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

10/31/03

[pabianice]

In reading other posts here on FR and in spending most of the day just reading (I'm a reporter), I am again struck how the US has split into two countries: "red" Bush America and "blue" Gore America. That's nit news. What's most compelling is how Bush America is increasingly having to prop-up the utterly failed Great Society/Gore America, and for just how much longer such a situation can exist.

Item: teacher disciplined for telling Mexican kids in her US class to stop disrupting the class (she's a "racist" for so doing). The other kids in the class continue to get no education and the Liberals think that's just fine -- for other kids. The LIberals opt out of the system by sending THIER kids to private schools.

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.

Item: the blue states lead in victim disarmament, where the law-abiding are denied the constitutional right to self-defense while the Liberals turn a blind eye at violence from career criminals ("poor victims of a racist system"). Liberals make sure they live in guarded, gated communities, and never have to set foot in any scruffy areas as they drive their SUVs from gated home to gated office building. Others who can, opt out by leaving such areas for places where they can carry concealed if they wish and where criminals know they are likely to be shot.

Item: International embarrassments like Ted Kennedy give long, boozy speeches about the evils of President Bush while his devotees urinate themselves in the glow of their self-righteousness. Others simply ignore such crap and tune-into talk radio.

Item: "Blue" America is financially bankrupt, and California is a glaring example. "Blue" America has degenerated into a coven of grasping, mentally diminished, selfish, thuggish special interest groups who have become increasingly violent in fighting over what is left of the Big City Democratic machines that have run things for the past 150 years. The "blue" islands on the 2000 map can best be described as cancers on the national MRI -- blighted areas of malignant, imploding selfishness that are trying to spread across the entire national body. And the "red" nation has to keep paying for it.

I have to wonder how much longer this will be the case. The defacto separation of "red" and "blue" has already occurred, and is fat too profound to be fixed by any social "bussing." At what point does the whole scheme collapse? And how is this going to be expressed and dealt with in the coming 2004 elections?

[dead]

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.

[Question_Assumptions]

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.

[Question_Assumptions]

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.

[Plutarch]

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.

[Kozak]

"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

[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

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

[Little Ray]

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.

[agarrett]

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

[StriperSniper]

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.

[DoctorMichael]

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.

[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. 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.

[Jack Black]

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.

[Brilliant]

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.

[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?

[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.

[dead]

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.

[Ohioan]

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

[thackney]

Ever read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?

[dead]

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.

[Mr. Mojo]

Oh. ...Thanks.