This is interesting but I suspect it is severely skewed if you dig a bit deeper. The most obvious boner on this list is DC. DC voted for Clinton, Al Gore and Kerry. DC is the poster boy for democratic economic values and enjoys the high crime rates associated with liberal democratic values. Rural states receive a disproportionate amount of federal spending based on farm subsidies and the like. All this chart indicates is that in highly developed areas,you are going to have considerable higher taxes paid and that in these developed areas, you are likely to encounter the kind of moral devolution that could even support the likes of Kerry and what has become the party of sodomy and permissiveness

Posted by: sean oreilly | Nov 6, 2004 12:22:19 PM

I'm assuming that Sean OReilly is illustrating the caricature of Democratics put out by the GOP; no one could be stupid enough to actually believe that drivel.

Posted by: MD | Nov 6, 2004 12:57:45 PM

"DC is the poster boy for democratic economic values and enjoys the high crime rates associated with liberal democratic values."

And Sean O'Reilly is the poster boy for Republican racist values that says "Pander to those black people and they'll rape your wimmen and steal your stuff". Gotta lock em up and through away the key like we do down here in the south!

Posted by: mark stracke | Nov 6, 2004 3:35:06 PM

Sean, old bean, DC isn't a state, it's not even a real city... it's a suburb of the Federal Government... with inadequate representation and a token mayor who has less real power than any city manager anywhere else in the USA. It's as much a state as South Central LA or some dying oil-town in Texas.

Posted by: President Leechman | Nov 6, 2004 8:46:18 PM

Interesting. Backs up my theory as to the result of overrepresenting the underpopulated states in congress.

DC should definitely be thrown out of the sample. Of course the federal government spends money here...it owns the place and occupies the best real estate... DC is a protectorate, not a state.

Posted by: Stuart | Nov 8, 2004 10:48:45 AM

This is pretty damning, at first glance (and that's about what it's good for, a "USA Today" splash graph).

If you look carefully at county-by-county voting, though, you see a different picture emerge. See http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/where_did_their.html

Bedroom communuties, which are much more affluent and tend to pay much more in taxes than inner-city residents, largely fell for Bush, while inner cities fell almost completely for Kerry. Put in that light, what's really happening is that the people who pay the taxes tend to vote republican. It follows that their elected representatives in congress (where spending is divvied up) will likely be republicans. In a republican-dominated congress, guess whose spending bills are going to receive approval?

By the way, why didn't we hear any of this type of talk when dems controlled both branches of congress and the presidency?

Sour grapes..

mike

PS - note the lack of rhetoric about god, the bible, morals, etc - not all conservatives are religious.

Posted by: Mike | Nov 8, 2004 4:11:33 PM

So we're saying those who pay more should have more say? That doesn't sound like a democratic ideal to me. Are you sure you're not an evil Republican?

Posted by: randluke | Nov 8, 2004 6:42:59 PM

BS.

Posted by: Oleg | Nov 8, 2004 9:06:07 PM

Not arguing representation. Simple facts. Republicans (or those who vote so) actually outnumber democrats. In addition, they represent the affluent, tax paying segments of the populace. The fact that they seem to have grown tired of inner cities dictating to them how their money will be redistributed indicates that they are now taking politics seriously and have taken to voting regularly.

As previously mentioned, when the majority speaks, you can expect that same segment's representatives to take the lion's share of their tax dollars back.

Again, why didn't we hear any complaints about funding when dems controlled the streams and wasted it on social programs?

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 9, 2004 9:43:31 PM

Because back then, the states that were taking in more tax dollars they were contributing weren't running the show.

People in Blue State didn't mind subidizing the Red States way of life until the Red States started threatening our way of life.

Now however, I say, "If you want smaller government so much, fine. Let start with you. AG Subsidies can go, then coal, then oil, then gas."

Posted by: Marc Brazeau | Nov 10, 2004 1:42:06 AM

I'm all for it. Just be careful that farmers don't lower production quantities and limit the system's ability to tolerate basic foodstuff giveaway programs you guys are so fond of. Oh - and be prepared to pay *alot* more for your fuel costs - businesses will pass those costs on to you.

While we're at it, let's go whole hog and eliminate entitlements, as well, thereby eliminating dems' ability to buy votes.

Now, we're getting somewhere!

By the way, it's not "red states" threatening your way of life. Look at the county-by county totals. The "red counties" are the affluent people who surround the cities. They are the ones who voted republican. Conservatives aren't far away, even in places like NYC.

You guys put yourselves in this position - 40 years of overspending on failed social programs, conbined with the shrill attacks ever since Reagan took office have sickened alot of people. The past 2 years, with the likes of Michael Moore and the Hollywood crowd leading the spin brigade haven't done you any favors. Don't you guys get that the average man doesn't care who a spoiled zillionaire actor thinks should be president or where they think we should or should not spend money? Your party is the party of out-of-touch snobs and elitists at one end and society's laggards and ne'er-do-wells at the other. Many people are repelled by your constituency.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 10, 2004 9:32:36 AM

"..Don't you guys get that the average man doesn't care who a spoiled zillionaire actor thinks should be president..."

Are you talking about Arnold and Ron Silver's endorsements and public campaigning for Bush?

Why are Republican conservatives so quick to jump on Democrat hollywood support but not their own Repubs.?

Call a spade a spade you know, or else you're just a hypocrit.

Posted by: Allan | Nov 10, 2004 1:37:35 PM

"Blue staters" earn on average approximately 27% more per person. Working persons in those blue states tend to be union members who vote Democratic. Thay is why we pay more, so that some white 300-lb welfare queen from Georgia can scream at us because Rush told her so.

Those bedroom communbities you speak about? Are you talking about Buchs County, PA? Stafford County, Virginia? Wicomico County, MD? They are hardly suburbs and hardly bedroom communities. And trust me, they won't for years to come.

Here in VA, the suburbs are in Hampton, Alexandria, Arlington, and Falls Chuurch. All went for Kerry. I see nothing about your so-called bedroom community myth.

Posted by: Paul | Nov 10, 2004 1:50:45 PM

Can somebody explain to me how the "morally impure" New England states have the lowest divorce rates in the country? And why is it that Texas, Louisiana, and Florida have some of the highest?

Posted by: Paul | Nov 10, 2004 1:52:58 PM

"conbined with the shrill attacks ever since Reagan took office"

As opposed to the non-shrill attacks that you guys threw at Clinton during his presidency? Face it, you guys broke the mold when it came to full-on scandal mongering and hysterical attacks.

Posted by: James | Nov 10, 2004 1:52:59 PM

Wow. I'm in a blue state that's not getting its money back, either. Guess we need some new members of Congress...the current ones are just not bringin' home the bacon!

Posted by: LP | Nov 10, 2004 2:10:06 PM

So, first:

"Are you talking about Arnold and Ron Silver's endorsements and public campaigning for Bush?"

Feh. For every celeb who declares as a republican, 20 scream they'll leave the country if Bush gets elected. You guys attract the out-of-touch, idealistic flakes like a magnet dropped in a bucket of metal shavings.

And then:

"Here in VA, the suburbs are in Hampton, Alexandria, Arlington, and Falls Chuurch. All went for Kerry. I see nothing about your so-called bedroom community myth."

And what about Prince William, Loudoun, etc? You guys have a good many conservatives in or near DC, considering how many of you are on the government dole (I mean er.. payroll). Take a look around Philly, NYC, Atlanta, LA, Minneapolis, Chicago, etc - bedroom communities voted Bush.

and then..

"As opposed to the non-shrill attacks that you guys threw at Clinton during his presidency?"

At least they attacked the man; not the electorate, as you guys seem to want to do. There are many ways to deal with a loss. The most idiotic is to blame the people who didn't vote for your guy. Sadly, rather than look at your arrogance, elitism and the generally nasty tone of your campaign, you guys have decided to attack the electorate.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 10, 2004 2:45:00 PM

I rather liked Thomas Frank's take on all this in his recent book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?", which shows how blue-collar Americans have been led to vote red against their economic interests by being encouraged to ignore fiscal policy while getting worked up over moral issues.

For instance, they're super angry, Frank writes, at millionaire movie stars who flaunt a lifestyle (which some of them nevertheless find delicious to watch on TV). With GOP help the red staters have punished those celebs by ... cutting their income taxes!

Frank shows how these voters also overlook GOP tax cuts highly beneficial to CEOs of the red persuasion, and corporate America in general, which then turn around and screw increasingly disorganized labor, sewing the seeds for yet more cultural warfare. In short: It's a scam, and one big pug-ugly race to the bottom.

Indeed, "red" Kansas is fast turning into an economic basket case, save for a handful of uppity-scale suburbs. Which is why I expect my higher than average Wisconsin federal taxes to keep on going up. We pride ourselves on having good public services in this state, but you red staters are busy helping make impossible a way of life that you're busily importing from us.

Wisconsinites -- all of us, not just "inner city" residents -- work hard, and are reasonably prosperous, and have less unemployment than most of you. We also send more dollars out of our borders every year, getting less back from the feds than most southern states with their huge military constituencies and negatively taxed multicorps, and bailing out these places more and more. But when my redistributed taxes aren't sufficient to cover your costs, why, BushCo just runs up the national deficit another trillion and calls it a day.

Did you know, to take one teeny example, that Wisconsin residents have to subsidize the cost of milk production in places like Georgia and Texas? That's thanks to an arcane and originally well-intentioned federal law designed to get those states to begin developing their dairy industries, in an era when refrigerated continental shipments were costly at best. At the center of the federal target -- Eau Claire, Wisconsin -- the subsidy is zero. Generally, the farther a dairy operation is from Eau Claire, the higher the subsidy.

This law long ago fulfilled its mission, and Wisconsin is losing ground in the milk overproduction competition nationwide. But that's not cruel enough for the red state bosses who are oh-so against big government. Nope, the law goes right on, year after year, transferring a portion of Wisconsin family farming wealth to fat-cat factory farms in other regions. Result: Milk costs more to produce in America's Dairyland, just so other states can keep sucking at our teat when they should have been weaned years ago. Totally unfair, and totally inconsistent with alleged GOP economic policies. Unfortunately, WIsocnsin doesn't have the votes to stop these vampires who call themselves moral Americans. Raw power, not justice and equity, is now entrenched as the nation's public ideal. Got milk subsidy?

I say to red staters: If you like winning so badly, if you can't resist taking ideological tweaks at the nation's collective expense, then just keep it up. In not many more years you'll have drained dry the blue states, our grandkids will find it increasingly difficult to pay off the huge federal credit card debt that Bush is merrily swiping us into, and the nation will start getting tapped on the shoulder by wary foreign investors who hold trillions of dollars of US debt.

Then you will have killed the golden goose. True, you'll have won the Civil -- I mean cultural -- War, but in doing so you'll have thrown the USA back a century, right into the realm of Third World economies. Cannibals: In my view, that's who you are. If you don't believe it, read the nutrition label before your next gorging.

Posted by: Ron Legro | Nov 10, 2004 4:37:41 PM

WV is on the list because of a Democrat. Robert Byrd is the big draw of government dollars to WV. But as West Virginian's have shown, they can't be bought off by the Democrats, hence their voting for BUSH!

Posted by: patrick | Nov 10, 2004 4:53:04 PM

Mike:

"You guys put yourselves in this position - 40 years of overspending on failed social programs, conbined with the shrill attacks ever since Reagan took office have sickened alot of people."

The Republicans, in the last 40 years, have held the Presidency for 24 of those years, and Clinton managed to balance the budget so exactly who was overspending? As much as you would like to play the victim of the evil liberal cabal, try taking on a little responsibility. Or is that something you only pay lip service to when trying to impose your high moral standards on others? And which failed social program would you like to talk about? Republicans don't seem to even want to fund successful social programs like Head Start or Hope VI. Perhaps we might look at failed weapons programs, to turn your simple minded construction around. We could also look at Watergate and Iran-Contra if your selective memory allows you to do that.

Finally, exactly how much do you think you should pay in taxes? The Federal Government subsidizes all kinds of programs for the middle and upper class--mortgage interest deductions, highway construction, mineral rights on federal lands--so don't act so self righteous. There is a lot to be said for the government sponsoring a system by which some people can become incredibly wealthy and it is disgusting when those same people forget the bonds of mutuality this country was founded on to bitch about the taxes they pay which help make this republic possible. You can't get much more un-American than that.

Posted by: Charles Foster Kane | Nov 10, 2004 7:05:08 PM

"For every celeb who declares as a republican, 20 scream they'll leave the country if Bush gets elected."

Really?

Name 40 (20 for Arnold and 20 for Ron).

Posted by: Cal D | Nov 10, 2004 7:17:49 PM

BTW, it's not just divorce rates that tend to be lower in blue states and higher in red states in general. Murder rates, violent crime in general, and teen pregnancy rates all follow that same pattern with remarkably few exceptions.

Small wonder so many folks in red state America seem to think our civilization is in decline...

Posted by: Cal D | Nov 10, 2004 7:48:23 PM

The map above also illustrates why the federal deficit and the national debt will continue to balloon as long as Republicans are in charge of the federal government. If you're spending more than you're taking in, you basically have three choices:

1. Cut Spending
2. Raise Taxes
3. Continue spiraling further and further into debt

Republicans always have to opt for #3 because political realities make them institutionally incapable of fiscal responsibility. They can't vote to cut spending because most of their home-state economies tend to rely heavily on federal hand-outs. And of course they can't vote to raise taxes to cover shortfalls because they would be drummed out of the Republican party if they did.

Posted by: Cal D | Nov 10, 2004 8:14:01 PM

Mike is unbelievable. He accuses Dems of the "nasty tone" of their campaign. Hey, Mike, were you even paying attention during this campaign? Bush ran one of the most negative campaigns in history. Most of his commercials attacked Kerry, rather than promoting himself. But I can hardly blame him. There's really nothing positive that can be said about him.

Posted by: jason | Nov 10, 2004 11:10:10 PM

Ho - Hum. There really is no need for the Democratic faithful to gnash teeth and tear hair.
President Clinton was elected twice because he had credibility with both "red" and "blue" voters - his humble upbringing and determined rise to intellectual and political excellence appealed to both the "up by your bootstraps" middle Americans and the Ivy League liberal brain trust. Bush has the same intrinsic appeal - Yale educated, but down and dirty oil business savvy; a hard drinking, educated good ole boy who saw the light and feels at home in Wabash or Washington. It's a trait that can't be faked, bought, spun, or ignored. Kerry doesn't have it, Clinton and Bush do. If the Democratic electorate is looking for a scapegoat, how about the rocket scientists who disregarded the above and forwarded a candidate without the "both sides of the tracks" credentials to carry the day.

Posted by: Frank | Nov 11, 2004 4:01:28 AM

Bush ran an extremely negative campaign, quite rightly so, as his record, other than cutting taxes was not good enough to run on. The Gay marriage issue was irrelevant, yet, many Red staters based their vote on "values" or "morals".

Yale educated, but down and dirty oil business savvy; a hard drinking, educated good ole boy who saw the light and feels at home in Wabash or Washington
Yep, so good at the oil business that his only foray into it was a disaster. Business savvy? check the history books pal, Bush never oversaw one business that was successful, with the exception of the Texas baseball team, he got Texas Taxpayers to buy a new stadium for. He never took risks with his own money, he did it with someone else's money. When the business failed, his father, or his fathers cronies bailed him out.
One good answer that I believe Kerry could have used, was during the second debate, Bush asked Kerry how he was going to pay for all the programs that he wanted to institute. Kerry should have responded with "just like you mr. president, I'll write a check".
Bush's overall record was untenable, thus the attack ads. Kerry, if you'll go back thru, ran on his record, and only voiced displeasure with Bush's record. He had no 527's that did the nasty things that the SBFT did. Telling lies, and distorting the record of John Kerry was exactly what the Bush Campaign did. It will work as long as people do not want to take the time to do the research.
I'm an independant, and a moderate. I find our current administration has gone far right. involving the gov't into things like Gay marriage, Abortion, and other divisive social issues are repugnant. I'm wondering just how far they are willing to take this "mandate" from the people. Incredibly, it seems we are no longer progressing, but regressing.
I mean, think about it, right now, we have a president, that is so weak on geography as to make most 7th graders cringe.

Posted by: Tim | Nov 11, 2004 8:13:31 AM

Aren't democrats the ones who vote for all this federal spending and taxation? Why is it suddenly demonized because we're now back to red vs. blue state mentality? Complaining about the welfare state is a very Republican thing to do.

Democrats are having an identity crisis.

Posted by: Heather | Nov 11, 2004 10:58:23 AM

Charles Foster Kane wrote:

"The Republicans, in the last 40 years, have held the Presidency for 24 of those years, and Clinton managed to balance the budget so exactly who was overspending?"

Well, not to be too blunt, but you dems were! Don't you remember the unbelievable rhetoric being thrown out by the left (example: your medicare will be cut; seniors will be living in the streets!) when the balanced budget amendment was passed as part of Newt Gingrich's contract with america? Do you remember the seemingly annual government shutdowns that Clinton drove us into, because he steadfastly refused to balance the budget and was dragged, kicking and screaming, into it by Kasich? Where were you when that was going on?

"And which failed social program would you like to talk about?"

Idunno - let's start with the grand daddy, SSI. 390B last year alone, due to cross into insolvency in 2015 at its current spend rate.

Cal D wrote:

"Name 40 (20 for Arnold and 20 for Ron)"

Chortle - is that all you got? Why did you bother to post?

Oh - and I'd *love* to see a reference for those stats you threw out about murder rates, etc in your next post.

Linda Ronstadt, Don Henley, Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, Carole King, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, the Dixie Chicks(3), Barbara Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg, Rosie O'Donnell, Ed Koch, Ben Affleck, Caroline Kennedy, Ron Howard, Goldie Hawn, Lauren Bacall, Robert DeNiro, Kevin Bacon, Michael Douglas, Diane Von Furstenburg and Barry Diller, Steven King, Harvey Weinstein, Steven Bing, Charlize Theron, Uma Thurman, Stone Gossard, Chevy Chase, James Taylor, Hilary Swank, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Sheryl Crowe, Kirsten Dunst, Jon Bon Jovi, P. Diddy, Paris Hilton

reference: Google it - they're all there.

Jason wrote:

"Hey, Mike, were you even paying attention during this campaign?"

Yes, I was. *Every* time Kerry was asked a question by the media, he would do 2 things: 1) claim to have a plan, then dodge the question. 2) take yet another swipe at Bush, claiming "we can do better". That was the entire content of his campaign - "I have a plan.. (usually followed by empty or unrealistic rhetoric)" and "President Bush has {lied, manipulated, distorted, messed up} .."

You guys go ahead and blame the electorate, don't take time to look inward. Charles Foster Kane's post is a perfect example of a liberal swipe - bandying about phrases like "simple minded", etc. You'll *never* win a convert with that kind of arrogant tone.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 11, 2004 11:20:43 AM

Heather wrote:

"Democrats are having an identity crisis."

It's not an identity crisis. Democrats are angry because they are no longer steering the ship. I, too, find it hilarious that dems are complaining about redistribution of income. I agree and think we need to end all subsidies, right after we end all the dems' vote-buying redistribution schemes and associated taxes.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 11, 2004 11:51:15 AM

A more interesting analysis would be a determination of how much it costs for the U.S. to take the money and return it to the states.

In other words, how much of the TOTAL money stolen is returned.

Criminals call it "skimming."

Posted by: Jack Woodhead | Nov 11, 2004 12:09:43 PM

More federal dollars currently go into corporate welfare programs than have EVER been put in all of the social welfare programs combined. So which party is buying votes?

Posted by: kev | Nov 11, 2004 3:12:57 PM

"More federal dollars currently go into corporate welfare programs than have EVER been put in all of the social welfare programs combined. So which party is buying votes?"

I challenge you to support that assertion with some real facts.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 11, 2004 3:47:22 PM

When churches help the needy it is called moral, loving, good, kind and the Godly thing to do. When government OF, BY and FOR the people help the needy it is called communism, socialism and Marxism. And ironically the name callers are often Christian Republicans.

The difference is Churches coerce the money through guilt, fear of hell or the rewards of heaven. Whereas the government acts according to the people's good will (via elected representatives).

Posted by: Larry | Nov 11, 2004 5:22:40 PM

Well, Larry, there's a difference.

I'm a nonbeliever and don't go to church. Nobody's coercing anything out of me with the threat of hell or the promise of heaven. Whether or not I give to any charity should be my choice, in any case.

Your preferred system takes money involuntarily, under threat of imprisonment and transfers it to people who in many cases do not deserve it. Add to that the problem of "good will"; once enough lazy people figure out that they can extract money from others via the government, the whole mess collapses.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 11, 2004 6:18:52 PM

mike said "I challenge you to support that assertion with some real facts."
-------------------------------------------------
According to Cato Institute (no bastion of liberalism) $75 billion a year is spent in corporate welfare. I'd say $75,000,000,000 could buy a hell of a lot votes.

Posted by: Larry | Nov 11, 2004 6:29:09 PM

Mike,
We share common ground. I too am a non-believer. I salute you on that --to reach that point you must have done your share of critical thinking.

I realize (and maybe you have too) that politics is an art form with VERY little scientific basis. You and I can spin the issues as artfully as our words will let us. Nice meeting you, I look forward to more discussion.

Posted by: Larry | Nov 11, 2004 6:40:36 PM

Mike,
Here is why I am a Democrat.

My mother, who is a retired 77 year old secretary worked hard all her working life. During her first marriage she was making $50 a week when she and her four children were abandoned by an alcoholic husband/father.

At that time we lived in the government projects and stayed at a locally funded government daycare while Mama worked. So maybe you can see that when Republicans say they are not dependent on government, and turn welfare recipients into mooching caricatures, they slap the face of innocent hard working mothers, fathers and their children.

You certainly know that President Bush--the leader of the Christian, "self-made" Republicans--was born into a powerful and rich family. He never went to bed hungry (like my family did) and never knew the meaning of panic. I don’t expect someone like that to empathize with the poor.

Yet we were lucky, we were white, I can't imagine how hard it was for African-American families back then (and now). We four children are now in our 40s and 50s and are having a wonderful and successful life. Yet we know, all too well, that there are needy families out there. Not the caricatures presented by the conservative media, but folks who by LUCK of birth, race and economic circumstances, need and deserve help.

I be interested in knowing how you reached your political worldview.

Posted by: Larry | Nov 11, 2004 7:27:47 PM

The last line should read: I'd be interested in knowing how you reached your political worldview.

Posted by: Larry | Nov 11, 2004 7:31:55 PM

Gee Mike--what about those Reagan and Bush era deficits? Are you going to blame those on liberals as well? As for the Clinton years, yes, liberals were worried about the things you mentioned but you know what? Clinton ultimately went along with it. So for all of your crying about "rhetoric", the budget did get balanced during those years, so your argument is worthless because no one, Democrat or Republican, was overspending. You still haven't accounted for the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II years, in which deficits ballooned and government spending kept increasing. Did Bush II veto a single spending bill? Did the Republicans control both the House and the Senate? You haven't proven anything.

I did like this however, "Charles Foster Kane's post is a perfect example of a liberal swipe - bandying about phrases like "simple minded", etc. You'll *never* win a convert with that kind of arrogant tone."

Calling an argument simple minded is arrogant? Arrogant would be me saying "Sit down little boy and let me explain to you how the world works because I'm the only one who has it figured out." Unfortunately, you've already filled that position, as shown in your respsonse Cal D: "Chortle - is that all you got? Why did you bother to post?"

Mike, your construction is in fact simple minded: "You guys put yourselves in this position - 40 years of overspending on failed social programs, conbined with the shrill attacks ever since Reagan took office have sickened alot of people." Given that Republicans have had far more control over the government during the past 40 years than liberals have, I would say that there is more than enough responsibility to go around on both sides. So yes, trying to account for the current state of the Democratic party in one sentence is simple minded. And no, I'm not trying to convert you. I'd much rather let you stew in your own sense of victimhood, to wit: "Your preferred system takes money involuntarily, under threat of imprisonment and transfers it to people who in many cases do not deserve it."

Posted by: Charles Foster Kane | Nov 11, 2004 7:59:18 PM

easy way to fix it.. lower the federal goverment income tax, increase the rate in each of our states, and keep it in house..

btw, those red states don't really need to feed you all if you really don't want it

Posted by: cody | Nov 11, 2004 8:46:43 PM

Larry said:

"$75 billion a year is spent in corporate welfare."

Hm. That's really not much, compared to the $390B spent on Social Security alone. The point is that social spending far outstrips pretty much everything else, except defense spending.

Charles Foster Kane said:

"You haven't proven anything."

I've proven one thing, for sure. When you're proven wrong about something (your assertion that "Clinton balanced the budget"), you'll throw a thousand red herrings in the hope that nobody notices.

"Calling an argument simple minded is arrogant?"

Yes, it is. Simple minded is an insult; you know it and so do I. Regarding my reply to Cal D: His post was essentially a rather simplistic challenge, so I addressed it as such. You'll note that in addition to chuckling, I actually answered the issue raised.

"So yes, trying to account for the current state of the Democratic party in one sentence is simple minded"

So, succinctly stating something, even if it's just a single sentence, is simple minded? Tell you what - let's see your summation, then.

"I'd much rather let you stew in your own sense of victimhood, to wit:"

It has nothing to do with victimhood. A fact is a fact. The federal government has placed itself in the position of arbiter of goodwill. It takes money from those who earn it and gives it to those who don't. In many cases, the recipients are undeserving. What about that can you dispute?

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 11, 2004 9:12:19 PM

Mike: In many cases, the recipients are undeserving.
-------------------------------------------------
Your statement infers there are deserving among us. I understand you are concerned your taxes may go to some that don't deserve it, what about the recipients that are deserving?

Posted by: Larry | Nov 11, 2004 9:22:45 PM

I have conservative (Republican and Libertarian) friends that overtly agree with you, yet many of them quietly accept government assistance or look the other way when a friend or family member needs and receives government help.

In other words it is classic "do as I say not as I do."

Posted by: Larry | Nov 11, 2004 9:38:52 PM

Larry wrote:

"I be interested in knowing how you reached your political worldview"

Larry, I'm beginning to respect you. You seem to be a pretty level-headed person.

I grew up around tons of overeducated stuffed shirts like certain posters here. They don't impress me, because most of them wouldn't know where to start if you took away their money and their papers. They don't really know how to build a life, they know how to stand on the shoulders of someone else who has made the tough choices and sacrifices.

I grew up the child of an alcoholic father and a MPD mother. I was regularly beaten (beaten means "it left marks" and I was thrown across rooms and through walls) and finally cast out for the first time at the age of 15. In a 3-year fit of schizophrenia, my parents couldn't reconcile throwing their child out in the street. They were, after all, both college professors!

Anyhow, I finally decided after fighting with my parents for several years and living in various places from greenhouses to my friends' places that I needed to do something. I joined the armed services, served multiple hitches as a ROMAD (Recon, Observe, Mark and Destroy), then cross trained as a computer tech, then seperated. The armed services taught me to be a man and that I had the stuff I needed to succeed. I've been in the computer industry ever since, going from hardware to software and computer security. I am at the top of my field, working with people who typically have either a masters' or doctorate. I have to work my tail off to keep up with them, because I'm not as intelligent, but it's worth doing. Not bad for a guy whose dad once said "You'll never amount to anything".

So, in a nutshell, that's what defines me. Can't never could and quite frankly, if you don't have the sack to do for yourself, you shouldn't expect anyone else to do it for you. I'm sorry if that's cold; I had to dig myself out of a hole and if I can, then why can't others?

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 11, 2004 9:45:35 PM

Mike:

You keep avoiding my assertion that the federal government has been controlled by Republicans for the majority of the past 40 years so that respsonbility for spending and deficits is a burden shared by both parties. During the Clinton administration, the budget became balanced. That is not a red herring, it is a fact. How would you rather I have worded it? Congressional Republicans forced Clinton to balance the budget? That doesn't change the fact that the budget was balanced. And pointing out the deficits and spending increases under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II are red herrings? It would seem that they undermine your argument that Democrats were the ones spending all the money.

And again, you are playing the victim. The federal government takes your money, against your wishes, and gives it to people you consider undeserving.

Finally, you say: "I grew up around tons of overeducated stuffed shirts like certain posters here. They don't impress me, because most of them wouldn't know where to start if you took away their money and their papers. They don't really know how to build a life, they know how to stand on the shoulders of someone else who has made the tough choices and sacrifices."

Mike, you know nothing of me, or my life, except that we disagree. But because of our disagreement you feel free to make assumptions and personal attacks. That is the height of arrogance.

Posted by: Charles Foster Kane | Nov 11, 2004 11:38:30 PM

Mike,
Thanks for taking the brunt of the attack.
I grew up as a poor kid on the other side of the tracks. I lived in government projects for a while after my dad got out of the Marines. He was in during the Vietnam war. He had a job but some relatives we were renting a house from threw us out after some shady work on their part. My dad didn't make enough to live somewhere else so we moved to the projects. It was tough being the only white kids there and I used to get chased home from school (first grade) and occasionally get beaten up by gangs because I was white. We finally moved out of the projects into a converted garage where I grew up. I joined the Navy because there was no money for college and I wasn't a minority so free rides weren't available. I helped my parents by sending money home and now I work in Nuclear Power and make a decent living at it. I pay far more taxes than I receive from the government and I vote Republican. I live in a decidedly blue state (Connecticut) yet if you look around your local area you will see most really nice houses with Bush stickers and most inner city areas with Kerry stickers. It is the well-to-do Reds in the Blue states who are paying the bills. That is a fact anyone can confirm by driving around in the suburbs surrounding large cities. I know many people who allow the government to pay their bills and feed them because they think they deserve it. I know people who won't get jobs because it is more lucrative to stay on government assistance. I pay for all of that. I don't want to. I don't mind helping someone who is in need of it, but I don't like paying so someone doesn't have to work. If you even suggest cutting back on welfare to only those who truly can't work you will have an outcry from the inner cities. They expect me to pay their way and give their kids a free ticket to college while mine will have to work their way through since I pay too many taxes to save alot of money for their college. All the while not qualifying for help since I make too much money which ends up going to taxes.
Democrats like to point to Reagan, who was spending our way out of the cold war, and President Bush I and II and say see Republicans spend too much. They then point to Clinton, where we finally got a Republican House and Senate, and say see Democrats don't spend that much. In fact it had more to do with economic swings and delayed reactions to governmental policies which gave President Clinton so much money. He didn't cause such a boom in the economy he was just a lucky recipient of it.
I knew this Presidential race was important because the economy is recovering and will ramp back up. Democrats wanted to take credit for this, if Kerry got in, and show how their policies are so effective. When in fact the recovering economy had nothing to do with their policies and was only a) part of an economic cycle and b) in part due to President Bush's aggressive stance to get the economy turned around.
I like to help people, some people really do need help. It is my opinion based on personal experience that most don't need all the help they are getting.
Someone brought up there were higher divorce rates in red states. Is this because in blue states people are far more likely to live together and not get married right away where as in the red states that is not as prevalent? Is there a higher teen pregnancy rate in red states because they are less likely to be shuffled to an abortion factory where details are hidden in the name of reproductive rights? In addition is it more likely that birth control pills are handed out like candy to twelve year old girls more frequently in blue states than red?
I work in Nuclear power and I am telling you that it is easy to make the statistics say whatever you want them to by emphasizing the ones that say what you want and ignoring the others. I live in the real world, statistics quoted to me only tell me you are hiding something you don't want me to know.

Posted by: Roger | Nov 12, 2004 8:42:22 AM

Mike,
I appreciate your story and your success.

It is interesting that although we both had our share of struggles --indeed we might be considered the Republican/Libertarian stereotype of a "self-made" man --we differ.

Where we differ is I can't give myself all the credit (I'm not saying that you do). I am white and I've had my share of luck (being at the right place at the right time). I realize that others (nameless and faceless as they are) work just as hard as me are not so lucky (or white).

Here is a true story. I was teaching guitar to a friend who worked at a local university. My friend, I must admit, was a bigot (we had plenty of "discussions" about that). During our guitar lessons he would sometimes go off about that "god damn affirmative action" and how women and blacks (you can imagine his actual words) were getting all the jobs at the university. Eventually he told me about a job opening there and I applied and got the job. From the way my friend talked I thought that many of my co-workers would be women or black --they were not! Out of about 30 workers in my area there were 2 women and 2 African-Americans and the rest were white. The job oppurtunities were based more on the "buddy system" than anything else.

Posted by: Larry | Nov 12, 2004 9:23:25 AM

Charles Foster Kane wrote:

"You keep avoiding my assertion that the federal government has been controlled by Republicans for the majority of the past 40 years"

That's because you're wrong. Congress was controlled primarily by dems for approximately 40 years, up until the mid 90s, when Gingrich and his crew were elected. That election was a direct reaction to Clinton's attempts at federalizing healthcare, another program that would have had disastrous consequences if it had been allowed to see the light of day.

Yes, the president signs the budget and yes, Reagan spent like it was going out of style. He had to in order to rebuild the military after Carter was through with it. In the final analysis, Congress drives what's in the budget and dems were in control of that for many decades.

"Mike, you know nothing of me, or my life, except that we disagree. But because of our disagreement you feel free to make assumptions and personal attacks. That is the height of arrogance."

Wow, aren't we presumptuous? Was your name in there somewhere or is this the rat smelling his own hole?

Oh - and Thanks, Roger. It's nice to hear from a fellow vet.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 12, 2004 9:37:02 AM

Larry wrote:

"The job oppurtunities were based more on the "buddy system" than anything else."

Yeah, my older brother used to work at the university where my parents taught. I noticed that all his friends and co-workers were either grad students or the offspring of faculty. There seems to be alot of nepotism in academia. There are also some incredibly bright people there, usually doing postgraduate work of one sort or another.

Re: bigotry

One thing the military will teach you is that there's no place for it. I was in a unit that parachuted from aircraft and directed fire at the opposing force. You learn really quickly that skill and training are what's important.

I won't say that I've had no luck in my life; that would be foolish. What I believe is that there are those who are prepared, psychologically, monetarily or educationally are the ones who capitalize on breaks. Those who aren't prepared have to sit and watch as the big fish swims on by. I have always tried to live my life prepared for opportunities; so far, that strategy has worked. I've missed some and luckily, I've managed to take full advantage of others.

One thing you asked me earlier when unanswered: Who do I think is needy?

I consider the needy to be those who truly cannot do for themselves. The mentally or physically incapacitated. The rest of us are able-minded and bodied. There's no reason we can't support ourselves. I don't consider lack of preparedness a need.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 12, 2004 10:29:50 AM

cody says:

> btw, those red states don't really need to feed
> you all if you really don't want it

Well, excuse me, but "blue" Wisconsin is a food exporter. But even if one were to stipulate to the untrue fact that everything "blue" states eat is produced by "red" states, and that red states never import anything of any kind from blue states, that would remain a non sequitur with respect to my wealth-redistribution comments.

I am a reasonably minded citizen who thinks there has been plenty of screwing up by both major parties, but it's obvious to me the Republicans are driving us down the road to collective ruin at a higher velocity; for example, supporting tax subsidy and economic policies that outsource high-paying jobs not just to Third World countries but also from one state to another in a mind-boggling race to the bottom.

Despite this trend, low-service states continue to enjoy greater than average helping of federal subsidies, and it comes as a cost to more prosperous states. It's somewhat analagous to the kid who kills his parents and then begs for compassion from the court since he's an orphan.

Related to these red-blue state redistributions is the philosophy behind Bush's free-lunch tax "cuts," which are really upward tax redistributions. Close to 100 major coporations in this country have paid NEGATIVE income taxes in recent years -- i.e., despite earning billions, they actually vacummed up tax dollars from the federal treasury, which had to be covered by middle-class taxes or by raising the debt ceiling. A company like Boeing paid less in corporate taxes altogether than just one Joe Sixpack, with the declining earning power of his $8/hour floor job at Big Box Retailing.

Yet you're telling Joe Sixpack his nemesis isn't the GOP. The GOP, by the way, which is seriously now thinking of going entirely to a national sales tax; a tax that can't possibly be revenue neutral unless it's in the 40-50% range, which means it'll be highly regressive, again effectively lowering taxes on the rich and raising everyone else's. Once again, as with the Social Security fixes they propose, conservatives are not interested in this pesky math, which clearly shows the foolishness (never mind unfairness) of their proposals. Rather, they just enjoy the buzz of acting "bold."

Now I already know how my debating opponents will respond. It's how they've been responding for about 20 years, and in fact is the way Bush responded in the campaign, namely, that big companies will just pass along the cost of their taxes to consumers anyway, while rich folks will hire clever lawyers and accountants to find the loopholes we left there for them. So why even bother trying to tax the well-off at an equitable rate? You'd think a "moral" man like Bush [net worth: $20 million; not bad for a lifelong diletante] would know the answer.

In the first place, it's evident (read some annual reports, whydontcha?) that companies often choose to eat added costs, for competitive reasons. But even in the case where a corporate tax bill might be entirely reflected in a higher product price, the consumer at least still has choices. Milton Friedman should be so happy. Besides, corporations increasingly (thanks to GOP laissez faire policies) socialize hidden costs of many products, e.g., pollution. It'd be smart to expose more of those costs through taxation, lest the free-lunch fantasies continue.

Besides, cutting corporate taxes, as Citizens for Tax Justice has shown, does not often lead to increased corporate investment. We're instead back to the robber baron era: Pay me a ransom or I'll move my company -- to the next town, or the next state, or the next country. But even after you bribe me, I may just move anyway, because you're gullible, and you can't stop me.

Wal-Mart is a classic example. It opens and closes stores constantly, but only after extracting huge concessions from anxious local burghers. And, it strong-arms its suppliers, affecting the whole economy and muscling out the competition through sheer buying power -- rather like the Republican leadership.

As I said: A race to the bottom, and a Ponzi scheme of gargantuan proportions. Will come the time (the "end" time?) where average wage earners won't even be able to afford the price of cheap imports, much less American-made products. Economically, Kansas already looks a lot more like Peru than, say, Wisconsin. The problem is, it's dragging the Wisconsins down with it.

Posted by: rlegro | Nov 12, 2004 11:35:27 AM

Mike,
We agree that some people are needy and the government can help.

You draw the line at mental and/or physical disability. But, I see a gray area, what about those affected by someone else's disability --say, a mother and children whose husband/father is disabled in a car wreck? (By the way, how could you be prepared for that, unless you were born rich?)

I would include innocent people devastated by unpredictable circumstances such as a catastrophic illness, bad weather (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc), abandonment and the like.

I believe an altruistic government (and society) that helps folks "get back on their feet" will be paid back in full by the good, hard working citizens they’ve helped.

Finally, whether it is the military or entitlements, we probably both agree there is tremendous abuse and waste in the government. That being said, it is my opinion that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water by getting rid of government programs that truly help those that most need it.

Good luck,
Larry

Posted by: Larry | Nov 12, 2004 7:58:29 PM

Hi Larry,

You wrote:

"But, I see a gray area, what about those affected by someone else's disability --say, a mother and children whose husband/father is disabled in a car wreck? (By the way, how could you be prepared for that, unless you were born rich?)"

This makes alot of sense. I can see an argument either way. I'd argue that one should have LTD to protect against disabling injuries that don't kill. It can certainly be argued that people who had kids before they gave appropriate consideration to the potential consequences of becoming disabled or worse should be able to expect some help. The problem is, it's a slippery slope.

Anyhow, I see your point. You are a humanist, where I'm more concerned with responsibility and planning (it's the nature of a soldier to try and control or at least anticipate the dangers present in his environment).

Nonetheless, your style has taught me a thing or 2 about engaging those with whom I disagree. You are very good at getting people past initial disagreements and asking questions that get at fundamental differences, which are usually relatively minor.

It's been a pleasure!

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 13, 2004 10:17:00 PM

I would like to speak to the fallacy that is the belief that the wealthy Republicans are taking care of and supplying the tax money to support lowly welfare Democrats.
The truth of the matter is that many(nay most) of the poor people in the RED south, who live on food stamps and their monthly welfare check voted for Bush. It does not matter to them that Bush is not very likely to do anything good for them. They voted on Bible Belt morals.

Posted by: Milissa | Nov 16, 2004 1:35:49 PM

Milissa writes:

> ... many(nay most) of the poor people in the RED south, who live on food stamps and their monthly welfare check voted for Bush. It does not matter to them that Bush is not very likely to do anything good for them. They voted on Bible Belt morals >

I agree. That's the point of Thomas Frank's book. Some of those folks would rather starve than not stand on principle. Of course it hasn't occurred to them that the principles espoused by Bush aren't necessarily what he believes, or has bothered to implement. He talks a great game, so they can go down the tubes thinking he's on their side even as he snatches away their health care (if they even have it), their medical leave, their Social Security, Head Start, their job disability coverage, and on and on -- then passing along the savings as tax breaks for the rich.

The reaction of the self-styled moralists? To demand more of the same. It's self-destructive, meaning it won't last, but a lot of damage will have been done before people wise up and it will take decades to redress same.

Beyond that, I know lots of liberals and even leftists who are pretty doggone religious, and pretty doggone moral. It's a lot harder to risk jail and your career to protest an injust war than to skip out on military service on your rich daddy's dime while supporting the same war, like Bush did. It's harder still to volunteer for service, risk death under fire in combat, then come back and tell people what you saw and why it's wrong. Yet Kerry is immoral and Bush is moral? HAAAAAAA!

The right wingnuts like to appropriate terms for their exclusive use: "Moral" is one of them. Another is "activist judges." A generally conservative judge like Scalia can be very active in his decisions but he isn't an "activist." That's a term reserved for a "liberal" judge who decides a case on its merits and in the context of case law, and as part of his upbringing and conscience. Also, Scalia is honorable, but a judge tending towards the liberal side of issues is "unelected." Hey, on the federal level, they all are! In the GOP realm, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Posted by: rlegro | Nov 16, 2004 6:42:12 PM

I've read many of the comments here about the election and which party is better, yada yada yada. The common thread that I find is that most of us agree that the gov't wastes money.
I read thru several posts that pointed to the fact that presidents aren't responsible for the economy, that its a cycle. In any other election year, I would tend to agree with that. This year, I can't. President Bush has done several things to effect the economy directly, chief and foremost among these are of course the war in iraq. With more than 200 billion now alloted to the destruction, occupation, and then finally to the reconstruction of a foreign country, that we find in the end had no weapons of mass destruction. Remember that was the chief reason that Bush gave for going to war. The imagery of mushroom clouds were specifically given by Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfield, in a number of different speeches given prior to the war, in support of our occupying the country. This is using an illegitimate fear to try and control the populaces psyche. And it worked. Thats number 1.
Number 2..tax cuts, during a recession. In the past, the gov't has used a wealth redistribution policy to help the country thru its recessions. Authorizing, just like this president did, the extension of unemployment benefits for disaffected workers. This time, our congress, and president did just the opposite. They consolidated wealth, allowing the wealthy to keep more of their "hard earned" money. The prevailing logic was that they would invest in new companies, infrastructure, plants, business and so forth. Unfortunately, this has not happened. In fact, we've had the opposite effect, outsourcing of jobs, closing of plants, and the tax coffers of course have run low, causing a jump in a deficit that is pushing new records on a daily basis. The foreign policy that the Bush administration has developed has done just as badly in the name of trade. Our trade deficit is reaching new records on a monthly basis, and more and more, we are seeing foreign companies no longer doing business here in the united states. This is not because of the American worker, this is directly due to the Whitehouses foreign policies. Which I think we can all agree have been less than stellar. Incredibly, the bush administration, in hopes of garnering votes in the "rust belt" even added illegal steel tariffs to try and prop up that industry until the WTO called them on it, and threatened sanctions themselves.
I'm a big fan of capitalism to a point. That point is when CEO's and others in the management end are not willing to take responsibility for their bad decsions. Bush, in my opinion has made a number of bad decisions during his presidency. The congress, has been cowed by the Bush administration, insomuch, that if they dare to disagree with the president, they are blackballed, or turned out, much as Paul O'neil, and Richard Clark were. Its not really the democrats that have been misguided, we actually see whats happening. Its the republicans that are misguided. They have been given a load of horse manure by their leadership, with the caveat that all things bad happend during the democrats reign, and all the good things happened during the republican reign. Both are correct, and yet incorrect. The problem here, is that people, instead of making our gov't leaders do our bidding, it has become us that does theirs.
Only one way to combat this. Education. Research, active participation in the process. One must not be blinded by the "moral" card. This card, while important should not set economic, military or foreign policy. Yet, that is what happened in this last election. If one were to look at it from afar, one can plainly see that the "morals" card is a bait and switch tactic that, right now, the republican majority is using to con the american public into not seeing what they are really doing. Just because one claims to be morally superior, does not make it so. Ask an Iraqi today if they feel that America is moral in its actions..or any european..hell, ask me. Our govt was never meant to dictate morals, thats not what it was founded upon. While morals do occupy a great deal of our everyday life, they should be taught by parents, by the clergy (of your choice) and by society at large. The gov't has no need to legislate this. America was built on freedom. The freedom to choose whom and what you want to be. These choices have been falling by the wayside, due to albeit well meaning people, but their thrusting of their own moral values on others has become a harbringer of lost freedoms. Where does it end? When all people believe the same thing? When all act exactly alike? Don't forget, that one of the greatests things our country has, and what makes us the greatest nation on earth, is our diversity, diversity of thought, of deed, and of doing. To ignore this facet of our country is a recipe for disaster. Morals are important, of course, but they stem from examples given to us by our own personal leaders, friends, family, and fellow citizens. The moment that gov't is allowed to legislate this, say, making laws that require you to wear your pants right ( I hate sagging..but it is a free country) Or, that you cannot show off the human body. Or, you can't teach abstinence in schools, in fact, we don't want you to mention sex in schools. We want you to pretend that its not there.
These things are important to our society as a whole. The moment you stop teaching, is the moment that we lose our freedom. By this, I mean to say, that as long as we allow the gov't to con their way into our homes, we are all in danger of losing those freedoms that we've always enjoyed. The gov't regulating how we live, how we procreate, how we teach our children. Its incredible to think that we actually might be seeing the Orwellian start to a facist state. Don't laugh..it could just happen. The divisiveness in our country has been brought about not by two totally different schools of thought, but by fooling a part of the elctorate into thinking they are morally superior. The argument that the republicans support the democrats, is patently ridiculous, think about that for just one moment. According to the republican side, the dems have more money, they point to the "liberal elitists" or the hollywood left, or any other number of monied individuals that tend to vote democratic. But the same can be said of the republican side of this story. Leaders of business, Old money, and the like also try to buy into our govt, and try to set policy with donations. The problem with both sides, is that the average Joe gets left somewhere in the middle. Where our daily grind of work leave us little time to debate the policies and laws being enacted by congress. Think for a moment of those problems that are most important to you today...how does Gay marriage stack up in your daily life? How about abortion? how do these things effect you personally? What do you consider more important, putting food on your own table, or those of an Iraqi? a pakistani? and afghani? We sit here and complain bout our lot in life, one side says pull yourself up by your bootstraps..the other side says, I'll help you pull yourself up. But I may just tie your bootstraps together so that you fall when you begin to walk. There is no easy answer to many of these issues. Which is why the gov't should not intervene in them. The gov't can barely take care of its own needs, let alone those of each and every individual. The greater good should be served..honestly. This is not what our gov't is doing today. In other words, they are not doing what we hired them to do. Which is why I felt a change was necessary in the whitehouse. I honestly dont know if Kerry would've made a good president, I think he might have, I really believe that he could do no worse than George Bush has done. I believe that within the next 10-20 yeas, we wil look back on this time in our country's history, and slap ourselves in the forehead, and think "what the hell was I thinking". One thing that its in the news is the new Bush cabinet. With many members of the old guard stepping down. Chief among them, Colin Powell(its widely known that he and Bush didn't quite see eye to eye on most things. Condi Rice will more than likely be our next Secretary of State. Her level of thought processes, while brilliant, are sadly lacking in any kind of imagination. Case in point, After being told that terrorists hit the wtc, she said, "we never gave a thought to terrorists using planes as missles, when quite clearly, during the G7 conference, the paricipats were warned that it was posible, that the summit could be attacked by terrorists using planes as missles. That was 4 months prior to 9-11, and an outright lie by our own top security advisors, shows a definitive lack of imagination..and dare I say it...truth.

Posted by: Tim | Nov 18, 2004 1:27:21 AM

Good comments, Tim, but they'd be easier to read if you broke them into several paragraphs. Anyway:

It's clear to me capitalism is broken. PBS "Frontline" had a powerful documentary this week on how Wal-Mart is, almost single-handedly, ruining the nation's economy. It's another race to the bottom, to wit:

Wal-Mart wants to sell at low prices (yet remain highly profitable). It does this by leveraging manufacturers, threatening to cut off their display space if they don't comply. One victim: Rubbermaid was a profitable, highly respected company until a few years ago when resin prices soared and Wal-Mart refused to accept a product cost increase.

Worse, when the last TV set manufacturer in the USA filed an unfair trade practices complaint against Chinese TV makers, claiming they were dumping product in the US at a loss to wipe out competition, Wal-Mart actually filed a brief in support of the Chinese [the US maker won its complaint, nonetheless].

Finally, Wal-Mart has, according to the documentary, suggested to many of its suppliers that they move production to China and elsewhere overseas to save money so they can sell more cheaply to Wal-Mart.

The documentary ended with a sad spectacle: Another US TV factory in the southern US went out of business thanks to cheap Chinese imports (the owner, Thomson, actually has merged with a Chinese electronics firm). Now, right next to the vacant plant, Wal-Mart is opening up a Supercenter. One of the laid off employees said he'd never go to work for Wal-Mart or shop there, since they're the guys who destroyed his company.

One very clear point in the documentary is that -- contrary to the notions of free marketroids, Wal-Mart customers don't necessarily save money, because the merchandiser doesn't really sell all its products at the lowest price; mostly, that's reserved for come-ons near the door. But Wal-Mart now has the market reach and power to draw suppliers and customers, and to make a fortune from the misfortunes they inflict on others.

Notice as well how the firm strong-arms localities into providing tax breaks, cheap land and other incentives in exchange for opening a new store and wiping out the local competition.

To me, Wal-Mart is a metaphor for the entire US economy, one in which the rich get richer at the expense of others. It's the nation's most admired corporation, and that means others have adopted its debilitating tactics. Conservative economists think competition is good and that outfits like Wal-Mart stimulate competition. Yeah, but these tactics also destroy innovation, product quality, family-supporting jobs and other positive aspects of our culture.

Meanwhile, our reliance on China helps that country keep its own wage structure unjust. We out-source and off-shore not just jobs and cash, but also raw materials that used to be turned into products here at home. In short: We're becoming a Third World nation, economically, and the flood of cheap goods masks it all.

It's like the red-blue state phenomenon, only enlarged to the international level. Playing one guy off the other, the guys at the top are saying to workers, in effect: Let's you and him fight.

www.pbs.org has transcripts and supporting material. Think about it.

Posted by: Ron Legro | Nov 18, 2004 12:46:59 PM

Ron,

Yeah, your right, I tend to go on a rant, and forget to use paragraphs. When your typing as fast as I am in midrant..that just..goes by the way side ;).

I'll try to do better in the future. Its amazing, I actually picked it right with Condi Rice takin over for Collin Powell. Of course, she has to be confirmed yet, but I doubt that will pose much of a problem. I forsee a rubber stamp on this.

Condi Rice is of course a highly intelligent woman, speaks 4 languages, ice skates at near olympic form (according to her press secretary) and plays several instruments very well. One problem, she has no imagination, and is lock step with George Bush's ideas as far as foreign policy. One would be hard pressed to find any triumphant goals reached during the last 4 years of Bush's presidency, and I'm sure we are in for more of the same this time around.

What does this mean? Hmmm, how about this, I'm sure you noticed what Powell's parting shot was, he accused Iran for producing a gas used in purifying radioactive isotopes for nuclear weapons construction. Well, thats what he said, of course, the intelligence, according to the washinton post came from one source, and has yet to be vetted by any other source. Sound familiar?

With Powell givin this parting shot, it smacks of the same thing that got us into Iraq erroneously. The laughable intelligence that the white house took to be gospel, even tho on several occasions they were told that the intelligence hadn't been vetted properly. Douglas Feith was in charge of making sure that the intelligence that made it to the white house, said exactly what the white house wanted it to say. The 9/11 commssion after looking at the process came to the conclusion that Feith was "re-injecting" intelligence back into the cia, thus giving the cia the "vetted" intelligence. Even tho it actually had not be vetted..it gave another source...that of Feith, and thus the lie was started, and then backed up, till of course..."the rush to war" happened.

We will see similiar things I think with both Iran, and N. Korea. Many of you out there will hoot and holler, and say its "about time" problem is, both have a pretty long reach. N. Korea with its nuclear arsenal of, its estimated 8 war heads, and missles with a long enough range to hit California or Alasaka. Iran, while not in possession of nuclear weapons yet, seems to be trying to gain them, even as the european union fights to get them to stop.

Iran's long reach is not its Nuclear arsenal, tho they have missles capable of roughly 1200 miles worth of range. No, its their ties to terrorist organizations. Although, to their credit, they did reach out to the Bush Administration with many terrorists that they had captured after 9/11 and before the invasion of Iraq. Bush's answer to this olive branch was to brand them as one of the axis of evil countries.

While Iran may be one of those countries, we may have missed an oportunity to change the diplomatic relations that we have had with iran.
Many of its younger citizenery want democracy, and have demonstrated this desire. Of course the mullahs want little to do with it, as they are by and large of the shiite version of Islam, or the more fundamentalist branch. If the EU is succesful in getting iran to stop nuclear production, or experimentation, they will have done it again with out the US. Another feather in their cap, and not one in ours.

I don't see Iran being a threat to the USA, they may, in time become a threat to the middle east, but I'm actually doubtful of that as well. They seem to have good relations with most of the arab countries, with the possible exception of turkey. and of course, Iraq.

I see peaceful solutions to the problems in the middle east, unfortunately, with George Bush and Condi Rice doing the thinking on this one, I have a bad feeling that as soon as Iraq has had elections, and is considered "stable" (probably another 18 months.) That Iran will be next on the list. I'm wondering if Bush will invade no matter what? or, if he'll be willing to wait to form a coalition..which I'm very doubtful would happen. Plain and simple, most of the world no longer trusts us. George Bush has left many with a very bad taste in their mouth. With the belief that America is actually becoming more imperialistic in its aims.

Stability in the middle east? an end to terrorism? Not in our lifetime I'm afraid. Not unless we get a president, and cabinet capable of thinking outside the box. We had it with Bill Clinton, he actually was making some very good progress with Arafat and Sharon, before Bush won in 2000. Since then, it went on the back burner, were its smoldered the last 4 years.

Let me remind those republicans out there that thought that Bill Clinton did a lousy job with Iraq, and Usama bin ladin)(fox spelling) It seems that Iraq had no weapons of mass destructions, so the sanctions were working, and he was contained. He was no threat to any of the countries in the middle east. (his armies had been decimated by us in desert storm) Also let me remind you that it was the weapons programs that John Kerry voted to save,that has been just as succesful now as it was in 1991, when he refused to pass the defense budgets in 1990, 1991, and 1994 (I think I got the years right..)

The weapons systmes that were on the block, were the f-15, f-16, the M1A1 ABrahms tank, the apache helicopter, the Bradely fighting vehicle, along with numerous others. Whom put them there to be cut? Dick Cheney. The truth sometimes hurts. Go look it up at www.factcheck.org Which is where Cheney pointed us during the debate to get factual accounts ofhis relationship with Haliburton.

I also noticed that our trade deficit has now grown even larger, tho there was some hope on the job front, with 8000 new jobs being created last month. You might wanna check out what Alan Greenspan has to say about the deficiet and the falling value of the dollar vs other foreign currency. Our recession may be over..but inflation could come to bite us in the ass...better refinance the house right now, if you haven't already..interest rates are about to climb.

Posted by: Tim | Nov 20, 2004 10:16:59 PM

Mike, who signs off with "sour grapes", wants to think that bedroom communities pay more in taxes. He skips any analysis of city, county, state and federal tax money that paid for all of the redundant sewers, utitlities, roads etc. This is typical. The pro-corporate right seems to have an aversion to examining the real costs of suburban sprawl. What is the cost of keeping gasoline cheap enough to live out in lovely "Whiteville"?

"Let's go whole hog and eliminate entitlements..." begs the question- which ones? Defense contract boondoggle? Publicly financed war each time the supply of crude oil is threatened? Forest service built roads for logging companies? Again, typical right wing drivel. Whine about the terrible cost of supporting some stereotype of undeserving poor while ignoring the cost of what we pay out to the captains of industry. Yes, there are people in the world who know how to exploit the public trough. Do we abdicate the historic role of our government in interrupting social calamity so that Mike & Co. won't have to feel victimized by the evil welfare queen legion?

"At least they attacked the man; not the electorate." Perhaps attacking Clinton, blowing $50 million and intentionally hamstringing the executive branch is Mike's version of a noble cause. Criticism of George II is probably unpatriotic, huh? Note also that his commentary on the nastiness of the campaign contains the usual attacks on Kerry, nothing on the disastrous incompetence of George II (foreign or domestic policy, take your pick), but warns us Dems to look inward.

"I grew up around tons of overeducated stuffed shirts like certain posters here." Which education is OK? What about the stuffed shirts who design the computers? What about the dandy pulic health system that tracks communicable disease? Republicans can get sick too.

In our society there is a clear degradation of standard measures of health that correlates strongly with income disparity. It affects all income levels. This is not my opinion, this is generally accepted among epidemiologists. History shows us that when the haves and the have nots get farther apart we are more likely to have violence. Again, ask the historians, not me. "Economics" (at least the version not branded with a perjorative name like Keynsian or Marxist- let's hear it for Smithism) suggests that the beloved free market WILL move toward monopoly; globalism and merger mania bear this out. The great failure of the right is the continued refusal to to even consider the idea that untrammelled free market capitalism creates a world of social displacement and accellerates the destruction of existing traditional cultures. Conservatism conserves nothing. Even the "overeducated stuffed shirts" of the academic world have worked to understand the negative consequences of the welfare state.

The conservative right of today has no interest in conservation, attacks pragmatism and has managed to turn the many unwealthy Mikes against their own interests. We, as a society, have unwisely donated the full constitutional rights of a citizen to the non-human entity called the corporation. A class of people have discovered that these entities control a lot of resources and outlive humans. This is what the right will neither examine nor discuss.

Gosh, do I lose my veteran status for writing this?

Posted by: Roy | Nov 22, 2004 10:28:05 PM

First of all, Social Security isn't "in a crisis"; the much-hyped Boomer retirement crest was already planned ahead of time in the 80's, and payroll taxes were raised accordingly. At this rate, Social Security will fail sometime in the middle of the century, and even this can be easily averted by a light increase in the amount put into it (certainly far less than you guys are spending on unnecessary wars).

Second, the idea of using Social Security as an example of a failed social program is disingenuous precisely because it hasn't failed. None of the traditional culprits fit the bill either. Social programs have worked when they have been applied well. During the heyday of the welfare state during the 50's and 60's, poverty was halved stably to about 11 percent, where it stayed until the 80's, when it rose thanks to cutbacks. For healthcare, it's interesting to note that Americans have the highest health care dissatisfaction rate out of any industrialized nation, and also spend more on health care per capita than any other industrialized nation. For education, state budget crises (from Republican fiscal irresponsibility) remain the biggest problem, although the undue influence of teachers' unions is one area where the Right has a valid point. And BTW, Republicans controlled the Senate through most of the 80's ('81-'87), during the peak of the deficit problems. When Democrats regained it during the end of the decade, deficits were on the way down (for the time being). Much of this probably had to do with Reagan's space weapons programs, which is the single worst example of federal overspending there is.

I haven't bothered to read the long, personal accounts on this message board. I just stumbled onto this page and just thought I'd correct some of the most glaring factual inaccuracies out of the O'Reilly-Coulter playbook.

Posted by: Ted | Dec 9, 2004 2:01:18 AM

Oh - and I'd *love* to see a reference for those stats you threw out about murder rates, etc in your next post.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N53/morrison.53o.html

Posted by: Pete | Jan 4, 2005 8:06:26 PM

Boy oh Boy what a skewed dumb thing to post. This from a College Professer. Gee North Dakota and the states listed don't have the population in one state as one Burrough in NYC. This article was hillarious in context and totally ignorant in its representation. If this represents the level of intellect provided by college educators we are in trouble. What is scary is that a group of academics let this dip loose on th school system.

Posted by: Ja Mahn | Nov 26, 2005 5:09:08 PM

Look, this whole thing is a mute point, the "red" states are states that have traditionally been poorer. The fact is that according to a recent Newsweek article all of our welfare subsidies paid by the feds is 60% of the budget. 60% of the tax dollars that come in are redistributed to Farmers, companies, states, Social Security and Medicare recipients. Most of these social programs came about in 40 years of Democratic leadership in Congress. Some came from Republican controlled congress later. But in the end they are all politicians. It would be poilitical suicide for any one of them to sincerely, and strongly push for budget cuts. Democrat, Republic, Independant it doesn't matter.

As for taxes I don't care if the wealthier americans get a tax cut, if I too get one. It's fair, they earn their money just like I do going to work, making investments etc... The keep more of THEIR money as I keep more of MY money they just keep more because they earn more it's a percentage thing. THey still pay more percentage wise thatn I do. you know because we have a graduated tax system.

I like many am upset over the fiscal irresponsibility of the republicans, but democrats arn't much better. Give a politician of any ideology $5 and they'll borrow $5 more so they can spend $10.

People are not guilted into giving money for the needy etc... most do it because they want to help others, and remember this is on top of the money the government took to redistribute to the poor.

I am in no way against welfare, or assistance to people who need it. Now in my line of work, I deal with a great number of welfare recipients. And most of them don't need it, and I see many who do need it that don't recieve it because they make too much, although it's not enough to really live on. The whole system is screwed up. Not to mention the system as a whole is administered ineptly. Particularly the Medicare system, and Social Security System. They are so fiscally screwed it's not even funny. Let's look at Medicare specifically, do you have any idea how strict their payment policies are, it makes an evil insurance company look like a saint in the way they pay out. Not to mention they can go back and decide later that they shouldn't have paid something in the first place. For instance every few years Commercial ambulance companies are audited by medicare, and frequently almost always they tell the comapny they have to return some of the money medicare paid them originally because now they decide x number of calls should never have been paid. Pretty sure those insurance companies don't have that luxery.

I have more to say but I have to go my old ball and chain is nagging me to get off the computer maybe I'll come back to finish later

Posted by: Alex | Mar 1, 2007 6:07:37 PM