I found this interesting: The Red State / Blue State Paradox
Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:42 am
#20834- Kaz--MoneyMember
- Location : Calgary, AB, Canada
"We hear it all the time: Red states are for limited government; blue states are for heavy spending. While this may be true when it comes to broad political preferences, it’s false as measured by patterns of federal spending.
When you compare the 50 laboratories of democracy after sorting them based on how their citizens voted in November 2008, only 10 Democratic-voting states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 Republican states."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"on average, conservative states feature more "dependency" on federal programs than do liberal ones. You can slice this kind of data in a variety of ways, but you always end up with the same aggregate pattern. It happens to be the case that the richest parts of the United States (think the San Francisco Bay area or Connecticut) favor Democrats and also that conservative areas of the country are overrepresented in the Senate. Transfers, on average, flow away from high-income and underrepresented areas and toward low-income and overrepresented areas."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The irony being that republicans have a few universal pillars--ones that maintained both at the state and the national level--one of them being self-sufficiency, self dependence and self sufficience. They repeatedly bombard the poilitical discourse with accusations of socialism...all the while having their states be recipients of wealth redistribution.
It's a curious coincidence that red states receive the most handouts, while the populations of those states end up being the most critical of any hand outs.
I wonder how their tune would change if the wealthy blue states gave up doing what keeps the majority of those poorer red states afloat. I wonder how the "pull oneself up by their bootstraps" philosophy would change when they really had to do it without federal funding.
When you compare the 50 laboratories of democracy after sorting them based on how their citizens voted in November 2008, only 10 Democratic-voting states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 Republican states."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"on average, conservative states feature more "dependency" on federal programs than do liberal ones. You can slice this kind of data in a variety of ways, but you always end up with the same aggregate pattern. It happens to be the case that the richest parts of the United States (think the San Francisco Bay area or Connecticut) favor Democrats and also that conservative areas of the country are overrepresented in the Senate. Transfers, on average, flow away from high-income and underrepresented areas and toward low-income and overrepresented areas."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The irony being that republicans have a few universal pillars--ones that maintained both at the state and the national level--one of them being self-sufficiency, self dependence and self sufficience. They repeatedly bombard the poilitical discourse with accusations of socialism...all the while having their states be recipients of wealth redistribution.
It's a curious coincidence that red states receive the most handouts, while the populations of those states end up being the most critical of any hand outs.
I wonder how their tune would change if the wealthy blue states gave up doing what keeps the majority of those poorer red states afloat. I wonder how the "pull oneself up by their bootstraps" philosophy would change when they really had to do it without federal funding.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:47 am
#20835- ChisaGod Of Boobs
- Location : Boston, MA
It's like some strange sort of cognitive dissonance, Mitt Romney rails against gov't handouts, yet, used the government to benefit Bain Capital and get it away from the brink of collapse. He also used federal funds while Governor of my state
Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:56 am
#20836- Kaz--MoneyMember
- Location : Calgary, AB, Canada
It's one thing to stand for or against a certain economic policy.
It's another thing entirely to be a large scale recipient of the very thing you oppose, but completely ignore what the reality of it looks like.
I'd love to see conservative states get cut off from all these socialist "handouts" from the blue states....and then to have all the blue states keep the money they would have otherwise put into those state coffers. In under a decade, you'd see why supporting your neighbors is a good thing.
I'd like to ask the republicans who camaign with a purely capitalist agenda respond to this question: "These funds are given to the red states, with no strings attached, no expectations, and no necessity for increased economic performance...why is it that an entire STATE can be given what you deny individual citizens? Why is it that the very population receiving these funds are the loudest opponents to the process that keeps their state from going tits up"?
It's another thing entirely to be a large scale recipient of the very thing you oppose, but completely ignore what the reality of it looks like.
I'd love to see conservative states get cut off from all these socialist "handouts" from the blue states....and then to have all the blue states keep the money they would have otherwise put into those state coffers. In under a decade, you'd see why supporting your neighbors is a good thing.
I'd like to ask the republicans who camaign with a purely capitalist agenda respond to this question: "These funds are given to the red states, with no strings attached, no expectations, and no necessity for increased economic performance...why is it that an entire STATE can be given what you deny individual citizens? Why is it that the very population receiving these funds are the loudest opponents to the process that keeps their state from going tits up"?
Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:10 am
#20837- Triple_0_OughtMember
Probably because the people in the red states tend to have lower incomes and fewer of them pay taxes, as well as the fact that agriculture is extremely important to many red states and the farmers receives heaps of money in subsidies.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:33 am
#20847- Kaz--MoneyMember
- Location : Calgary, AB, Canada
That's the paradox: to the vast majority of conservatives/republicans/tea partiers, handouts are handouts, socialism is socialism, and redistribution of wealth is redistribution of wealth.
To them, these are all bad, undesirable, anti-capitalist, and, most of all, unamerican.
That's the party platform, party policy and party outlook. Yet, those with the loudest voices in opposition to any form of redistribution are the ones getting thier back pockets stuffed by the wealthier states *which are, incidentally, blue states. But not a single call to abolish this practice.
Democrats advocate and act upon thier socialist leanings for the betterment of American society, people and living conditions. Republicans, however, make Dems the bogeymen of a policy that positively affects thier voting base the most.
To them, these are all bad, undesirable, anti-capitalist, and, most of all, unamerican.
That's the party platform, party policy and party outlook. Yet, those with the loudest voices in opposition to any form of redistribution are the ones getting thier back pockets stuffed by the wealthier states *which are, incidentally, blue states. But not a single call to abolish this practice.
Democrats advocate and act upon thier socialist leanings for the betterment of American society, people and living conditions. Republicans, however, make Dems the bogeymen of a policy that positively affects thier voting base the most.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:59 am
#20851- RickMember
It might be that everyone is guilty of everything and there is no line anymore just nonsense.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:22 pm
#20856- BamaGoodfellaMember
- Location : Alabama
I think that a lot of people in the red states vote Republican due to social issues rather than economic issues.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:26 pm
#20857- ChisaGod Of Boobs
- Location : Boston, MA
BamaGoodfella wrote:I think that a lot of people in the red states vote Republican due to social issues rather than economic issues.
The hypocrisy of wanting "smaller gov't" but yet being fine with the gov't legislating morals is quite striking
dictating what I can and can't do with my own body, or what I choose to hold as moral values, is tyranny to me
unless I'm hurting someone, or limiting their freedom to live, stay the f**k out of my business
Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:35 pm
#20858- Kaz--MoneyMember
- Location : Calgary, AB, Canada
BamaGoodfella wrote:I think that a lot of people in the red states vote Republican due to social issues rather than economic issues.
Which calls into question the 'other' paradox.....
Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:10 pm
#20863- BamaGoodfellaMember
- Location : Alabama
Chisa wrote:BamaGoodfella wrote:I think that a lot of people in the red states vote Republican due to social issues rather than economic issues.
The hypocrisy of wanting "smaller gov't" but yet being fine with the gov't legislating morals is quite striking
dictating what I can and can't do with my own body, or what I choose to hold as moral values, is tyranny to me
unless I'm hurting someone, or limiting their freedom to live, stay the f**k out of my business
Don't fool yourself, BOTH sides try to legislate moral values. We may have some differences of opinion, but I think we'd both fall more in line with the libertarian party's views than either the republican or democrat parties. Unfortunately, our country is a 2 party system and you have to vote based on the lesser of 2 evils LOL.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:23 pm
#20866- ChisaGod Of Boobs
- Location : Boston, MA
[quote="BamaGoodfella"]
at this point, whoever is pulling the strings (and someone is, not the President), have decided to move us more and more closer to a police state with the Patriot Act, NDAA, and the upcoming widespread use of drones for surveillance, combined with the already happening warrantless tapping of our communications to be stored
someone doesn't want Egypt/Spain to happen here, and they're looking to cover their bases soon
America is simply not America anymore, and they're keeping us distracted with bullshit while we should be outraged
Chisa wrote:
Don't fool yourself, BOTH sides try to legislate moral values. We may have some differences of opinion, but I think we'd both fall more in line with the libertarian party's views than either the republican or democrat parties. Unfortunately, our country is a 2 party system and you have to vote based on the lesser of 2 evils LOL.
at this point, whoever is pulling the strings (and someone is, not the President), have decided to move us more and more closer to a police state with the Patriot Act, NDAA, and the upcoming widespread use of drones for surveillance, combined with the already happening warrantless tapping of our communications to be stored
someone doesn't want Egypt/Spain to happen here, and they're looking to cover their bases soon
America is simply not America anymore, and they're keeping us distracted with bullshit while we should be outraged
Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:27 pm
#20868- Kaz--MoneyMember
- Location : Calgary, AB, Canada
From Romney's website, and, not in any particular order, here are the pillars of his campaign:
•Afghanistan & Pakistan
•China & East Asia
•Iran
•Israel
•Latin America
•Middle East
•National Defense
•Russia
•Courts & The Constitution
•Education
•Energy
•Gun Rights
•Healthcare
•Housing
•Human Capital
•Immigration
•Labor
•Medicare
•Regulation
•Social Security
•Spending
•Tax
•Trade
•Veterans
There are no fewer than 100 sub-points contained in all these, upon which his overall campaign is built.
For moral issues, Abortion, Stem Cells and Marriage.
I fail to see why moral / social issues rank so high among a group so concerned with individual freedoms.
•Afghanistan & Pakistan
•China & East Asia
•Iran
•Israel
•Latin America
•Middle East
•National Defense
•Russia
•Courts & The Constitution
•Education
•Energy
•Gun Rights
•Healthcare
•Housing
•Human Capital
•Immigration
•Labor
•Medicare
•Regulation
•Social Security
•Spending
•Tax
•Trade
•Veterans
There are no fewer than 100 sub-points contained in all these, upon which his overall campaign is built.
For moral issues, Abortion, Stem Cells and Marriage.
I fail to see why moral / social issues rank so high among a group so concerned with individual freedoms.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:34 pm
#20869- Kaz--MoneyMember
- Location : Calgary, AB, Canada
BamaGoodfella wrote:
Don't fool yourself, BOTH sides try to legislate moral values. We may have some differences of opinion, but I think we'd both fall more in line with the libertarian party's views than either the republican or democrat parties. Unfortunately, our country is a 2 party system and you have to vote based on the lesser of 2 evils LOL.
Why would hetwrosexuals care if homosexuals were married?
I don't necessarily agree with people having firearms, but I dont' think it's my place promote legislation preventing you from owning, or carrying.
Why cant' a woman have an abortion?
I don't think someone should be able to take the autonomy from another person. You want fake titties, go ahead. You want to get botox, go ahead. You want to take hormones to increase liklihood of a pregnancy, even though we all know you'll end up with 5 of them, go ahead. Not my place to decide.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:01 pm
#20875- BamaGoodfellaMember
- Location : Alabama
Kaz--Money wrote:
Why would hetwrosexuals care if homosexuals were married?
I don't necessarily agree with people having firearms, but I dont' think it's my place promote legislation preventing you from owning, or carrying.
Why cant' a woman have an abortion?
I don't think someone should be able to take the autonomy from another person. You want fake titties, go ahead. You want to get botox, go ahead. You want to take hormones to increase liklihood of a pregnancy, even though we all know you'll end up with 5 of them, go ahead. Not my place to decide.
To answer your first question, I see tradional marriage as being a religious institution and the government should not interfere in matters concerning religion. I know that there are plenty of homosexuals who are in committed, long term relationships, and I don't think that they should necessarily be treated as second class citizens. They should be given the same rights as heterosexual couples that are in a "common law" marriage (ie. they have the same rights as married couples even though they are not legally married)
The democrats position on gun control is completely unacceptable to me, and it's one of the main reasons that I vote republican.
The issue of abortion is one of several areas that I disagree with the republican platform. While I would never encourage abortion, I would much rather a woman have the right to have an abortion rather than have a child that she is not able to support emotionally or financially. Before I became a realtor, I worked with troubled youth that came from homes where they were not wanted and their parents were unwilling/unable to provide for the child's basic financial and emotional needs. Sure some of them turned out OK, but a large majority ended up being very expensive to society due to either being in jail, prison, government funded mental health, or on welfare/government assistance. It honestly makes no sense to oppose abortion and at the same time oppose welfare since someone (ie tax payers) WILL have to take care of these unwanted children. I bet if you went to an anti-abortion rally and asked how many of them had ever adopted a child or volunteered to be a foster parent the number would be pretty low. Sorry for typing a wall of text Kaz LOL!
Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:21 pm
#20881- Kaz--MoneyMember
- Location : Calgary, AB, Canada
I'll never TL DR a wall Bama.....
Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:30 pm
#20887- ChisaGod Of Boobs
- Location : Boston, MA
Marriage is not just a religious institution, it's (besides it's "traditional" Christian ritual) a legally binding contract between two people; meaning, it's a state recognized practice regardless of religion.
I had no one word of "god" ushered at my wedding, but I'm recognized as being married because I signed the marriage license after the ceremony, it has nothing to do with any religion, or any god (or lack thereof) I may believe in. Same goes for people who are married by a Justice of the Peace in a courtroom/arena of their choice.
One group cannot claim a practice that dates back thousands of years, because their views conflict with someone else's. There are some sects of Buddhism (for example), that don't see anything unnatural about homosexuality, thus, infringing on homosexual rights could be a violation of their guarantee to religious freedom. On the other hand, the legal right to get married, as guaranteed by the state, cannot be subject to the favor of one specific religion.
And lastly, it's just a dick move to tell homosexuals they can't get married.
I had no one word of "god" ushered at my wedding, but I'm recognized as being married because I signed the marriage license after the ceremony, it has nothing to do with any religion, or any god (or lack thereof) I may believe in. Same goes for people who are married by a Justice of the Peace in a courtroom/arena of their choice.
One group cannot claim a practice that dates back thousands of years, because their views conflict with someone else's. There are some sects of Buddhism (for example), that don't see anything unnatural about homosexuality, thus, infringing on homosexual rights could be a violation of their guarantee to religious freedom. On the other hand, the legal right to get married, as guaranteed by the state, cannot be subject to the favor of one specific religion.
And lastly, it's just a dick move to tell homosexuals they can't get married.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:56 pm
#20891- BamaGoodfellaMember
- Location : Alabama
Chisa wrote:Marriage is not just a religious institution, it's (besides it's "traditional" Christian ritual) a legally binding contract between two people; meaning, it's a state recognized practice regardless of religion.
I had no one word of "god" ushered at my wedding, but I'm recognized as being married because I signed the marriage license after the ceremony, it has nothing to do with any religion, or any god (or lack thereof) I may believe in. Same goes for people who are married by a Justice of the Peace in a courtroom/arena of their choice.
One group cannot claim a practice that dates back thousands of years, because their views conflict with someone else's. There are some sects of Buddhism (for example), that don't see anything unnatural about homosexuality, thus, infringing on homosexual rights could be a violation of their guarantee to religious freedom. On the other hand, the legal right to get married, as guaranteed by the state, cannot be subject to the favor of one specific religion.
And lastly, it's just a dick move to tell homosexuals they can't get married.
I guess that I see marriage as more of a religious institution rather than a contractual agreement, but you've made some very good points. In all honesty, I think laws banning gay marriage will eventually be repealed in the same way that anti-miscegenation laws were overturned by the supreme court in 1967 as being unconstitutional. Alabama's law against sodomy was on the books until the supreme court struck it down in 2003, but I'd be willing to bet that there were a lot of straight & gay people that were criminals prior to that LOL. In the end, regardless of your social or religious beliefs, you can't legislate peoples "morals".
Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:04 pm
#20895- CorvadeMember
is Bama not a big republican state?
Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:19 pm
#20896- ChisaGod Of Boobs
- Location : Boston, MA
BamaGoodfella wrote:
I guess that I see marriage as more of a religious institution rather than a contractual agreement, but you've made some very good points. In all honesty, I think laws banning gay marriage will eventually be repealed in the same way that anti-miscegenation laws were overturned by the supreme court in 1967 as being unconstitutional. Alabama's law against sodomy was on the books until the supreme court struck it down in 2003, but I'd be willing to bet that there were a lot of straight & gay people that were criminals prior to that LOL. In the end, regardless of your social or religious beliefs, you can't legislate peoples "morals".
people will always view marriage differently, some would even protest it's existence at all (LOL Marriage), but I'm really just looking to maximize everyone's personal freedoms and keep the government away from anything regarding morals, it's very dangerous territory
and LOL, I can't believe anyone getting back door action was, technically, a criminal until '03.....what man is going to say "anal sex with a woman sucks, lets outlaw it?"
Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:20 pm
#20898- BamaGoodfellaMember
- Location : Alabama
Corvade wrote:is Bama not a big republican state?
It has been since Lyndon Johnson's presidency. Up until that then, the South was solid for the democratic party. Kaz asked the question as to why the red states supported the republicans economic agenda, and I told him it was more about social issues than economic ones. If you look at the map of red states, and then overlay a map of church attendance you can see a very strong correlation between the 2. The bible has been missused in the past to support everything from slavery to treating women as property. What these self-righteous types often don't know is that the bible only tells a small part of the Christian story and there were many books (for example, the gnostic gospels) that were banned because they were deemed to dangerous by the ruling theocracy at the time.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
While I'm pretty conservative in some areas, my views in other areas are not the accepted norm here which is why I would consider myself more of a libertarian than anything. As I posted earlier, the main reason that I support the republican party is their stance on the 2nd ammendment. I'll save my stance on that for another thread though LOL!
- Sponsored content
Create an account or log in to leave a reply
You need to be a member in order to leave a reply.
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|