling influence to the highest bidders.

The problem is that the referee has joined the game.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-08-13 5:04 PM

"Charity should always be a matter of free will, not government mandate. Government, at every level, needs to get out of the business spending our money on "worthy" causes."

Crystal clear, angeR.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-08-13 9:53 PM

Cody.... Poor Cody.... Republicans do not submit kids to poverty irresponsible parents do. Poor kids do not come through osmosis they come from unprotected sex. It is not the Republicans responsibility to pay for their kids, it should help to the parents. Cody do you have Any idea how much the average mom collects in benefits in North Dakota? The average single mom collects 30,000 per year. There are over 128 federal programs for the poor. In this country you should not expect to get a free ride rather do your part.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 9:08 AM

The writer of this letter should review the Second Commandment:

"Thou shalt not misuse the name of the Lord your God"

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 9:10 AM

No matter how worthy or noble the cause may sound, it still does not give you the right to go take things from others by force of arms for the purpose of giving to another.

Cody, in justifying violence in the Lord's name, is no better than any other religious fanatics who commit violence in the name of their dieties.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 9:29 AM

"Amen...Wouldn't bother me a bit if the Farm Bill paperwork was lost or after posting 9 Billion in profits GE might have to pay taxes...So forth so on & on & on... To include ND not getting anymore than they pay in to the fed!!!"

This wouldn't bother me either, Veritas. This way of life is rather firmly entrenched. It took decades to get to this point and will probably take decades to fill in those trenches. Will we do it? Hmmm...

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 9:30 AM

" The average single mom collects $30,000 per year."

Please provide a link to that statement, otherwise locomotive will be very upset.

Well, I don't know about "very" upset...


3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 9:34 AM

singlemotherguide . com/financial-help-for-single-mothers-in-north-dakota/

Found one on my own, willgrr. It doesn't have $$ figures, but it details available programs on this page. Perhaps the site has more specific info in its many categories.

There you are, dished up pretty for all. You're welcome.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 9:36 AM

MattRothchild Sep-09-13 9:10 AM

I agree.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 10:25 AM


Could you break it all down for us? I'm not disputing any claim that our State takes in more Federal dollars than it sends out from the state's taxpayers. I've seen figures anywhere from $1.72 in for each dollar out to $1.85, dependent on the year.

The problem is, as with every juicy statistic the left adopts as its war cry, there is another side to the story.

So your point is that Republicans are all hypocrites because so-called "red" states consume more Federal dollers per capita than "blue" states. I get it. I really do. A simple conclusion from a simple person.

The truth is usually a bit more complex.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 10:26 AM

The fact is that blue states, comprised of mostly urban areas, simply produce more wealth than the primarily rural red States. The producers in blue states - those that actually pay taxes - pay in more Federal Income taxes PER-CAPITA than those in the rural poor states. Why do you suppose that might be? Could it possibly have something to do with that lovely graduated income tax system you progressives pushed on us a few years back? After all, why shouldn't the rich have to pay a higher percentage than those less well off. They can afford it. It's only fair, right?

But I digress, I guess. Enough with the distractions! We need to focus on those Federal outlays to the moochers in this state. Tell us WillGarr, what makes us such moochers? As you've pointed out, every state has military bases and indian reservations, so we might as well just take them off the table as a consideration. We're certainly not special in that regard.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 10:26 AM

So with the military bases and indian reservations off the table, what do we have left? Well, let's see... could it be roads and highways? Eduacation? Tell us WillGarr - why does North Dakota get money from the Federal Government for education or roads and highways? Why does the Federal Government have any interest in these things at all aside from pushing some statist agenda by leveraging Federal Dollars to sweeten the deal?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 10:27 AM

Could it be Social Security? There certainly are a lot of old people in this state - most of them aren't too productive at all, living off that Social Security and reaping all that free Medicare. Don't get me started on the ones residing in nursing homes and those hefty Medicaid outlays. Old people: they're all moochers, and probably most of them are Republicans. Still, I suppose you can't really blame them. After all, we made some promises, didn't we? The New Deal and the Great Society - also gifts from you progressives.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 10:28 AM

Wait.... wait. It's got to be all those rich Republican farmers getting fat off the Federal dole. They're all right-wing Rush addicts, indoctrinated by right-wing radio 24/7 - listening to it in their tractor cabs via satellite. Well, I think you are on to something there WillGarr. I honestly do. They're all hypocrites addicted to direct cash payouts from their pork-snaring Congressional delegations on both sides of the aisle. North Dakota is a "RED" state, but when it comes to bringing home the bacon from Washington, North Dakotans put their faith in Democrats more than Republicans, because, darn it, Democrats get things done!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 10:40 AM

The problem is WillGarr, you and your ilk got us where we are today by pushing that progressive agenda for the last hundred years, and you're not yet finished, are you? It's not about the red states and the blue states -it's the latest gimmick to disguise all the havoc you've been causing. Go ahead, take away those direct cash payments to the farmers. But you're not going to do that are you? Too many of those farmers vote for the same things you do. Besides, they make pretty good patsies.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 1:15 PM

I think angeR ran well with his posts, all the way through to the finish line.

If we didn't have "entitlements" of any description, we wouldn't have "entitlement mentalities" of any description.

One extended family member informed us that our family's size + income level qualified us for certain benefits from state/federal government. She said "why not - you're entitled to them."

We chose not to receive the bennies and really haven't suffered by that choice. But that's us and that was our choice. There are others who will choose to receive the benefits, possibly for the reason our family member said: you're entitled.

Like Disney's Goofy used to sing...

"Oh, the world owes me a livin'..."

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 3:55 PM

But of course, veritas, it is the progressives fault. We certainly know that and so does anger. After all, the facts certainly back all of that fiscal responsibility up. Well, take Reagan for example. Well, just take Reagan, please. Massive deficit spending and the beginning of corporate welfare. The start of the "voodoo" economics. (Trickle down). So, as we continue down the path to George, George,,,heck, I forget his last name, but he was the second one. Now, we continue with dismantling government regulations by repealing laws and letting the fat cats run wild. Throw in a huge portion of tax gifts, government subsidies, and privatization for a price, and you have a big part of your deficit, a big part of a lot of problems. Gee, those things were not started by progressives but by (cough, cough) conservatives. Just cannot get away from the facts, can we? One other thing, because of the obstructionist Republicans the past five years, we remain bound to these costly

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 9:41 PM

Come on, you cannot be that dumb, or can you. 388 filibusters and 40 votes to repeal obamacare???? You wonder why the government has stopped. You party of obstructionism started their garbage on the first inauguration nite with a meeting of the famous fifteen who vowed to block everything. Now that is factual and not the fiction you write.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-10-13 2:31 AM

Center, you're right. There are plenty of Republicans to blame as well. Too many of these RINOs campaign as conservatives, but once in office, all that goes out the door, and they start playing politics. This goes on at all levels and branches of government, and the list of RINOS includes, among many others, the likes of the Bushes (all of them), Boehner, Rove, Romney, McCain, Hoeven and Dalrymple. There's no doubt Reagan, most definitely NOT a RINO, also drove up the deficit. He was constantly lambasted in the press the buildup in defense spending. That spike certainly drove up the deficit, but it also had a a purpose, a goal and an end. More importantly, it worked! The Soviet Union collapsed as a result of the arms race.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 53 comments Show More Comments


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web