Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I think your comments are a little off base. While there is an obvious divide between the coasts (Democrat) compared to the “middle” states (Rep.), you can’t use that to say this is all about city vs. country.

I live in Wisconsin, hardly a “big city” state. Outside of the city of Milwaukee, we generally live accoring to your country description of 4-wheeling, hunting, and fishing. Yet, Kerry won this state, and Minnesota too.

Plenty of people in these states do the “back breaking” labor you speak of. Farming is such a small percentage of the population in this country, it’s unfair to say that farmers make up a large part of the Bush (or any) vote. While we’re on farming, just look at how many farms are continually going under. Secure about a job because people need to eat? We are importing more and more of our food by the day, so who’s farmers have secure jobs, not those in the US that’s for sure.

As for “who is it that cuts the trees for furniture”, have you seen where most furniture really comes from? China. Even the country-ish styled nicknack you find in your country stores are mostly made in China.

Dawn, with factory farms taking over the family farm, and Walmart pushing out the small business, how long will it be before there is no middle America?

Matthew,
I may be off. I was going by the map. Did you look at the map? Even Wisconsin is more red than blue.
I was also trying to show that the split cannot be defined by any one issue.

I said FINE furniture - not processed junk. If you didn’t know, most of the more expensive logs for furniture are bought by German companies and shipped over there.

Have you driven through Arkansas lately Matthew? I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw all the rice that is grown there. Apples, grapes and corn in NY. Potatoes in Idaho. Tomatoes, oranges, and grapefruits in Florida. Cheese in Wisconsin.
We import produce in the winter because we can’t grow all the fresh things people demand all year ‘round.
What food are you talking about? Specialty foods that are native to another country?
In case you didn’t know we export food too.

As for farms being bought up by large companies there are different reasons for that. Not much of it is going on around me though. Most farms here are bought out by the farmer next door.
There aren’t as many people who want to do the hard work of running a farm.

I don’t know about you Rocky, but, I don’t shop at Walmart. I don’t like what Walmart has done. People forgot that they started out with the claim that they would sell USA MADE items.
I watch the labels and buy American when I can.

I think it’s a mistake to assume liberals are all city-born and city-bred. I personally grew up on 21 acres, my parents owned horses and I helped care for them on our property, I even grew vegetables in a garden for our dinner table for a long time. Hardly a city boy. For the first time in 23 years, I’m living in an apartment in a city now, and that has more to do with my financial means than where I would live if given a choice.

Dawn,

The eastern side of Arkansas voted Democrat, and the western side of Mississippi voted democrat, which is the Mississippi valley, which is the agricultural heartland of the nation. Which is where John Deere is king.

How about the swath across the center of Alabama that’s democratic? How about those counties in Montana?

Julia

I totally agree with your post Dawn. My thoughts exactly.I rarely if ever move my own statements around,but I type with 2 fingers so I will here because it is more in context than on the liberal thread I put it on.

“I was a democrat for 20 years,though I got more conservative as my kids grew. And the democrats just kept shifting to the left as I moved to the right. But looking at the map (above)(I posted the same map you did) it’s obvious that the liberal support is focused around the cities,where through the years they have concentrated on “buying” votes with social givaway programs that are now eating our budget up.With the population we have grown to, we just
can’t affort to give so many free rides & “rights” to lazy people & non citizens.The cart is just getting too heavy for those of us pulling it.The red areas on this map are where the majority of tax dollars are raked up, and the blue areas are where they get dumped.”

Liberals always tout California & New York & Chicago,I mean Illinois states as sooo liberal. Not so.These states also have a heartland.The Democrat politicians just shoot for the high population targets to get the electorial votes.

I don’t know that I would elevate some small concentrated areas of blue as a “swath” but, you can attribute many of the urban areas to UNIONS.
The southern border to immigrants who know the democrats want to cut away the red tape to become citizens to gather up votes.

Matthewk said:

I live in Wisconsin, hardly a “big city” state. Outside of the city of Milwaukee, we generally live accoring to your country description of 4-wheeling, hunting, and fishing. Yet, Kerry won this state, and Minnesota too.

Wisconsin (Go Packers) was close & “outside of the city of Milwaukee” Kerry lost!

Again,nice post Dawn.

Bush got plenty of urban votes and Kerry got some down on the farm, even farms with red dirt. Anyway, correlation is not causality. What is it about the people in the middle that makes them more likely to vote Republican and the people in the big cities to vote Democratic?

One big unmentionable is race. Urbanism correlates with black population. Race explains the Democratic belt along the Mississippi, into Chicago and up Lake Michigan to Milwaukee. We can no longer talk about the white and black divide or even the white and non-white. The more useful distinction is black and non-black. The Hispanic voting pattern is similar to that of white ethnics. This time Bush got about half their votes. Asian groups, depending on their country of origin, can be heavily Republican, but blacks continue to vote overwhelming for Democrats. This is a problem for both parties. Republicans obviously need to find ways to appeal to blacks, but Democrats have work to do with non-blacks.

Another important indicator for Republicanism is marriage and family. Bush is very strong among married couples. There is still a gender gap, but a strong majority of married women with children voted Republican. Urban areas tend to have more unmarried people, while the suburbs with their better schools and the exurbs are magnets for families with children.

Of course, sometimes you really can’t find an explanation. In our United States we have the freedom to live where we want. More and more, people choose neighbors like them. This is not an ideological choice so much as a lifestyle. Our communities reflect our values. A very interesting example is the Washington DC area. Many people commute to Washington from Virginia or Maryland. Maryland is one of the bluest of the blue states. Virginia is bright red. Although they work together, they don’t vote together. The geography is not very different. The people look and seem to act the same in every way until they go into the voting booth.

One more thing. The comment that it’s all these red counties subsidizing the social programs of the blues is bull. California (the blue parts of it) provide over 12% of the tax dollars of this nation. Combined with New York and New Jersey, we provide over 1 in 5 of the federal dollars of the nation.

California, New York, and New Jersey recieve less than 71 cents back on each dollar they give to the federal government. Where do those dollars go? To the red states that eat it up. Policemen, firefighters, and roads are paid for in red states by liberal tax dollars. Alaska gets 2 dollars back for every dollar it spend.

So if you want to an equitable system, give us back our 100 billion dollars. And you figure out how to fund your own programs with your own state dollars.

Hard workers in the red state? I’m sure they are. But they don’t generate as much revenue. Give it up for the blue states, and the blue counties, that keep the engine of this great nation running. Give it up for Detroit, San Francisco, Manhattan, Boston, and Los Angeles. You may hate us, but you sure do love our money.

Julia

Dawn,
Look at your own county results of the election, I know for a fact that in Raliegh NC there was less than a 10,000 vote difference. So Bush claim of any mandate just shows how little he thinks of the opposing party.

Now Bush and the republican party has to learn what reality is. City life vs. Country life in America has died about 15 years ago. Yes people go fishing even if they have to drive 20 minutes. Yet the truth of the matter is that most people never go any father than 50 miles from home their whole life. Travel 150 miles in any direction in this country and you will find a totally different world except for the international business (i. e. the big city).

Rove and others know this about our citizens and expoloited the people who supported Bush. Call up anybody in Houston and ask them how many times they have been to Dallas? The answer may surprise you. Although the distance is only a few hours drive most people will tell you that anything over 30 minutes away is to far to travel.

Maybe when the Mid West and South East learn that a four hour trip is just a jount instead of a day’s travel and that a decent job should pay more than $30,000/yr the red will start turnning blue again.

Henry,

A descent job should pay more than $30,000/yr?

Where I live that is descent.
In the city 18 miles up the road it would be chicken feed. (A city that voted for Kerry and raised a home grown terrorist.)
The people from that city come to ours to shop at the grocery stores because the prices are lower. Our gas prices are usually a few cents lower too.
Saying that does not apply to everyone. If our wages went up to meet those of the bigger cities, then the wages would just go up that much higher there too.
Wages go up, cost of living goes up. Next thing we know, we are no better off than we were to start with.

Maybe people need to learn the art of spending wisely instead of just demanding more to spend.

You talk about Rove not going to Dallas. Kerry never even came within 500 miles of us.
It was like that on both sides.

Jarin,
I wasn’t saying that liberals are all urban born and bred. Just like all Republicans are not in the rural areas.
I cannot change the map and I sure didn’t craft it.

Julia,
I said I was going by the map. I also pointed out that there were rural areas Kerry won and urban areas Bush won.

I also tried to point out that we don’t really know where the ‘divide’ is in our country yet.
Many people voted against Pr. Bush just because of the war in Iraq. Some of these people did not vote FOR Kerry.
It makes me wonder who they would have voted for otherwise.
Bob Beckel(I think that’s his name) even said Bush would probably have won 60% if it weren’t for the Iraq war.
That is something we will never know I guess.
That is why, in my opinion, we will not know where the true ‘divide’ is until at least the next Presidential Election.

And…

before everyone on the ‘left’ gets all bent out of shape…

I am not saying ‘lefties’ are bad and ‘righties’ are good.

I have said before that the people running our government need to learn to compromise.
We, the people, need to do the same.

Julia,

Your point about the tax money.
I live in a very red state and we are in the 70 cents for every dollar boat too.
I believe there for awhile a VERY blue state or two were getting 3-4 dollars for every dollar spent.

I don’t like it either.

People try to tell us that we are helping each other, but, I tend to agree with you that it seems like some get more help than others most of the time.

A couple other things to make people upset.
Where do the people who work in the blue counties live? I work in a blue county but live in a red county.

Which counties will be hurt more by a serious depression? Blue counties where everybody is dependent on govt? or the red counties where more people are self sufficent?

I understand not all blue counties are this and all red counties are that, but Julia, your theory that blue counties support the whole country are totally wrong.

Great post Dawn. Even though I would go so far as to say that the blue counties would not make it without the red counties but the red counties could without the blue counties. It would be a hard life, but the red counties would have a much better chance.

How about, instead of red and blue counties, we become America again?

Julia

You must have been reading “Metro/Retro”. Remember a rich guy who wanted to push a particular agenda, not explain a phenomenon wrote that book as a polemic. He is very selective in his choices and his paradigm is wrong.

You also have to consider where wealth is created versus where it is reported. Oil extracted in Wyoming might produce most of its reported revenue in New York. In other words, Wyoming helps support hundreds of New Yorkers. But these New Yorkers are providing essential services to Wyoming, so you could say New York helps support hundreds of people in Wyoming. Commodities produced on the Great Plains, create income for traders in Chicago. Traders in Chicago efficiently allocate capital needed on the Great Plains. You really can’t separate them economically.

Beyond that, income is ultimately tied to individuals. 51% of the voters chose Bush. They are red voters. The only way the 48% of the blue voters could contribute more to tax revenues would be if they made significantly more money per person. I have not heard the democrats bragging that they are the party of the wealthy, but that is the only way the blues could be paying more than their share in taxes. We all are in this boat together. There are plenty of real divisions; let’s not create fictional ones.

Okay, then let’s concentrate on the real divisions and not the fictional ones, like:

“The people with dirt under their fingernails, the ones who do the back breaking labor to feed the people in the cities [are the ones who voted for Bush].”

I, for one, know for a fact that I’m subsidizing hundreds of other people through the business I run, and the taxes I pay. I don’t mind subsidizing other people. Because I was dirt poor, and got lucky enough to be succesful. I know what it’s like to to live on a $3 a day food bill that consisted of the Wendy’s value menu. I know what it’s like to struggle to get educated in an underfunded school.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
And as for the FACTS:
RED states tax return per dollar:
Alabama: $1.69
Alaska: $1.89
Georgia: $.95 (3 billion dollar shortfall)
Idaho: $1.32
Indiana: .96 (1.4 billion dollar shortfall)
Kansas: $1.13
Kentucky: $1.52
Louisiana: $1.47
Mississippi: $1.83
Montana: $1.60
Nebraska $1.06
North Carolina: $1.09
North Dakota: $1.75
Oklahoma: $1.08
South Carolina: $1.36
South Dakota: $1.49
Tennessee: $1.29
Texas: .98 (3 billion dollar shortfall)
Utah: $1.19
Virginia: $1.58
West Virginia: $1.82
Wyoming: $1.13

Arizona: $1.23
Arkansas: $1.47
Colorado: .80 (7.3 billion dollar shortfall)
Florida. $1
Missourri: $1.31
Nevada: .70 (360 million dollar shortfall)
New Mexico: $1.99
Ohio: $1.02

unknown:
Iowa: $1.06

blue:
Michigan: .86 (9.2 billion shortfall)
Minnesota: .70 (17.4 billion shortfall)
New Hampshire: .70 (1.4 billion shortfall)
Oregon: $1
Pennsylvania: $1.08
Washington: .90 (4.2 billion shortfall)
California: $.78 (64 billion shortfall)
Connecticut: .65 (14 billion shortfall)
Delaware: .82 (1.9 billion shortfall)
Hawaii $1.58
Illionois: .72 (31 billion shortfall)
Maine: $1.36
Maryland: $1.34
Massachussetts: .78 (13.2 billion shortfall)
New Jersey: .57 (53.6 billion shortfall)
New York. .80 (36.4 billion shortfall)
Rhode Island: $1.06
Vermont: $1.14
Wisconsin: .84 (5.4 billion shortfall)
D.C.: $6.59
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=314&Topic2id=90

So there, jack, is my argument too selective? Dawn, the only blue state I see that’s getting over $1.34 back in taxes is D.C. and that’s because it’s funding the federal government, not local social programs.

Tell you what. How about the blue states front the red states that “lost” their $15 billion dollars. We’ll continue giving the blue states that “won” their $19 billion. We’ll even pay for all the federal government stuff over in D.C. to the tune of $55 billion since D.C. voted for us. That still leaves us blue states short about $170 billion dollars.

“‘City People’ think ‘Country People’ are dumb? Who is it that knows they will always have a job because everyone else needs to eat? Who is it that cuts the trees so that others can have nice furniture and lumber to build big fancy homes? Where does everyone think milk, eggs and meat come from? The grocery store?”

It comes from mega-conglomerate farming companies that recieve enormous government subsidies that put people like my grandparents out of the farming business. (Which happened).

In any case, I like country people. Especially the Arkies in the Ozarks (another story). I liked the idea of spending tax dollars so that people in rural areas have good roads, and good hospitals, and social security. I’m from the rural south. I had to leave to the “fancy-pants” city so that I could make a living, and send that money back home.

The lake I grew up beside is now a Superfund disaster site because of lax timber treatment processes. They can’t afford to clean it up, because the EPA has been gutted. My sister and I are having trouble having children, and I have to wonder if it was the water (that I swam in all the time).

So, kctim, blue counties being hurt by a depression because they rely on the government? Sorry, but it’s just not true. Red counties rely far more on the government because they’re less populated. To get doctors and roads and firefighters out to these areas means they use more federal dollars per person. In addition, farmers are subsidized. Not that I mind so much, even though the big farmers did put my grandfather out of business.

We can thank Texas and Alaska for their oil. But oil is heavily subsidized, and to be honest, the individual Texans and Alaskans that make money on that industry usually don’t pay a single dime in taxes. So while oilmen pay no federal dollars for the oil that they sell to Californians, Californians pay tons of federal dollars at the pump. (which does bug me… a lot).

As far as the fact that the plains state generate revenue that shows up somehow in the blue states, sorry, but I’m not buying it. If that revenue is generated through GOODS, then thank you, physical American great plains property, for having forests and oil. But I’m talking about revenue generated by the PEOPLE of the red states.

Yes, we’re all Americans. We should come together. Do I have a problem subsidizing you guys who “do the back-breaking labor to feed the people in the cities”? No, I don’t mind. (even though the guys that get the food to my table are most likely illegal immigrants, and the rest of my food comes from fruit farms in Chile).

Can’t we all just be Americans? Absolutely. But kctim, I’m dead wrong about blue counties supporting red ones? Massachussetts lost 13 billion dollars of its federal tax money, and doesn’t have one red county. The amount that Massachussets lost could fund Dawn’s state of Nevada in its entirety (Nevada gives less than 13 billion total, as compared to Massachussetts 60 billion)

I also suppose that the people that live in Manhattan (that voted 82% for Kerry), are big moochers as well, and are sucking places like Utah and North Dakota dry with the billions of dollars that it doesn’t get back from the federal government.

Manhattan and Massachussetts people are making their money off of Wyoming? Seriously guys, is it really this hard to be appreciative of the blue areas?

Thank you Massachussets and Manhattan and Los Angeles and Silicon Valley for subsidizing policemen, firefighters, medicare and social security accounts in red areas. And for giving us ebay and creating the technology that allows us to get on watchblog.

Julia

Oops! I’m rechecking my math, and I screwed up in some areas. Nevada should show 3.6 billion shortfall which brings up the total of red state shortfall to 17.4 billion dollars.

Blue state shortfall remains: 251.7 billion dollars

Blue state windfall should be: 510 million for Vermont, 480 million for R.I., 14 billion for Maryland, 1.9 billion for Maine, 3.3 billion for Hawaii, 6.8 billion for Pennsylvania, 82 billion for D.C. = 109 billion (I screwed up the D.C. math)

251.7
-109
142.7 billion shortfall for blue states. Return 17.4 billion in money to red states that recieved short shrift =
135.4 billion shortfall for blue states.

Throw in Iowas 870 million windfall in case it goes blue =
126.3 billion shortfall for blue states.

Julia

(sorry dawn, didn’t mean to marganilize your state’s losses, you should ask Arizona for some of the 5.5 billion subsidy it gets)

Julia
Every county benefits from working together. But when govt intrudes and starts dictating how people live, that is where the problems started.

You missed my point on which counties could survive without the other. The blue counties could never fend for themselves in a depression where money is worthless. They will starve while waiting for the govt, that they depend on, to feed them. The majority of the red counties know how to be self sufficient. When it comes to feeding your family, public services are not at the top of the list. Food is.

“But kctim, I’m dead wrong about blue counties supporting red ones?”
Yes you are. We support each other to maintain our current way of life.
Red states need the blue states in order to maintain our comfortable way of life, without the blue states life would be much harder, but we would get by.
Blue states need the red states to survive.

If I get my wish and the govt says “thats it. We have no more money to give away. Our money is worthless. No more social programs whatsoever. You will have to be responsible and take care of yourselves for once. Good luck.”
Which population will suffer the most?

Red? blue? That map only shows what has been known for a while now. Those who are dependent on the govt and need the govt to dictate and control how they live, voted for kerry. Those who do not need the govt, in order to survive, voted against him.

Julia

It still misses the point. Where revenues are reported and where wealth is created are not the same places. I won’t repeat my earlier point except to emphasize that states don’t earn income; people do. 51% of the people voted for George Bush and about 48% for John Kerry. I don’t believe that 48% paid more in taxes and got less, especially since Republicans tend to have higher incomes than Democrats.

You also have to be careful with your arguments. You are implying that those who pay more in taxes are worth more than those who don’t. That can be a valid argument, but I doubt it is one you want to make. Wealth statistics can be interesting things. A couple of years back, all of Africa produced less wealth than the one German area of Rhineland/Westphalia and currently Spain has a GNP greater than all the countries of the Arab world combined (despite the oil wealth). So given the option, we should gladly trade all of Africa for a few square miles of Germany, or all of the Arab countries from Morocco to Iraq for Spain.

Jack,

I am absolutely not saying that people who earn more are worth more than those who don’t. And I’m not suggesting that we should trade California for the heartland.

What I am saying is that I don’t want to hear complaints about tax and spend government from red states that spend the tax dollars of blue states. It’s like Africa telling that german area in the Rhineland that their government is bankrupting Africa, and Africa doesn’t need them because if a depression comes Africa will do just fine, and the Rhineland people are a bunch of citified whiners who need to stop subsidizing all of those poor people in the Rhineland.

Montanta wants to be self sufficient? Montana wants to limit social programs? Montana doesn’t want to pay taxes? Fine by me. 1/3 of their budget is a subsidy from other states. In effect, California dollars pay for 1/3 of Montana’s government.

So Montana needs to cut their government programs by a third and give that money back to California.

California paid more in taxes and got less.
Montana paid less in taxes and got more.

In addition, Californians also purchase beef from Montana, so Montana cattle farmers income also depends upon the ability of Californians to purchase their product.

So tell me. Exactly how are Montana people subsidizing Californians? Exactly how are crazy liberals bankrupting the proud men and women of Montana who are groaning under their tax burden?

Because I’d like to hear this argument.

Julia

Missouri wants to be self sufficient? Missouri wants to limit social programs? Missouri doesn’t want to pay taxes? Missouri gives up its fed govt subsidies?
Fine by me.

That is the most beautiful thing you have ever posted Julia.
I don’t believe in God, but I still pray for that every night.
Thanks.

“Exactly how are Montana people subsidizing Californians? Exactly how are crazy liberals bankrupting the proud men and women of Montana who are groaning under their tax burden?”
- Excessive taxes used to support failing and unjustified social “programs” that don’t benefit the majority of the people in Montana.

“California paid more in taxes and got less.
Montana paid less in taxes and got more.”
- By state, yes.
But by individual, californians bilk alot more from the govt than Montana does.

Julia - to address your points.

I am not arguing that Montana should be free of California. I don’t live in either of those places. What I argue with is your unit of analysis. States are not autarkic. You can’t say whether a federal subsidy to build a road in Montana really benefits the people of Montana more than it benefits the people of California. The road may well carry natural resources out of Montana to the greater benefit of other states. In the 19th Century, colonial powers invested in infrastructure in their colonies. From the accounting perspective it certainly appeared the people of Great Britain were subsiding the people of India. Maybe they were, but there is some dispute about the terms of trade.

But look closely at the county map that Dawn so nicely provided. We don’t only have red/blue states; we have red/blue counties and red/blue townships. Inner cities tend to be blue; while their suburbs are red (or at least pink). These suburbs are the places where the real money is. I have no doubt that at this level red subsidizes blue.

But this whole argument is kind of silly. I think they call it reductio ad absurdum and it is best illustrated by the following story:

The parts of the body were arguing about which was the most important. The brain claimed superiority on the basis of its decision-making. But the mouth interrupted, “without me you would starve”. The hands objected, “but we bring the food to you” The stomach pointed out that it digested the food. All this went on until the rectum just stopped working and killed the whole system. Which leads to the moral: the ass**** is always in charge.

Prove it, kctim.

Californians recieved around $6200 per person from the feds. We rank 48 in disability and retirement payments.
Montanians recieved around $7800 per person. It ranks 8 in retirment and disability per person.
(according to the census bureau)

Who is “bilking” more from the government per person?

Julia

Jack,

Prove it. Give me an actual real example. Look up tax revenue/tax receipt for a blue area, and compare it to tax revenue/tax receipt of a red area. I see some blue areas in Montana. It would be interesting to compare the blue counties their to the red counties.

I know for a fact that the red county adjacent to Los Angeles is a defense contract stronghold and recieves a far greater share of tax dollars than it gives out. So not only is California losing 66 billion to red states, inside California, there’s one red county that recieves a disproportiante amount of tax dollars, too.

Julia

Julia

My point is that the whole exercise is silly, a logical fallacy in an interrelated country. How much do you pay in taxes? If I pay more I am subsidizing you? But if I drive on the road more, you might be subsiding me. But if you take capital-intensive mass transit I might be subsiding you. If my son joins the army, I am subsidizing your defense. But if your sister volunteers for a peace-keeping visit, you might be subsidizing my peace.

Your figures about relative tax benefits are irrelevant. As I explained, and will repeat, infrastructure investment in one place may be for the benefit of people far away. Remember your history. Who wanted to built the Erie Canal? It was the merchants of New York City so that they could get the goods from the hinterland. When the railroad reached Abilene, who benefited most? It was the businessmen in Chicago. Roads built to move agricultural produce reduce the prices of food for millions of consumers in big cities. The Federal government spent millions to build infrastructure to move coal from the Appalachians (blue state Pennsylvania and currently red state W. Virginia). The people living in these areas remained poor while fat cats in other places got rich because of this.

Individuals have income. Regions do not. Broadly speaking, individuals who make more money subsidize those who make less money. The rich subsidize the poor. Where they live makes less difference.

And one more thing. According to today’s paper president Bush won 51-48%. It wasn’t the red versus the blue states that defeated John Kerry; it was a majority of the American people. There are not enough people in the red states to do it alone.

Julia,

I believe Dawn was pointing out with the red blue red red red map was by county,(perhaps you should revisit the map) your numbers attribute the $$$ by state. Her post is city/rural. Therefore,looking at the red counties in,say California, then you would have to adjust your numbers substantially to the red.
ktim’s self exsample of living in the country & working in the city is even a stronger arguement.Most of the wealth earned in the cities is by the people living outside the city.You don’t see many mansions or upscale communities built in the concrete playground.Ironic that liberals on this thread would be admitting that the high paid rich folks in the cities pay more than their share of the taxes.Kinda confirms Bushes tax cuts for the wealthy are warranted.

Henry said:

“Dawn,
Look at your own county results of the election, I know for a fact that in Raliegh NC there was less than a 10,000 vote difference. So Bush claim of any mandate just shows how little he thinks of the opposing party.”

Slow down Henry, I live on the North Carolina coast.Funny (but typical democratic spin)you should pick good ole Raliegh, one of the few CITIES in N.C. he came within 10,000 of Bush in. But off the top of my head I think Bush beat good ole lurch in N.C. 1,910,936 to 1,484,158. Imagine that, almost 1/2 a million votes in N.C. alone. Yes, I believe that is a mandate.
By the way Kerry only won California by barely 1 million with almost 10 million votes counted. By the way, the updated tally nationwide is reported as 52% Bush 47% Kerry.

Averagejoe, your state of N.C. is subsidized to the tune of 4.3 billion dollars. If you are a true republican that believes in limited government then please cut your government programs by 10% and give your subsidy back to California. I’m not asking you to raise social programs there. Go ahead and cut them, because your state is bilking our state. Oh, and per capita, your state recieves more dollars per individual than we do in California. Oh, and also… the majority of those dollars are not for infrastructure or medical research, they are for retirement accounts, disability accounts, and medicare. So please, tell your disabled, your retirees, and your sick old people to cough up some money.

North Carolina should not recieve more money than its citizens pay in taxes. It’s time to rip this fallacy wide open. If red states want to have more limited government, then they can start by living within the fiscal revenues that they generate. I’m just asking for some fairness. My blue state of california has voted to pay for its social programs. North Carolina, apparently, wants big government to scale back. Even though they get more dollars from big government than they give to it. Fine. If you don’t want to spend the free money my state gave to you, we’d be happy to spend it on ourselves.

And jack, I understand what you’re saying. I do. All you have to do is look at where those federal dollars are spent in Montana, and show me what project I’m subsidizing over there that is of benefit to my state. Go ahead. Prove your point with hard data. The way that money is spent is not a secret. You should be able to look it up, and prove your point quite easily.

So go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Anyone, besides me, going to actually post some hard numbers? Or is everyone going to keep pointing to a map and saying “I bet that red farming county in California subsidizes that blue county that comprises the Silicon Valley. I know this is true, because I’m pointing at it. I won’t bother to actually look up the tax revenue models, because I feel intensely that I’m right.”

Julia

Oh, and if it does end up that the Democrat party is the party of the wealthy, then isn’t it great that they vote to tax themselves to provide programs to everyone else? Or does that make them evil awful rich liberals that cruelly spend their money on the poor?

Hmmm. I’ll have to slap some rich liberals who have the audicity to like paying taxes to fund their local elementary schools. Those stupid jerks. Like Brad Pitt. I wish he’d keep all of that 20 million he made on his last movie. And that evil Barbara Streisand. I can’t believe she likes to pay taxes to help other people. She’s such a mooch. I wish both of them were more like Mel Gibson, who just made millions upon millions of profit from a movie about Jesus and wishes that people on welfare would learn how to take care of their own problems.

Lovely.

Julia

averagejoe,
If you check the real election results in Wake County, the home of the capital in North Carolina, you will quickly find that Bush only won with less than 10,000 votes. Out of over 300,000 ballots cast that realy don’t make much of a difference.

PS Have you heard about the 16,000 votes plus that are screwed up in North Carolina. Maybe we need to get the republicans in Washington to mandate that our stated require paper ballots or do we need to make it a constitutional admendment?

Julia, you rock! :)

Julia,
I still live in a Red State that gets less money back.
You make it sound like you want each state to be independent.
If California wants to secede from the United States then start a movement and have at it.

Everyone is arguing about taxes when I was trying to discuss where the’divide’ really is.
There are people in Bush’s column that voted against Kerry too.
There are people in Kerry’s column that did not vote for Kerry but against the war in Iraq.

Does anyone know how that split ended up? Last I knew Kerry didn’t have many more voting for him instead of against Bush.

The CNN Poll says this:

For your candidate(69%) - Bush 59% Kerry 40%
Against opponent(25%) - Bush 30% Kerry 70%

Dawn,
Look up the history time line of events in our society and the Nixon Administration. To make a long story short, Kerry just got back from Viet Nam at the same time Nixon gave into the threat from Russia and China to get involved in the war. In 71 he went to Detriot and heard first hand from other Vets the war stories. About a month later Kent St. University Ohio happened. 4 American Citizens laid died by American Troops because Nixon ordered Gov. Rhodes (a republican) to send in the National Gaurd. This one event is what changed the public view of Viet Nam more than anything else. The Nixon Administrationwas forced to stand down as Kerry and millions of Americans stood up and demanded accountability for their deeds.

Have you ever wonder why the republican party has been trying to regain power since the 60’s? Ask someone over the age of 50 how bad America punished the party for saling out America’s interests. Cheney, Rove, Rumsfled and others are part of the Nixon’s Republican Leadership who got caught at Watergate so do you think we really trust them considering most of them was crying that it was ok for a government to shoot the protestors in the police state they were running. Curfew at 9 pm was almost mandatory in 69.

Julia & Henry,
Chill out. You aren’t getting it,or I’m not clear enough about countys,not states.I thought Dawn made that pretty clear.I’m not kmocking any state.My mention about NC is responding to Henry refering to the vote being close here,which it clearly wasn’t,plain & simple.ps you can have those 16,000 votes x10 then you would only lose by 1/3 of million.By the way,since you know so much about NC I’m sure that you are familiar with the area you mentioned,have you heard of Duke,UNC,Wake Forest,NC state,tens of thousands of students,most of which are not from NC but register & vote here?(probably vote absentee in their own state also!)With the lies about the draft scaring them,I wonder who they voted for.
I used to live in California,love the state. I don’t know exactly where thse liberal elite you mentioned live,but I’ll bet it’s not in the city. If it is it’s above the city. I’m not privy to their tax records & don’t know what they give (other than the millions paying for Kerry infamertials)But I’d bet that they give more to promote their agenda & duck taxes than in helping the poor.
I agree totally with cutting spending 10% across the board though.Now that we are shed of Edwards tax and spend agenda maybe we can do just that! Mr Remmer had a post a couple months ago about the national debt & deficit that I mentioned cutting spending 10% across the board on.(or at least freezing at current levels)Both parties kill us on spending.They used to compromise some on the budget,but now they all get what they want before it will pass.But that’s another subject.
Gotta go,I’m watching my 2 year old grandson today.He is sooo 2!!!!!!

ps I do sympathize for some of the poor,but I did a lot of work for region p and saw with my own eyes where younger,more able bodied folks than me getting free rent,free food, and a spending money check every month,millions in just in my town alone. Times that by tens of thousands nationwide.Handicapped and eldery & widows is what welfare should be for.Suppliment for others inbetween jobs & hard times. (divorce & such)But the majority could leave the city & get a job.I have a 23 year old single mom daughter that is working at Bojangles supporting her & her son,a 19 year old son working at taco bell and going to school at night with his own appartment.My daughter could get much more than she makes working if she chose to take that route.

Sorry Dawn about the tax thing, I reread the posts to see where it came from & it was the post I pasted. I posted for the first half of the paragraph. I guess I should have knocked off the unrelated part.It seems to have struck a chord! Sorry :(

dawn,

I don’t want each state to be independent. I like to pay taxes to pay for social programs. Again, I was born in Mississippi. I like the idea that I export dollars from my new adopted state to help out the poor in Mississippi (who voted against me, according to the county map).

Again, what I don’t like is the implication of your article, and the red responses to it, that red counties were self-sufficient and subsidized the blue counties, and are being crushed under the tax burden that blue areas impose.

If the government completely collapsed, as it pretty much did in the Great Depression, your suppisition is citified folks would fall apart and country folks would rise to the challenge. But what actually happened in the Great Depression? People fled the great plains and the South so they could get jobs in the cities. The republican party isn’t a bastion of small farmers. In fact, ironically, the democrat party is, in the form of thousands of hippy liberal communes.

Even in Nevada, the area that voted blue is the generator of wealth, Las Vegas.

So, dawn, the irony here is that the people who are going to do best by George Bush are the blue states, because when he slashes federal dollars it’s going to hit the red states the hardest. The blue states can just raise their state taxes, and actually get more money, since it isn’t being siphoned off to the red areas. Again, the blue states contribute 251.7 billion, the red states 17.4 billion. I’m sorry, dawn, that you happen to live in a red state that contributes. Your state is an exception.

But, in general, red states should quit complaining about social programs that they aren’t having to pay for. Even jack’s argument is counter-intuitive. Either he doesn’t believe in government subsidies or he does. If he doesn’t, then there is no reason Montana should get government dollars, and mooch off the blue states, even if it is for infrastructure.

Since dawn lives in Nevada, she’s the only one with a real argument here. Her state can’t afford it’s social programs. Why? Because it’s not getting back its own federal dollars. (not because it actually can’t afford them.). Dawn’s state could expand it’s services by 30% with her dollars that go missing. No wonder she feels pinched. Those other (much redder) states are gutting her.

Julia

averagejoe,

I’m very familiar with Duke. My sister got an army ROTC scholarship and majored in medicine there and now lives in Alabama where she works at UAB. Her husband also went to school there. In fact, all of her friends that went there voted blue. Why? She couldn’t have gone to college if it weren’t for that government-subsidized scholarship. And UAB couldn’t do cutting-edge medical research without government dollars.

I think, if you looked at the Raleigh-Durham map, you’d see that most Dukies voted blue.

Julia

Julia

Can’t you understand that people in the cities eat food that comes from somewhere else. Therefore a road built to move tomatoes and corn from the farm benefits them. People in the city use electricity, therefore infrastructure used to move coal that makes that electricity to benefits them.

As for you “prove it” challenge, you are asking me to prove with numbers an argument I don’t assert. You are the one who claims you could divide U.S. geography politically and decide who pays more to whom. My assertion is that people and firms pay taxes. Geography and politics do not. If I pay no taxes, I can’t feel aggrieved just because the guy next door pays too much to subsidize both me and a couple of people in a neighboring state. Therefore if you want to prove who subsides whom you have to look at who pays more taxes than they get back. Everyone who doesn’t pay income taxes gets more than he pays. Most people in the lower part of the income distribution get more than they pay. Generally people with higher incomes subsidize people with lower incomes.

George Bush got the most votes. The red states did not steal the election from the blue states. If you counted up the income taxes paid by Bush supporters and compared them with the incomes of Kerry supporters I don’t believe that you would find the Kerry folks paid more. But that is not an argument anyone wants to make.

One more weakness in the red/blue divide. Your big blue states (California, New York, Massachusetts) are run by Republican governors.

I think, if you looked at the Raleigh-Durham map, you’d see that most Dukies voted blue.

Julia

That’s what I was saying. By the way, I’m impressed with all the numbers you come up with. I just read the liberal threads and saw some you posted over there.I’m kinda challenged on finding stuff on the web,but it seems digging through books has to give way to keep up speedwise!Where do you find all that info? google? It’s not that I don’t trust numbers,but just like words,they can be cherry picked & manipulated while leavimg out inconvienient ones.(not saying that you did that at all,I have no reason to believe that). Just for future reference.

I’m glad that your sis & her husband got benifit out of NC. (from a government-subsidized scholarship going to a blue area).Imagine that.
Did you talk them into it to get California a return on it’s investiment? ;) Just kidding, had to chew on that bone you threw me for a minute.

averagejoe et al,
Before you keep going off about how divided this country is you may want to look at this election map by population

Also, you might want to look up the vote for Bush based on the greed factor. It is clear that what won Bush the election is the population which makes over $55,000.00/yr with 56% voting for Bush. As we go up the money tree we find that those numbers keep going up. So much for the moral issue unless the love of money is no longer a sin. Sorry about not providing link most of lost in the wee hours of the day.

Jack,

are you saying that Massachussetts is a CONSERVATIVE state? whoeeee! I like your style.

As for whether or not I understand that food comes by roads from other states. Sure. Montana gets 300 million in subsidies for agriculture, and 170 million for roads. They still have another billion dollars in subsidies from California.

Why, if the wealthy taxpayers voted for Bush, are their states not generating much taxpayer revenue? Or conversely, why are they sucking up so much taxpayer revenue?

Here’s the kicker: the people who vote for Bush are more likely to be government employees. Soldiers recieve their entire incomes from the government. They recieve a 30K subsidy from uncle sam, and pay $1500 in taxes.

Dick Cheney is sick of paying taxes? Halliburton makes its living on your tax dollars! Then it puts that money off shore so it can avoid paying taxes. Dick Cheney pocketed millions of your tax dollars as CEO of Halliburton, then he has the audicity to be annoyed that he pays so much in taxes.

Julia

Julia

Interesting that you believe a soldier risking his life for his country and probably making below the average wage for doing so is living off the fat of the California land. And the taxpayers of California are even stuck bringing the body home if he gets killed. And people wonder why the Democrats have a reputation for being out of touch with the values of ordinary Americans.

Most of the government employees besides soldiers vote Democratic and Federal Employee unions are big Dem supporters. But that is beside the point. The government presumably needs their services and pays them what it needs to get them to work. They earn their money, not matter where they live.

You don’t oppose infrastructure spending so all that is left is transfer payments. You can eliminate Medicaid or Federal contributions to welfare if you want, but I expect there are quite a few people in California who would be upset.

One more time and then I will stop explaining.

Your argument is logically invalid. Reductio ad absurdum, it even has a name. Dividing the U.S. economy by state is only an accounting practice. If you drive around the U.S. you notice that goods, services and people move freely across state borders. The hotels and casinos of Las Vegas no doubt serve more people from California than they do from Nevada. You seem to have something against Montana. Are the people in Montana the only people who get to use Glacier National Park, or the various ski resorts?

Beyond the logic problem, you are mistaking geography for people. People pay taxes. Places do not. Henry pointed out in a post above that people who make more than $55,000 a year voted 56% for Bush. He didn’t mean it as a compliment, but it does illustrate the point that Bush supporters probably are paying more in taxes than Kerry supporters. I don’t know where all these guys live. I can give you one example, however. Bill Gates publicly supported George Bush. Bill lives in the blue state of Washington. It is possible that he alone pays more in taxes than more than half of all the people in Washington State who voted for John Kerry.

You should move on from Kerry’s defeat. He lost. Bush won. Kerry lost the popular vote and he lost the electoral vote. More people voted Republican for president. They also voted in more Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate. There simply is no way around that fact.

It might be different in 2008. Different states might be blue or red. In 1984 California and every other state except Minnesota was red. In 1992 your Montana was blue. These are both parts of the U.S., you know.

Henry,
Are you talking to me? I usually understand what you are talking about or where you are coming from.I am tired and it is late,but I don’t get it. You don’t seem to be responding to anything that I have said or you are not asking me anything.But I guess what you are saying is that(people with incomes of $55,000 and up) the people that pay the majority of the taxes in the country voted for Bush? Because I’m sure that you know that low income people pay no income tax.I don’t know what level that is but depending on dependents probably close to $20k? I know when I only made around that with 2 kids I got everything I paid back in a refund.

averagejoe,
Apparently you have been listening to Rush and Hannity for your tax information. While the bottom 10% may not pay what you think of as income tax they pay a larger share of their wages to payroll taxes. Check out this site here to play with a payroll calculator. A single person making $10.00/hr pays 36.63 dollars in federal payroll taxes each week. Further, the same single person making $16,500.00/yr pays around $1,300.00/yr in federal payroll taxes. A single person making $55,000.00/yr pays around $3,696.00/yr. A single person making $55,000.00/yr pays around $3,696.00/yr. Given that the same two people have the same basic expenses ( shelter, food, and clothing) which one do you think has a better standard of living? So how is it that these people don’t pay taxes? The truth of the matter is that the low wage earners of this country keep our society functioning on a daily basis.

It seems once again that the right wing talking heads has misinformed their people. Now, Rush and Hannity want you to think that the average person pays more taxes so they can get a huge tax break.

A good experiment for you is to try for one week not to use or consume anything that has not been made or touch by anyone making under $30,000.00/yr. Want to place a friendly wager on you bring able to do it?

P.S. An equal share of just the federal tax for every man, woman, and child in America is currently somewhere around $13,000.00/yr. Which means that the average married family with two children fair share is $52,000/yr. Now, do you see why America’s rich should pay more?

Remember, money in and of itself is not a sin, but when you put the love of money above your fellow man you commit a sin.

Henry,
Again,what are you talking about? What post did I make that has anything to do with what you are talking about? I think everyone pays too many taxes & that government should do like the people & get rid of & cut unnessary spending.
I work all day so don’t listen to Rush or Hannity.Other than Hannity & Colmes once in a great while.
As for love of money,you don’t know me,but yet you accuse me?.I study & teach the Bible and have Bible studies.My charitable contributions surpass my tax contributions.(not bragging,lest any man boast.just fyi)I believe that the church should and does take a lot of the responsibilty for taking care of the poor & widows .For the people who choose not to go the church route there is the government.
As far as your challange,I’ll pass since I make only $30,000 a year!I agree with you on the tax code,but don’t understand what I said to make you think otherwise.

Back in a little bit.Gotta go rake leaves. :o(

Henry

Here are a few of the things I believe about taxes. How much do we agree?

Everybody should pay taxes to show they are part of the nation. I take some pride in the taxes I pay. I would be willing to pay more if I didn’t think the government would piss it away.

Your money earned belongs to you not the government, therefore a tax break that lets you keep some of your money is not the same as a government grant or payment that gives you some money from other taxpayers.

The rich should pay more than the poor and a greater percentage of their income. This percentage however should never rise too high. My feeling is that about a third of anyone’s income is about as much as the G should expect.

The tax system should promote wealth creation to the extent possible over consumption. That is why I support mortgage deductions and lower capital gains taxes.

Many people are poor, rich and middle class sometime in their lives. From year to year, the individuals who make up each of the quintiles change a lot. Therefore, you can’t really “punish” the rich or help the poor. They might just be the same person at different times in his life.

The goal of good economic policy is not redistribution of wealth. It is to increase the chances that a poor person can escape poverty and maybe even become rich. Therefore government programs should be aimed at building the infrastructure of wealth creation instead of transfer payments. This would include investment in education, simplification of regulation on small business and reforms of the legal system to reduce the threat of catastrophic lawsuits. It would also include some kind of health care protection to guard against the financial effects of catastrophic illness.

What I find amusing about this whole thread is that I never mentioned a word about taxes in my original post.

The real divide is in how to fix the problems - not what the problems are.

I’m a biracial, Christian Republican. Does that make me a right wing type? Or do I get excluded on basis of race? I voted for Bush and I’m a part time student and work full time. Where is my supposed wealth? I would like to know because I sure am struggling to survive. People in this country need to stop making assumptions about everything. Polls and charts and debates don’t reveal the truth in peoples hearts. I voted for Presient Bush because he is a Christian man who could lead this country in to glory. But I guess there are too many who like their reality TV and their cellphones and SUVs and digital cable to care.

jack,

I totally agree with your last post about being willing to pay for taxes. And as for the soldier issue, you are right, soldiers are underpayed and deserve better. Those guys don’t make enough to support their families, and never have. So I apologize, sincerely, if any soldier read this and thought I was ungrateful or implying that they didn’t pay enough in taxes.

The truth is that I think our veterans also deserve competent health care as well:
http://www.dav.org/voters/annual_legislative_report.html

And dawn, sorry this got so far away from your original point. (Even though I am still offended by the stereotypical points about blue areas that were made in it.)

Having said that, I’d like to personally apologize to kimf and joe who now feel alienated by stereotypes thrown at them.

Joe, I think Henry was saying that more federal revenue is generated by the poor because we have a regressive tax system when you include sales tax, social security tax, medicare tax, property tax, auto tax, etc. However, even though the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes (after all taxes are included), I don’t know if it adds up to more revenue than the rich. I’ll research that and get back to you guys.

Before 1940, incidentally, it was ONLY the rich that were taxed on their income.

So, my original point in bringing this up is that we all need each other, as jack so succinctly pointed out. The implication in dawn’s post, and many red posts, is that liberal areas comprise the bulk of the “dead weight” in America. I was trying to show you guys that, far from being dead weight, liberal areas are where a large part of American wealth is generated.

But I think this comment section revealed a greater issue. Dawn’s post was essentially demanding respect for red voters while disrespecting blue voters. Then blue voters came on and demanded respect while disrespecting red voters (And I realize that my posts implied disrespect, which was unintentional. Still, I’m sorry.).

Jack’s post reminded me that it’s never a good idea to make a point by using an argument that makes the other side feel belittled. We are all moving to the same goal:

“The goal of good economic policy is not redistribution of wealth. It is to increase the chances that a poor person can escape poverty and maybe even become rich. Therefore government programs should be aimed at building the infrastructure of wealth creation instead of transfer payments.

I couldn’t have said it better.

We just have different opinions about how to get there. Personally, I think the biggest drain on our resources is a broken health care system (primarily because the government has protected private business from bargaining agreements). I really liked Kerry’s ideas on health care and medical malpractice. What did you guys think about it? (Please set aside the fact that it came from Kerry, and focus on the health care reform, not the man)

Hey jack, joe, would you like to email privately back and forth? I’m having a good time here. And joe, I can email you my source documentation. Just take the “no” and “spam” out of my email address. And put watchblog in the subject line, so I know you’re not spam.

Julia

I live in Houston, the 4th largest city in the US after NYC, LA, and Chicago. Bush won it by 55-45. While the original arguement of blue cities and red country is true in many instances, sometimes, people are just conservative or liberal regardless of their location or income.

averagejoe,
While I am glad to see you are making 30 grand a year and that Dawn thinks that a job that pays to much is good, you really do need to learn the facts that face our government. So before I real off a super long sound bit I have a question for everybody. At what income does a single person and a family of four stop being considered low Income and begins to enter into the Middle Income bracket? Keep in mind that the poverty level for a family of four is approx. $16,500/yr.

Poverty level is approx. $16,500/yr. for a family of 4? So that means a family of 4 making $30,000/yr. is $13,500 above poverty level.

So now take 2 families.

Family #1 has a nice home, 2 cars, food on their table, clothes on their backs, and only uses a debit card or cash.

Family #2 has a nice home, 2 cars, food on the table, clothes on their backs, and uses credit cards.

Family #1 has a mortgage, both cars are used but payed for, and they buy what they need but look for the best prices. Only pays cash unless they absolutely need to use their credit card. Going out to eat or to the movies is a treat. They have a small savings.

Family #2 has a mortgage, 2 car payments, and buys what they want when they want it. Uses a credit card to pay for everything and doesn’t worry about it until they max out their credit card. Going out to eat or bringing food home is done almost nightly. No savings.

Which family is better off? Which family will likely end up in deep financial trouble?

This scenario can be applied all the way up the pay scale.
We all know that it costs more to live in a big city. We know that the cost of living varies around our great country.
$30,000 is not a good income if you live in Chicago or NY.

Just what is our government supposed to do if people live way beyond their means and get in trouble? Give them a raise?
Sometimes people have a financial disaster hit their families, either a lost job or an illness or accident. They find themselves losing everything. They find they even lose the ‘friends’ they thought they had because they can no longer keep up with the Jones’s.
We live in a society where people are shunned if they don’t have the best clothes or drive the best car. Kids at school still do these things to each other. People ‘hang out’ with those that have similar incomes, jobs, go to the same church.
Is this the fault of the Republicans or Democrats? I doubt it. Each party has rich and poor, people of all races and religions. There are people in all parties that believe they are in the better party, and some think that, in itself, makes them better.
These things fall right into the morals and values category. It doesn’t matter what party anyone belongs to. We can’t tell just by looking at the clothes someone wears.

We fall into the middle class category.
I have friends in all the income categories.
The poorer people sometimes wonder why I even talk to them and the richer people think I am being ‘charitable’ or can’t figure out why I have poor friends.

People can be so rude.
There has to be a change in these attitudes.
We are all Americans. We should be acting like one big family.
Just giving hand outs will not fix the problem. People have to be taught how to pull themselves up and be given the tools to achieve success.
People need to be able to believe in themselves. This begins at a young age but doesn’t mean a 30 year old can’t start to feel that way.
More people who have ‘made it’ need to reach out to those that haven’t.
It does not take the government to do this.
People who think they do enough just through the taxes they pay have the wrong attitude.

As long has the ‘haves’ continue to cast aside the ‘have nots’ we will always have these social divides.

dawn,
Sorry, your $30,000.00/yr family of four is still well below the mddile income bracket. Therefore, they are locked out and are only able to access certain parts of our economy.

Low Income is determined by 80% of the Median Income which today is somewhere around $49,000.00/yr. This figure is binding under the Federal Reserve and Our Government and thus can not be changed by Dems nor Reps due to the factors governing the markets.

It does however effect your taxes, the type of assistance you qualify for, and a long, long list of do’s and don’ts. Yes, some people are uneducated in financial matters, but in the 90’s when I ask our school boards if they would begin teaching our students about financial and credit matters I got laughed at and was told thats whats parents are for. Well, considering only 2% of the entire population has that type of knowledge and 70% of American families lack the ability to balance a checkbook, I feel it is the duty of our education system to educate Our Students starting at the 7th grade. Not the two weeks they spend showing people how to create a budget.

On your argument about living in the city, let me ask you the same question I put to a city council when we were trying to get a low income housing developing grant/loan. Having the constitutional duty to regulate commerce in such a manner that it allows all citizens equal and fair access to all commerce (see Charters & Constitutions). Knowing that the average housing unit cost approx. $800.00/mth and using the governments own standard of 30% income (Rent and Electricity) the government is stating for the record that it takes $3,200.00/mth to live in this country. Therefore, the government is bound by its Chater/Constitutional Duty to either insist commerce pays a minimum wage of roughly $800.00/wk or suppliment the housing for those who do not meet that income. There is no other choose period. Failure not to act is in direct violation of their sworn duty to uphold the constituion of Our Land.

Now, I do understand that any one city, county, or state that would force businesses to quickly increase the local wages up to that standard would result in a great exit of businesses. However, the fact still remains that you (The Elected Officials) must suppliment the housing industry through the sale of bonds which puts a heavier tax burden on the government or through a tax rate increase which cause property owners to pay more.

The only alternative is to tell people that “While we want you to provide our society the services and goods which make up our standard of living, we do not want you to live in our country.” Or Our Society as a whole must choose to do away with such jobs as food services, goceries stores, nurses aids, police, emergency workers, and any other job that does not meet that level of income.

Now, no one likes to pay taxes, but it is the constitutional duty of Our Elected Officials, Business Leaders, and Citizens to either support these citizens through the sell of bonds or taxes. The choose is clearly yours (city council) to make, but you must choose between low wages and higher taxes or increased wages and the known results of job lost. You do not need to take my word for these statement, but ask the City Attorney if I am not legally right in stating my case.

No one asked him publicly; however, the lawyer turned his chairs back to the table, the NIMBY’s withdrew their complaint, and the housing project passed 13-0. After wards the Mayor came u to me and asked told me that was one of the best arguments she ever heard me state. As the City Attorney came up she asked me to enlarge on the constitutional duties based on my arguments, but because of the “Legal System” of our country I defered her to ask the City Attorney behind “Closed Doors” and told her if she wanted to talk afterwards I would be glad to. I’m still waiting on that conversation.

Democrats and Republicans elected to high offices are put under a hugh pressure by a few individuals who some would say use extortion methods to get Our Elected Officials to surrender the “Good of the Many” to the “Wants of the Few.” Until “We the People” stand up behind Our Elected Officials to force the “Few” to conpiculate(sp) than people like those republicans elected in 94 can not do their job.

Next time you get a chance to ask your representive a question, ash them this one; “What are the five issues that as a newly representative of the People of United States are you told not to address in public?” Want to bet that your republican representative won’t side step the question?

This blog and others are the best thing that I have seen in my life time that allows each American to educate others on the reality that Our Government is being governed by a “Few” not “We the People.” As you know from my posts that I am an equal basher of both political parties in charge. And although I may be swayed to the liberal side of an issue, it is not because I think that the government should give anyone anything; however, I see their job as balancing the “Needs of Our Society” over the “Greed of those in Power.” Just because someone has a billion dollars does not make them a better person than the poorest among us. In fact, depending on how they use that wealth and knowledge it makes them lower than the snake that gave Eve the Apple.

The TREE OF KNOWLEDGE and the FREEWILL OF MAN must be dealt with through the POWER OF CONSIOUS which America was founded upon. Yes, we might disagree exactly what is fair and equal, yet RIGHT WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT and WRONG WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG. It is the duty of “We the People” to speak up and decide on what as a society we want; however, my duty; my rights begin and end with me telling you what you can do and Our Government’s right begins and ends in telling you and me what we can do. Acceptable Behavior is the standard our society should adpot as law. For if you want to hug all the lamp posts on the street I should not be able to stop you. I might laugh at you, but I should not be able to create a law forbiddening it. However, the moment you come up and want to hug me, I have ever right to stop you.

Henry & Dawn,

I just got home and had a few minutes to read a little.It struck me after those last two posts how the tone and and focus are already getting back onto the things that really count.(on watchblog anyway)We can only hope & pray that Washington can do the same!
CamPAINS like this one damage both parties & our great nation.It strikes me as ridiculous that the cantidates disagreed on everything.No common ground whatsoever.Me and Henry (for exsample)have been on opposite sides of many topics,but have been on the same side of many.I agree more than he would know because when I agree I don’t usually post.I just cheerlead.I can’t type so that limits my posts.When I don’t agree with the other sides though, I pay attention & learn. If I don’t agree I at least learn why they believe the way they do.Like I said before, I was a conservative democrat for years. I didn’t realize I leaned to the right until cable started giving more viewpoints.I didn’t realize that just having network news was spoonfeeding me only what they wanted me to hear.The first time I realized was watching crossfire when it first came on & cspan,watching both parties argue the bills. Wow both sides.I liked arguements from both sides & still do.By having my arguements agreed with or shot down,I at least know I was heard & responded to & not just had a talking point thrown at me.
Sorry for rambling,I don’t have a response other than I needed & appreciated those last posts!
I hope Bush reaches out & I hope the the democrats don’t stand with their arms crossed shaking their heads pouting.We need all parties engaged!

Jake,
Here is what I feel about taxes.

You said: Everybody should pay taxes to show they are part of the nation.

No, our Fore Fathers where very clear on how Our Congress should raise money to operate our federal government. It was not until the Republican party took control of Our Government in the late 1800’s that Individual Income was taxed. Until than every American was encouraged to own a piece of America not pay for it.

While I understand that Our Military, Highways, and other important projects require funding and taxes should be collected from interstate commerce and trade for that allows the burden to be shared by everyone through retail prices.

The major part of Our Federal Budget should be financed buy the sell of bonds instead of the payroll tax currently sucking the money out of our economy. By promoting people to invest in Our Government, the poorest among us could become wealthy. National Debt could be eliminated by a simple fire pit well lets say BOND FIRE on the Fourth of July.

Given the choose between paying taxes or owning a real piece of this country which one do you choose? By setting into motion the transfer of All payroll/employee (P/E) expenses into allowing the purchase of Special Federal Treasury Notes we could not only cover the 3 trillion dollar budget, but knowing people, we could finance special interest (pork barrel) projects as well.

It should be common knowledge by now that an employer has to pay almost an equal amount per hour in P/E expenses and the money we get paid. Therefore, Our Congress can get “Greenspan” to allow these funds to be changed from a ball and chain on Our Economy into the biggest Wealth generating machine in the Universe.

While I don’t know how much you know about Our Monster we call our economy, lets look at it in terms of the individual. Imagine you are making $10.00/hr that means your employer has an expense of about the same amount which means you would be purchasing about $10.00/hr worth of Our Country for every hour that you worked. This would add to your financial wealth about $28,000.00/yr. Invested at an interest rate determined by the federal reserve due to economic reasons. Thus average worker who works forty years of their life would have in their portfolio $1,120,000.00 worth of stock in Our Country. This figure is based on that person remaining at that wage for the entire forty years which is unlikely due to inflation.

It should be common knowledge that Our Markets can easily return an interest rate of 7% annually means that after forty years that person would have a gross income of $70,000/yr in just simple interest. As long as Our Greed can keep the Cost of Living below that annual income the person would be financially set for life. Note: Our Government is now doing that with All of Our Social Security Funds that is not being used for payments so the jump would not be that new.

However, on the state and local levels we need to change our idea of what we call taxes. Streets, Clean Water, Sewage, and Open Areas should be maintained by taxes. However, property tax should be based on how much your property adds to the pollution problems of your community. The less the porperty pollutes the less taxes you should have to pay. Other things like public schools. etc. should be financed through non-profits, charities, and by the parents of the students.

Julie is right about the need for us to change the why Our Economy works. While the current model worked well as a weapon agaisnt Communism, it is desidned by nature to divide the world. “We the People” need to force Our Government to change our economy from a race to the bottom to a race to the top. America keeps saying we have the best country, now the question is can we prove it. Our Fore Fathers gave us the tools, now do “We the People” have the courage to prove it and Change the World.

averagejoe,
Talk about typing I do it one or two fingers at a time. Just keep pluging away on it and you’ll gain some speed. Also, when you are looking up any subject on the web just punch in the words. Just remember two things: 1) Not all sites are feed by the same search machine and 2) watch how you phrase the words especially when looking up government documents. For example, what we call Standard of Living the government calls Income Living Standard. Why the difference? I don’t understand myself just some highly educated fool whim.

BWT, have you heard North Carolina is willing to give Dell $250 million to move a plant here? Now, thats a waste of money. I would rather see them use that type of money on Tidal Generators so our state can start attracting businesses from low energy cost as well as start exporting energy instead of importing it at a higher rates.

Thanks for the tip Henry.
No I hadn’t heard anything about Dell out here on the coast,but I agree with you on Tidal Generators,that’s a great idea.I’m going th look into that!

Averagejoe,
While I don’t think NCSpin.org intended their site as a blog, they do give people in the state the opportunity to sound off on issues. Additionally, I gathering information and writing some articles on current problems and issues facing our state and country. I’ll let you know the address here in a couple of weeks. Currently I am looking at the election law and the changes that I see needs to be done before the next election.