Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two Americas: for how much longer can we prop-up the failed "Blue" America?
10/31/03

Posted on 10/31/2003 10:26:19 AM PST by pabianice

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-143 next last

1 posted on 10/31/2003 10:26:20 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice
CA bump.
2 posted on 10/31/2003 10:30:23 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Now that you've identified a problem, what's your solution?
3 posted on 10/31/2003 10:31:51 AM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I like this :) Spot on!!
4 posted on 10/31/2003 10:33:06 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (If you continue to do what you've always done, you will continue to get what you've always got)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Communist China did a White Paper on the US in the mid 1990's predicting this glaring weakness. They predicted that the US power will start to decline after 2030. They based their prediction on the growth of government programs to take care of self inflicted social problems, where the costs will erode our military and technical spendings needed to maintain power.
5 posted on 10/31/2003 10:33:07 AM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Congress can and will continue to prop up the status quo because none of them are sufficiently endowed with either testosterone or spine to tell the leeches that the host is terminal until the system collapses - and like the parlor game, they hope they'll be sitting in retirement on full salary when the music stops.
6 posted on 10/31/2003 10:34:28 AM PST by agitator (Ok, mic check...line one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: archy; pabianice
Road to CW2 bump.
7 posted on 10/31/2003 10:44:14 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
The first thing we've got to do is stop bailing out the liberal spendthrifts like NY and CA.
8 posted on 10/31/2003 10:50:32 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
while his devotees urinate themselves in the glow of their self-righteousness.

Thats a great line.LOL
9 posted on 10/31/2003 10:52:39 AM PST by Gottwnz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
--I look for this to be a major 2004 campaign issue---"Bush doesn't care about California"--Illinois,Lousiana,New York--all of them--
10 posted on 10/31/2003 10:53:40 AM PST by rellimpank (Stop immigration now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
for how much longer can we prop-up the failed "Blue" America?

Who is John Galt?

11 posted on 10/31/2003 10:54:47 AM PST by Tree of Liberty (I had an AWESOME time!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Now that you've identified a problem, what's your solution?

I think the thread is a question. How long will the USA survive in this state.

12 posted on 10/31/2003 10:56:32 AM PST by smith288 ((( () )))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fee
Communist China did a White Paper on the US in the mid 1990's predicting this glaring weakness. They predicted that the US power will start to decline after 2030...

True. But don't forget, China has its own "blue areas" too.

(steely)

13 posted on 10/31/2003 10:58:08 AM PST by Steely Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Item: "Blue" America is financially bankrupt, and California is a glaring example.

  This is, from my understanding, a counter-illustration. California sends more money to the federal government than it gets back - a trait shared by many of the "blue" states. The heartland states - the "red" ones - tend to be the opposite, getting more from the federal government than they send in. In effect, California is running a deficit in order to support the heartland.

  There was a big analysis recently - it was on the web, but I can't find it at the moment - but it showed that per capita income, and money sent in taxes, was higher in the coastal (blue) states. This could be an example of liberals practicing what they preach, perhaps. Still, it is interesting that the more liberal states, the ones we like to make fun of, tend to also generate more money.

  It makes the picture slightly more complex than you presented above.

Drew Garrett

14 posted on 10/31/2003 10:58:55 AM PST by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I have to wonder how much longer this will be the case.

It will continue until one of three things happen.

1. Complete financial breakdown. SS & Medicare will cause this to happen beginning as soon as 2008.

2. Election of a majority of fiscally conservative legislators who will put an end to welfare spending for Foreign nations, Corporations, and those who did not earn it.

3. Revolution
15 posted on 10/31/2003 10:59:48 AM PST by WhiteGuy (Constitutionally limited Government now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Now that you've identified a problem, what's your solution?

Nukes and MOAB's...then let it cool for a thousand years and start over.

16 posted on 10/31/2003 11:01:14 AM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: smith288
It's an interesting question, but should it be based on the results of the 2000 elections alone? Take the 1984 election--there was only one blue state. I don't think the results of one election alone can be the basis of IDing a problem and finding a solution.

17 posted on 10/31/2003 11:04:37 AM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
It used to be the Democrats were red like their communist and socialist cousins, and Republicans were the blue team. The leftist media hijacked our color saying they're giving blue to the incumbents. Bush is the incumbent now and I would like our color back!
18 posted on 10/31/2003 11:06:15 AM PST by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tree of Liberty; pabianice
To pabianice: Good essay!

Who is John Galt?

Eggs-act-lee what I thought of during my reading of this!

19 posted on 10/31/2003 11:10:18 AM PST by DoctorMichael (Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
California sends more money to the federal government than it gets back -..... The heartland states - the "red" ones - tend to be the opposite, getting more from the federal government than they send in. In effect, California is running a deficit in order to support the heartland.

This is true. California gets back from the feds 72 cents of every dollar sent to D.C.

20 posted on 10/31/2003 11:13:53 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The Howler Monkees of the left are in a terrible state of agitation. They can't get over the shock of their stooge Algore failing to steal the last election. It doesn't matter to them that Bush has enacted most of their programs, they are still seething with rage at the thought of the populace rejecting their rightful overlordship.

This next round they will pull out all the stops. The hate and lies and vote fraud will be unprecedented. For the left to suddenly lose power is like half a nation of heroin addicts having their junk flushed down the drain all at once.

Who knows what they will do if this next election is also a squeaker?

Could get ugly.

21 posted on 10/31/2003 11:17:11 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Insults from the left are mere confessions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I live in New Jersey, a solid Gore state. We get $0.67 to $0.69 cents back for every dollar we send to Washington. The same is true for Connecticut, Lieberman's home state. Where does all that money go? You might want to take a look at some of those states that voted for Bush. Think military bases, farm subsidies, and federal pork barrel spending.
22 posted on 10/31/2003 11:17:52 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
It doesn't matter to them that Bush has enacted most of their programs

That's what kills me the most. They should be cheering for Bush.

23 posted on 10/31/2003 11:20:20 AM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
72 cents of every dollar

Government overhead costs run about 50 percent. So if you give the government $1, getting back anything over 50 cents is a bargain.

24 posted on 10/31/2003 11:20:38 AM PST by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
This is true. California gets back from the feds 72 cents of every dollar sent to D.C.

New Jersey gets about $0.67 to $0.69 back. Get in line. :-)

It will probably be worse now that they've sent the corpse of Frank Lautenberg back to the Senate and the Democrats no longer control either house to grab pork. Of course Frank always seemed more interested in spending money in Colorado than in New Jersey.

25 posted on 10/31/2003 11:21:28 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
Government overhead costs run about 50 percent. So if you give the government $1, getting back anything over 50 cents is a bargain.

That's the message I wish they'd get people to understand.

I think Texas breaks about even. New Mexico makes out like a bandit. West Virginia does pretty well, too, thanks to "Sheets".

26 posted on 10/31/2003 11:23:18 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
There was a big analysis recently - it was on the web, but I can't find it at the moment - but it showed that per capita income, and money sent in taxes, was higher in the coastal (blue) states. This could be an example of liberals practicing what they preach, perhaps. Still, it is interesting that the more liberal states, the ones we like to make fun of, tend to also generate more money.

Common fantasy and dead wrong. In 2001, Massachusetts Liberals had placed on the MA state Income Tax form a line allowing any taxpayer to voluntarily pay more taxes than he owed. The Liberals were SURE that the huge surge in extra giving would show that most people believe the pernicious Liberal lie that they are undertaxed and wish to pay far more for the general good.

When the results were tallied, the Boston Globe went full-bore to suppress the outcome. A total of .04% of MA taxpayers voluntarily paid more taxes than they owed. I'll bet not one overpayer was a Liberal. Liberals insist upon OTHER people paying more, never themselves. Right now the Liberals are consumed with stopping the placement of wind electrical generators in Nantucket Sound. You see, Liberals insist that OTHER PEOPLE put up with "alternative energy resources," but, oh, no! Not Kennedys or Cronkites, who would actually have to LOOK at these unsightly towers fromm their ocean-going yachts...

27 posted on 10/31/2003 11:25:18 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The problem: It's too far gone for correction by conventional elections and politics. The notion that we control this country by voting is illusion.
28 posted on 10/31/2003 11:25:26 AM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The first thing we've got to do is stop bailing out the liberal spendthrifts like NY and CA.

NY gets only $.85 for every dollar it sends to the Federal government. California gets $.93.

If you want to find the states sucking up money, look to states like Montana ($1.73), North Dakota ($1.65), West Virginia ($1.72), or New Mexico ($1.97).

There’s plenty you can criticize NY and California for, but putting money in the federal kitty is not one of them.

29 posted on 10/31/2003 11:26:01 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Government overhead costs run about 50 percent. So if you give the government $1, getting back anything over 50 cents is a bargain.

Even overhead has to be spent somewhere! Almost every dollar the US Government spends, whether it's a direct payment to an individual through a subsidy program, to build an interstate highway, or to pay some bureaucrat's salary is spent in some state. (Foriegn aid is an exception.)

As a matter of fact, since the US Government is deficit spending, the total amount of Government spending in the 50 states EXCEEDS the amount of taxes received from the citizens of those states, so on a whole, the overall payback exceeds 100%.

30 posted on 10/31/2003 11:28:14 AM PST by So Cal Rocket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The red states are supporting your lazy blue butts
31 posted on 10/31/2003 11:28:21 AM PST by Jim Cane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smith288
Actually, I think the United States doesn't have more than another 25-30 years as a single country. And in the end, I see 4-7 nations coming out of what WAS the US and Canada. . .

I see:

Rustbelt: The Northeast, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, parts of Michigan: Eastern Canada

Dixie: The South, up to and including most of Virginia (parts of Northern Virginia, Fairfax and Arlington Counties, and Alexandria, will go Rustbelt)

Greater Quebec

Ecotopia: California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia

Possibly:

Atzlan: SoCal, Southern Arizona and New Mexico

Texas going solo

Greater Utah

Not sure where the plains states will fall out, nor the Canadian Prairie Provinces. . .
32 posted on 10/31/2003 11:31:37 AM PST by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Who published these numbers. The assumptions underlying the conclusion are by necessity complex and arguable. For instance, farm subsidies benefit any one who eats food.
33 posted on 10/31/2003 11:32:33 AM PST by reed_inthe_wind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
When the results were tallied, the Boston Globe went full-bore to suppress the outcome. A total of .04% of MA taxpayers voluntarily paid more taxes than they owed.

  That's nice. It has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand, but it's an example of... something.

  Currently, for every dollar Massachusetts sends to the Federal Government in taxes, they get back $0.75. They're one of the blue states, that you claim are such financial drains on the U.S. Kentucky - picking a red state at random - gets back $1.50 for every dollar they send in. But they're an example of fiscal solidity?

  Why?

  And why would not wanting to pay more, on top of an already terrible deal, be an issue?

Drew Garrett

34 posted on 10/31/2003 11:32:38 AM PST by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
This is true. California gets back from the feds 72 cents of every dollar sent to D.C.
This is a flawed study, because they count $1 of welfare payments, for which the feds get nothing in return, with $1 of payroll, for which the Fed Gov does get something in return. The fact that southern states have so many active duty military ( and other fed gov) employees) makes it seem like these states are getting more--but they are also giving more. Of course, WV is an exception--they really are getting more than they contribute.
35 posted on 10/31/2003 11:33:21 AM PST by ConservativeNJdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AK2KX; archy; backhoe; Badray; Jack Black; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; cgk; clamper1797; ...
Road to CW2 bump

Concur. CWII *Forward Observers* Ping.

-archy-/-

36 posted on 10/31/2003 11:35:26 AM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The "blue" islands on the 2000 map can best be described as cancers on the national MRI...

A better question might be, how can we keep this cancer from metastisizing and spreading as it is doing now?

Liberals move from their failed "blue" areas to the "red" areas as their policies inevitably fail. They bring their same old, failed attitudes with them, and try to remake their new homes into their old image of failed nostrums, thereby spreading their fatal disease.

37 posted on 10/31/2003 11:37:10 AM PST by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reed_inthe_wind
Who published these numbers. The assumptions underlying the conclusion are by necessity complex and arguable. For instance, farm subsidies benefit any one who eats food.

I'll try to find you a web site. As for farm subsidies benefitting anyone who eats food, exactly how does paying a farmer not to grow food to keep market prices higher than they'd otherwise be benefit me? How do farm subsidies for tobacco or mohair benefit me, a non-smoker who doesn't have any interest in mohair products? At best, it is redistribution. At worse, it makes food more expensive.

38 posted on 10/31/2003 11:41:00 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: reed_inthe_wind
Who published these numbers. The assumptions underlying the conclusion are by necessity complex and arguable.

You can start here.

39 posted on 10/31/2003 11:44:18 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Even overhead has to be spent somewhere! Almost every dollar the US Government spends, whether it's a direct payment to an individual through a subsidy program, to build an interstate highway, or to pay some bureaucrat's salary is spent in some state. (Foriegn aid is an exception.)

Of course. That's why it is so hard to cut spending. They money all goes somewhere. But the point is that it is redistributionist and contrarty to what a lot of Freepers seem to think, the redistribition isn't from the "red" states to the "blue" states but often the other way around. And where the money gets spent doesn't necessarily have to do with need but which congresscritter sits on the right committee. This is why New Mexico gets more than $2.00 back for every dollar.

As a matter of fact, since the US Government is deficit spending, the total amount of Government spending in the 50 states EXCEEDS the amount of taxes received from the citizens of those states, so on a whole, the overall payback exceeds 100%.

Should I assume that since you don't seem to be troubled by redistribution that you aren't troubled by going into debt to play Santa Claus?

40 posted on 10/31/2003 11:48:19 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
Still, it is interesting that the more liberal states, the ones we like to make fun of, tend to also generate more money.

Could be because those areas (esp. on a county-by-county basis) tend to be more densely populated, i.e. cities and other heavily developed areas, than the areas that voted for GWB in 2000. More people=more money in a raw sense. Why do those urban areas tend to be more liberal? Simply put, they're denser, and rely more on government regulations & services.

It makes the picture slightly more complex than you presented above.

< sarcasm > Fool! You think this isn't necessarily a black-and-white issue? You must be a Communist or DU disruptor or something!< /sarcasm>

Snidely

41 posted on 10/31/2003 11:48:45 AM PST by Snidely Whiplash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: reed_inthe_wind
For instance, farm subsidies benefit any one who eats food.

True enough. Other subsidies have benefits as well - roads subsidies benefit anyone who travels; educational subsidies benefit...somebody, I'm sure; Medicare and Medicaid benefit the health-care industry and those who are able to receive medical attention as a result; and tax credits (effectively subsidies) benefit small business owners, parents, and anyone who gets a college education, to name a few.

It's all really a matter of perspective, innit? Or is it?

Snidely

42 posted on 10/31/2003 11:54:43 AM PST by Snidely Whiplash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: reed_inthe_wind
Also, all of those wonderful federal parks, federal highways, federal dams, and other big federal projects built throughout the mid-West and West give me very little payback (other than the ability to see nice scenery when I vacation). Factor in the cost of living (those dollars are worth more in New Mexico than they are in New Jersey), the side benefits (relatively cheap hydroelectric power), the lower levels of social problems, and simply the sheer volume of tax dollars the New Jersey sends to DC and you'll be hard pressed to show that New Jersey is reaping benefits comparable to the loss. I know that a lot of Freepers have a preconceived notion that the "blue" states are a net liability but it just isn't so in most cases (with a large exception being DC, itself).
43 posted on 10/31/2003 11:55:40 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: archy
Another step in that direction everyday.
44 posted on 10/31/2003 11:56:40 AM PST by Eaker (Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.............hmmmmmmmmm ;<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Almost every dollar the US Government spends, whether it's a direct payment to an individual through a subsidy program, to build an interstate highway, or to pay some bureaucrat's salary is spent in some state. (Foriegn aid is an exception.)

Even a lot of "foreign aid" is spent here in the USA--much of it comes with a proviso that it is to be used for goods and services produced here.

45 posted on 10/31/2003 11:59:04 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Well I'd like to see the detailed math. The US Army is not the same as block grants for welfare is not the same as the Los Alamos labs is not the same as building nuclear submarines is not the same as having lots of retired people collecting social security. One only has to live in a place like NY to know that huge numbers of unproductive citizens are living off the fat of the land. I don't think you can say this about places like Wyoming. So before I give any weight to supposed "69c out of every $1" I'd like to see (and contemplate) the breakdown.
46 posted on 10/31/2003 11:59:36 AM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: DoctorMichael
Who is John Galt? I have no idea. I see this pop up from time to time. It's some kinda inside joke. Could you please explain it to me, and others who didn't attend the party where the joke originated.
48 posted on 10/31/2003 12:02:44 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Who is John Galt? I have no idea. I see this pop up from time to time. It's some kinda inside joke. Could you please explain it to me, and others who didn't attend the party where the joke originated.
49 posted on 10/31/2003 12:02:45 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
The link in Post 39 is broken.
50 posted on 10/31/2003 12:03:30 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson