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 previous 1-5051-100101-143 next last
To: Reeses
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!

That's what I have been saying for a long time. Commies are red bump!

51 posted on 10/31/2003 12:04:41 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: All
My guesses for why the blue states make more money than the red states:

1) At some point their blue legislatures stuck in significantly higher local and state taxes. This increases the cost of production, therefore retail prices rise to compensate, therefore wages increase to get enough workers who can afford the prices, blah blah blah. Net result - higher cost of living, and higher wages. Fact is, the blue states pay twice as much for everything, and earn almost twice as much as workers in the red states. They're two different economies, one much more inflated than the other due to local taxes. But "progressive" tax rates bite the guy in NY a hell of a lot harder than the guy in the south.

2) Along the same lines: Assume people prefer to live outside of cities than in cities. I think this is true, all other things being equal. But the cities are also where the big corporations are. What do employers need to do to make employees deal with the smog, long commutes, etc.? Pay them more. Blue states have a higher urban to rural ratio, therefore, once again, their citizens are paid higher, deal with a higher cost of living, and pay unfairly higher "progressive" federal taxes for the same basic services.

3) Do the dollars sent in and out of a state include corporate taxes as well as income tax? If so, factor them in - I would guess they pay a great deal in taxes but don't require much additional infrastrucure compared to each individual taxpayer.

4) I would guess that most of the military spending is going to be in the red states, with the HUUUUUGE... tracts of land.

5) Outrageously oversized farming subsidies.

Just my guesses.

Qwinn
52 posted on 10/31/2003 12:08:00 PM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
This next round they will pull out all the stops. The hate and lies and vote fraud will be unprecedented.

Bears repeating. 2004 will be the ugliest meanest political year in the history of the Republic. Just look at the rhetoric spouted in the 'debates' so far.
53 posted on 10/31/2003 12:11:01 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
D.C. is the worst. $5.00 in for every $1.00 out.
54 posted on 10/31/2003 12:12:24 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
ATLAS SHRUGGED
55 posted on 10/31/2003 12:12:43 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: archy; pabianice
Just an off the cuff ( and probably off the wall ) comment?

I have long wished we could split America in two-- one nation of "Just let me aloners" and the other of "I want the government to be my Mom & Daddy..."

Unfortunately, the latter require the money and labor of the former, so it would never stand for long.

56 posted on 10/31/2003 12:16:55 PM PST by backhoe (My guns guard your Freedoms...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
So before I give any weight to supposed "69c out of every $1" I'd like to see (and contemplate) the breakdown.

Do the research yourself or pay me a consulting fee to do it for you. There is only so much research I'll do for free.

Yes, you can argue that dollars are not equal but bear in mind that New Jersey does have military facilities as well (Fort Monmouth, Earl, Picatinny, McGuire, as well as federal employees in various agencies). And a heck of a lot of welfare gets sent into the "red" states. I know this is counter-intuitive for many Freepers but it really isn't difficult to understand. It's all about income.

If you look at average Median incomes (for example, here), you'll see an average income in Kentucky of $39,300 but $63,800 in New Jersey. New Jersey has about 8.6 million people while Kentucky has only about 4 million. Now, consider that the tax brackets for Federal income tax are not indexed for the cost of living. That means that fewer of those 4 million Kentuckians are even paying taxes. They are paying less in taxes. And there are less of them paying it. This is so obvious for conservatives when it comes to explaining why the poor didn't get a tax cut.

Poor people pay less in taxes. The people in the rural South, rural Midwest, and rural West are poorer than the people on the coast and in the cities. There are fewer of them in the same physical area. It is more expensive to do things like build roads, sewers, or electrical and phone lines and it takes longer to visit each person because each person is father apart (this is where the rural "Baby Bell" USWest got screwwed). Put it all together. This isn't that difficult to see once you stop assuming that rural living is cheap. Ask USWest/Qwest how cheap it is running a rural utility compared to an urban utility.

57 posted on 10/31/2003 12:21:27 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
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?

Oh, I'm very troubled by the by the debt being incurred by the US Government and all the State Governments and local municipalities. In my mind the ONLY programs that should be funded by debt are those for which the benefits accrue over a period of time (i.e., roads, dams, buildings). You should never go into debt to meet recurring expenditures.

I personally only use debt financing on things that for which I will derive a benefit on over time (home, second house, car). I never use debt to finance my recurring expenditures (groceries, electricity, Santa Claus). If only the Government would manage their money the same way.

58 posted on 10/31/2003 12:21:46 PM PST by So Cal Rocket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dead
You're addressing a different issue. My point is that we should not bail them out when they mismanage. I was not criticizing them because they don't send enough to Washington. By analogy, I would not want the federal government to bail out a billionaire if he got into financial trouble. That's not the same as criticizing him because of how much he pays in taxes.
59 posted on 10/31/2003 12:25:50 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Try this or this

They are PDFs. I couldn't find an HTML version quickly, though you can Google search the links and probably see an HTML version that way.

60 posted on 10/31/2003 12:26:17 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
To my knowledge, the Federal government has never bailed out New York, despite mismanagement that runs rampant.

The state government just mismanages all the time, and waits for a stock market rally to bail them out.

61 posted on 10/31/2003 12:28:52 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
You should also notice that the states that get the biggest amount of benefit are ones that have (or had, in the recent past) powerful Senators or Congressmen on Appropriations and other key committees that were able to bring home the pork. That's why West Virginia and New Mexico have done so well.

I'm also willing to concede that I do benefit from the military bases in the rural parts of the country and that the cost of operating them is much cheaper there. But it does suck money out of my state to operate them and that doesn't explain where all of the money is going.

62 posted on 10/31/2003 12:31:18 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
I appologize if I sounded to snotty asking you to do your own research or pay for it. Your requests were not particularly unreasonable. I simply get tired of people asking to be shown data rather than look it up themselves. What I've been doing is simply gone to Google and searching for key words to get the pages I pointed you to. You can honestly do the same if you want and it would probably be better for you to do so, since you could be sure to see all of the results and not simply the ones that I'm filtering out for relevence. I am usually just toss out the first references I find that look sound but I could just as easily be hiding data that proved I was wrong. If you did your own research, you could make up your own mind.
63 posted on 10/31/2003 12:36:11 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | 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.

I would think that a large part of this effect is due to each state having two Senators. The Blue States tend to be high density and high population. The North Dakota's have hardly any population, but two Senators who can help steer largesse to their States.

Agriculture spending is a prime example.

64 posted on 10/31/2003 12:37:52 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

Fraser Tyler

" There are makers fakers and takers. Makers create wealth, fakers pretend to create wealth, and takers consume wealth. When the fakers and takers outnumber the makers, your society is doomed."

Robert A Heinlein
65 posted on 10/31/2003 12:41:44 PM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
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

You fail to present any evidence re: dollars back per dollar taxed per resident.

66 posted on 10/31/2003 12:50:14 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dead
They (PRK, PRNY, PRM, etc.) are spendthifts in terms of the money their state government spends, and the silly things on which they spend it. Revenue sent to the Federales is irrelevant.
67 posted on 10/31/2003 12:54:26 PM PST by Little Ray (When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
You fail to present any evidence re: dollars back per dollar taxed per resident.

  Easily remedied. My source was a Tax Foundation study, examining data from 1992 and 2002 - the data I presented were all from 2002. Here's a link, Tax Foundation Study

Drew Garrett

68 posted on 10/31/2003 12:59:47 PM PST by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
but should it be based on the results of the 2000 elections alone? Take the 1984 election--there was only one blue state.

You bring up a good point. But if you go to the county maps, it would probably look somewhat similar with the 'blue' areas shinking modestly. I would be quite interesting to make the counties that were different between the two elections another color, say 'yellow', and that would probably be a large percentage of suburbs.

69 posted on 10/31/2003 1:04:43 PM PST by StriperSniper (All this, of course, is simply pious fudge. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Who is John Galt?

.........is a phrase popularized in ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand. She put it in the mouths of the characters in the book to indicate their resignation to 'the-inevitable' and their giving up on trying to fight the forces in society working against them.

Little do they know that John Galt is actually a living human being who "Shrugs".

Read the book. Most people on this site have.

70 posted on 10/31/2003 1:04:44 PM PST by DoctorMichael (Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: archy
In point of fact the divide is not really red states versus blue states as those states in the red column have substantial blue voters and likewise those states in the blue column have substantial red voters. If this devolves to civil war then the net result will be far more chaotic then anyone imagines as there will not be clearlines drawn. Think of just about every state as a Civil War border state.
71 posted on 10/31/2003 1:07:14 PM PST by harpseal (stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Thanks for the links. It looks like pretty well done research. I could not poke any obvious holes in it. It's not true that there is a complete overlap of Red/Blue in either case though. Nevada gets less that 100% back, so does Texas, both solid Red states.
72 posted on 10/31/2003 1:07:53 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dead
The NYers are smart enough not to call it a bail out, but the feds bailed out NYC during the 70's. They pretty much bailed NY State and City out after 911, and there has been talk of funneling money to the states (read "NY") because of their recent financial distress. Those are just examples.
73 posted on 10/31/2003 1:24:36 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
When a surgeon sees positive evidence of a metastisizing cancer, he usually suggests cutting it out and soon. I wonder if the idea would be appropriate for the RAT-infested Blues?
74 posted on 10/31/2003 1:27:47 PM PST by Paulus Invictus (Blue States are socialist enclaves bent on destroying the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
You know, the recent designations of "blue" for the Dems and "red" for Pubbies is really starting to tick me off. Prior to this last (2000) election it was the Rat areas of the map that were always shown in (commie) red, while the GOP areas were in (freedom) blue. But the media did a little switcharoo, and not too many people noticed.
75 posted on 10/31/2003 1:29:14 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The NYers are smart enough not to call it a bail out, but the feds bailed out NYC during the 70's.

The federal government merely provided loan guarantees to the city to “bail them out” in the 70’s. The city wanted more, but as the classic Daily News headline recorded (“Ford to City: Drop Dead”) they were denied.

They pretty much bailed NY State and City out after 911,

Yeah, and the feds rebuilt Pearl Harbor in 1941. Thanks.

and there has been talk of funneling money to the states (read "NY") because of their recent financial distress.

“talk”? What the hell is “talk”? Nobody’s funneling any money to NY.

Those are just examples.

Poor ones.

76 posted on 10/31/2003 1:35:40 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
There is nothing wrong with your basic point. But I wish that you would stop referring to the Left leaning States as the "blue" States. Just because the media used a map in the last election, alotting blue to the Democrats and Red to the Republicans, doesn not mean that we should embrace that perverse symbolism. For generations, blue has been the color of Conservatism and Red the color of Socialism and Communism. When all else is equal, we should stick with the symbolism that has long spoken to the orientation involved, not abandon it.

I have no way of knowing whether the use of colors in the last election news coverage was deliberate or accidental. But considering the fact that the Left has carefully tried to undermine many symbols of the American tradition, I would prefer to err on the side of believing that the new usage serves their purpose, rather than ours. (I also, personally, greatly prefer blue.)

Again, your basic point is sound. The Left has always tried to use the work product of the productive people to further their own devious and evil ends. That is not new, but it should indeed be reiterated.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

77 posted on 10/31/2003 1:36:41 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
Ever read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?
78 posted on 10/31/2003 1:37:08 PM PST by thackney (Life is Fragile, Handle with Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
You know, the recent designations of "blue" for the Dems and "red" for Pubbies is really starting to tick me off. Prior to this last (2000) election it was the Rat areas of the map that were always shown in (commie) red, while the GOP areas were in (freedom) blue. But the media did a little switcharoo, and not too many people noticed.

The incumbent party in the presidential election is traditionally represented by blue, the challenging party is represented by red.

79 posted on 10/31/2003 1:37:23 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: dead
Oh. ...Thanks.
80 posted on 10/31/2003 1:38:15 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: JJDKII
I agree completely, and I have ideas about the endgame that I'm reluctant to say out loud.

Understand completely.

MM

81 posted on 10/31/2003 1:39:12 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Salgak
Texas going solo

We'll take Ok, Ark, Ks, and Neraska with us for $ 500 Alex.

82 posted on 10/31/2003 1:43:40 PM PST by Centurion2000 (Virtue untested is innocence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
And if the nation dissolves we'll take back our original territorial claims :)


83 posted on 10/31/2003 1:45:02 PM PST by Centurion2000 (Virtue untested is innocence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The other kids in the class continue to get no education and the Liberals think that's just fine

Not really. The liberals think we need to give them more money to throw at the problem.

84 posted on 10/31/2003 1:45:55 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Item: A conservative estimate puts as much as 35% of the American economy underground. Taxpayers are fed-up with having 50% or more of of their hard-earned pay taxed by the feds, the state, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. So peopledo the natural thing: opt out of the system by going cash-only, off the books

Yes, and union workers can't work off the books, so now tell me, who's a patriot? The suckers that underwrite your tax frauds? Guess so.

85 posted on 10/31/2003 1:49:40 PM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
And if the nation dissolves we'll take back our original territorial claims Okay by me. I'm up in Northern Texas, presently known as Colorado.
86 posted on 10/31/2003 1:50:27 PM PST by Red Boots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Until the bluzone surrenders to the revolution.
87 posted on 10/31/2003 1:53:04 PM PST by bert (Don't Panic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
When a surgeon sees positive evidence of a metastisizing cancer, he usually suggests cutting it out and soon.

This sounds like a true statement but it actually is not. In general once the cancer has started to metastasize it's too late and it does no good to remove it.

In general the treatment goal is to remove the cancer before the metastasis has begun.

It may seem that I'm just picking nits here but in fact the analogy may be particularly apt and the nit I'm picking may be more than just a nit. Point being, if the socialist cancer has already metastisized, it may be too late in the social realm as well as the biologic one.

88 posted on 10/31/2003 1:59:54 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Naah, the cancer analogy is not a perfect one. In the political sense, it may yet be possible to excise the disease. However, the moderators would frown on an accurate description of how that may be accomplished.
89 posted on 10/31/2003 2:28:07 PM PST by Charles Martel (Liberals are the crab grass in the lawn of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
It's STILL too early to shoot the bastards.
90 posted on 10/31/2003 2:33:08 PM PST by ThanhPhero (Ong lam hanh huong di La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
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.

I'd be curious as to the demographics. Most of Federal spending is for 'entitlements', including Social Security. Many retirees head for these 'red' states because the cost of living is cheaper. I've no idea how many do this, though; if it's a significant percentage.

91 posted on 10/31/2003 2:59:35 PM PST by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Salgak
I Hillary gets elected you're probably right.
92 posted on 10/31/2003 3:01:51 PM PST by Chuckster ("Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
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.

Another view is that the Blue counties (forget the states) are all coastal ports/industrial centers or the Mississippi River (think barge traffic). So, it isn't unreasonable to expect the big revenue generators to be located near the ports. The heartland is either the farmland that feeds the rest of the country or remote protected national parkland.

-PJ

93 posted on 10/31/2003 3:14:17 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
In point of fact the divide is not really red states versus blue states as those states in the red column have substantial blue voters and likewise those states in the blue column have substantial red voters.

A copy of DNC & green party mailing lists would be helpful in sorting things out.

94 posted on 10/31/2003 3:20:55 PM PST by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
When a surgeon sees positive evidence of a metastisizing cancer, he usually suggests cutting it out and soon. I wonder if the idea would be appropriate for the RAT-infested Blues?

Brilliant idea. However, President Bush lost my state by 5709 votes and would have probably won had their been a recount and a thorough investigation into voting irregularities, but if you want Wisconsin out of the Union, well, hey, show us the door.

You also might want to tell the GOP that instead of Wisconsin being high on the list of target states to just forfeit it in 2004 to the Dems.

Is that what you want?

95 posted on 10/31/2003 3:52:04 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Salgak
"And in the end, I see 4-7 nations coming out of what WAS the US and Canada. . . "

John Titor where are you?

96 posted on 10/31/2003 4:05:27 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
It's long past time for Atlas to shrug.
97 posted on 10/31/2003 4:49:38 PM PST by Noumenon (I don't have enough guns and ammo to start a war - but I do have enough to finish one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
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.

Apt metaphor. It'll get more than ugly. Prepare for war.

98 posted on 10/31/2003 4:53:17 PM PST by Noumenon (I don't have enough guns and ammo to start a war - but I do have enough to finish one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ThanhPhero
It's later than you think.
99 posted on 10/31/2003 4:57:38 PM PST by Noumenon (I don't have enough guns and ammo to start a war - but I do have enough to finish one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
What I want to know, while we're on the subject, is this: who picked the colors? Or rather, who assigned the colors? Ever since the famous map came out, I've always been ticked off that someone picked "red" for the conservatives, when in fact, it makes infinitely more sense for the commie-libs to be the "reds", right?
100 posted on 10/31/2003 5:08:45 PM PST by handk (The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits our Astro-Men. Will you be among them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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