View Story | 613 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
And maybe it was even more than 50%, if the speculation about Diebold is on the mark.
Also, if education suffers it'll be even harder --in the long term-- to win hearts and minds to our side. The Republicans, on the other hand, will only grow stronger as the population gets progressively more and more ignorant.
Have you read the The Democrats' Da Vinci Code?
by Nate Roberts on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:56:43 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
"The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." -- Karl Popper
by eyeswideopen on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:56:31 PM PDT
Let me tell you, they know they don't put in, they won't raise their own state taxes, it just gives them an excuse to do nothing. Like Mexico. When ever there's problems in Mexico, they send their people North. They don't reform, they do not bother to help the economy or the poor. The Blue states need to expand, people need to support their own, and when the recession hits from the skyrocketing deficit hits, at least those states will have the buffer.
I can assure Fed funds are NOT appreciated in MS, unless they go to company, or organization, or a defense contractor (they have dozens here).
by lilorphant on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:27:04 AM PDT
I make my own money, and I pay a lot of it out in taxes. I can't afford to keep giving it away like this. I live in an area with a high cost of living. I have compassion for others, but if they insist on voting in a way that makes me less safe, places me further into debt, provides me with good healthcare but I have to pay a large portion of my salary to get it, and puts their nose into my business via the Patriot Act and whole gay-marrige thing.
Sorry, but when I hear claims that America's soul is on the heartland, real values, all that crap, I can't help but wonder if taking care of your own and hard work are values in the red states.
These people are innocent? They aren't innocent. They chose to vote that way. If the people who voted for Bush don't realize those ramifications, it isn't my job to explain it nicely. Frankly, I'm too busy staying out of debt, and they probably think I have too much foam on my nose from my latte to take me seriously anyway.
50% of the population voted for Kerry and live in a red state? Well, then they need to either move to a blue state, or talk to their friends and neighbors about why Bush had Bad Idea written all over him.
We aren't going to win unless we can win over those red states. And they don't want to hear it from me. It all has to come from the people they know, they people they respect.
Monday, September 27, 2004
The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.
The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
D.C. ($6.17)
North Dakota ($2.03)
New Mexico ($1.89)
Mississippi ($1.84)
Alaska ($1.82)
West Virginia ($1.74)
Montana ($1.64)
Alabama ($1.61)
South Dakota ($1.59)
Arkansas ($1.53)
In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold): States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
New Jersey ($0.62)
Connecticut ($0.64)
New Hampshire ($0.68)
Nevada ($0.73)
Illinois ($0.77)
Minnesota ($0.77)
Colorado ($0.79)
Massachusetts ($0.79)
California ($0.81)
New York ($0.81)
Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid. quotebox
I don't own any stocks or bonds. All my money is tied up in debt.
by muffilator on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:39:35 AM PDT
Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more. And I also accept your point that it was less than 50% of the people in the red states who voted against Bush and so clearly a majority are not innocent.
But what about the minority who passionately wanted to throw Bush out? So what if it was only 20% who voted against Bush in those states? Do they deserve to be pubished just because they live in red states? To me that smacks of collective punishement (though I admit that's a bit too strong of a term).
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for punishing the guilty ones. We've just got to do it in a way that targets the right people.
I actually had an idea about goading conservative Bible thumpers to sign onto a list of people who pledge that if they ever find themselves in any kind of medical crisis they will not accept any medical intervention that was made possible by the use of stem cell research.
It would be kind of like an organ donner card, and would be permanently attatched to their medical record (until, of course, they had second thoughts when confronted with the consequences of their "moral" stance.
Let's force them to put their own precious asses where their mouths are!
by Nate Roberts on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:50:55 PM PDT
The minority who passionately wanted to throw Bush out should talk to their friends and neighbors about why Bush's policies are bad for them, economically and morally. They need to make the sale for us - apparently we are doing something wrong when we speak to these people. If they can't convince people that it is time for a change, then why would they want to continue to live in a state that subsists on the dole, takes away rights and freedoms from several groups, and enacts bigoted laws?
This isn't about vengance. It is about taxation without representation. I send a large chunk of money to Washington, but I don't get to elect the president.
by muffilator on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:09:56 PM PDT
This speaks to a larger problem: What can we do with all of the people, living in these larger rural (red) states, whose economic future is decidedly bleak. The manufacturing jobs are disapearing, and I think it is a matter of time before we lose them permanently (unless some worlwide labor standards are changed pronto). There are only so many high-tech jobs to go around. I fear our service based economy will be unstable in the long term.
In the meantime, this population is getting older, prisons are filling, divorce rates skyrocketing.
I would love to see more tax breaks for companies like New Balance, who keep at least some manufacturing jobs here. We need to start producing regional goods again (even things like quilts and furniture). Organic, local farming. Invest in public works - keeping things green, building new areas. If we can become the best place to build an alternative fuel car, and keep that market hot through international environmental standards treaties, we could produce a big enough labor boom to prolong this for a while.
Ignorance can go both ways. I think if we remove the dependence on the federal system, the changes that we need economically can happen. The states are forced to be independent and survive on their own.
If we don't kick the kids out of the nest soon, before we know it they'll be 40 and living in the basement.
by muffilator on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:42:21 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 613 comments