What would the American government do if..?

[Mal]

Awful full of ourselves here talking about the backward economy draining center of the country.

Sorry, but this actually is a sore point for many of the more prosperous blue states. Alot of people (myself included) feel that the way the system is set up right now we end up bearing the brunt of all the costs, yet the programs that we want to see are always the ones first targeted by red state politicians. I mean, its just a plain fact that States like New York and California that pay the most taxes out to the federal government get the least back in return. In some red states, if a person pays out 1 dollar in federal taxes, his state recieves about 9 dollars in return in federal aid or appropriations. In California we get less than our dollar back, obviously - since someone has to pay for the incredible windfall our less economically developed neighbors are getting.

The maddening thing is that we get told repeatidly how much red state politicians are against the "welfare state", yet they actively practice corporate welfare in terms of tax write offs and bailouts and engage in "state welfare" by pumping our money into programs and appropriations designed to bolster their voting consituency. It really feels like they are robbing from us to give to their voter base.

I hope you can see that this isn't just "sour grapes" over the election results, but a definate feeling of being completely locked out of the government and being forced to pay for it. I believe the term our forefathers used would have been "taxation without representation".

What we need, as a country, is a person in the White House that will represent the interests of all americans in a fair and just way. In my estimation, George W. Bush is not that person. My gut feeling is that the politicians are purposely trying to radicalize their own popular support bases in an attempt to "shore up" political support. Well, its working - they are turning us against each other with their blatant disregard for differing opinions. At this point in time they seem to have even dropped all pretense of trying to be civil about it.

This can be aptly demonstrated by how people are increasingly afraid to cast their vote against their own party in protest. The fear these days is so unreasonable that if the "other side" wins, unspeakable and evil crimes are going to be commited.This completely baffles me, I have never felt that there was anything more behind a political decision than what sort of public policy a canditate would persue. The problem is that now days public policy isn't about taxes, or poverty, or raising the standard of living, its all about ideology and culture. Literally the politicians of this country are trying to divide us along racial and cultural lines to justify their continued support.

I think that ought to make anyone a little scared.

 

[TheKansaiKid]

Why some states might need more federal money

per capita than others. You seem to think this is a problem of pork barrel politics and that kind of thing does go on, but lets just look at the highways as one example. Should the people of lets say Utah have to bear the cost of all a freeway when 96% of the traffic on that freeway is through traffic carrying raw materials to Ca. for manufacturing and bringing those manufactured goods back east? Granted there are unfair cases of poor states getting money to feed children when we should have their parents neutered, but I think that in general the way Federal Tax money is spent is argued in a bipartisan way by the congress to do what's best for the country as a whole. When California was in the midst of rolling blackouts, energy from pacificorp was diverted that way, now here in Idaho they are raising rates because of the unexpected increase in demand from California. That's fine with me I plan on using some of that electricity next week in Disneyland, but get off the cross we could use the wood.

P.S. if you think things would have been different with Kerry in the whitehouse, I think you saw one too many tv ads the difference between the 2 of them is so minute that it would make almost no impact on 95% of the policies of our gov't

 

[Mal]

P.S. if you think things would have been different with Kerry in the whitehouse, I think you saw one too many tv ads the difference between the 2 of them is so minute that it would make almost no impact on 95% of the policies of our gov't

This kind of gut reaction partisanship is exactly what I'm talking about. If you read my posts (and only mine) you will notice a few things:

1) General lack of vehemence towards George W. Bush, even though I do admit to finding him distasteful.
2) Acknowledgement that I think that some Republican Presidents have been good, moral and progressive leaders.
3) Not a single mention of John F. Kerry.
4) A general distaste for how the political system in general seeks to divide people along cultural/race/party lines.

Why do you have to throw the Kerry comment in my face just because I do not like George W. Bush? It is quite possible that a vote for his opponent is actually just a vote against the Presidents policies, which I see as socially and fiscally destructive to the health of our nation. My logic in this is thus: If people would responsibily vote out sub-par Presidential performers, both parties would be forced to to nominate for the Presidency based on merit, instead of annointing whichever political insider they deem more worthy.

I know you claim that we're being unreasonable in our depreciation for so called "red-staters" here, but then you go and throw a comment back in my face that was pretty much undeserved, where I have tried (when directly adressing you) to comport myself in a manner that display dignity and respect for your position. I feel bad about pointing this out, but the view that everyone seems to have that people who disagree with them are complete flakes, or idiots, or fooled by television ads is exactly the kind of reasoning that both political parties want to encourage. Nothing is that cut and dry and there are a myriad number of beliefs that can influence someones choice for elected office. If that decision is made responsibly and with the best thought and logic applied that the person can muster, insinuating that somehow they are a dupe is just flat out insulting. I hope you can see what I mean.

 

[Timsan]

You have such a cynical view of your monkey in the whitehouse . Just give him a banana and he'll be happy

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

 

[TheKansaiKid]

I don't see how you can call my comment partisanship

I am saying Bush and Kerry are 95% the same that the democrat and republican parties are extremely close on most important points. If I were Partisan I would be saying Kerry Sucks Bush Rules or vice versa.

I only brought up Bush vs. Kerry because of this remark:

What we need, as a country, is a person in the White House that will represent the interests of all americans in a fair and just way. In my estimation, George W. Bush is not that person.

Assuming that you thought the other choice was better. I'm no fan of Bush, but I really think Kerry was no better. Thats what I wanted to say no personal affront to you.

insinuating that somehow they are a dupe is just flat out insulting.

and you're right reading back on my post thats how it sounded and I never meant it too you are definately right and I apologize

I can edit out the p. s;. if you would like

 

[Mal]

and you're right reading back on my post thats how it sounded and I never meant it too you are definately right and I apologize

I can edit out the p. s;. if you would like

Naw, its ok. I argue politics on www.fark.com every day. Compared to that place, this is like having tea with the queen mother.

 

[Mycernius]

They would mobilize the military to put down any pro-secession movement. My brain is faltering right now but we actually have a law that covers this.... let me hit the google-nator for a sec.

Ah yes, Ok its not a law but something that was added to the constitution via the 14th amendment after the Civil War. Basically it defines what constitutes national citizenship....


....From a constitutional law point, a state seceeding from the Union would abridge the federal rights of its citizens by forming a new state. So technically that would make the entire process of secession illegal. Hence Congress or the President being authorized to send troops to stop such an illegal act.

It's interesting to note that prior to the Civil War there was no definition of what constitutes American citizenship or nationality. It's pretty obvious why they added it, right?

One other thing I noticed while trying to find this information is that there are ALOT of sites on the web about fringe groups in southern states wanting to seceed from the Union. I sort of wish they would actually - all they do is soak up northern states tax dollars and pollute our nation with their 19th century ideas ><

It seem that the government like to promote democracy and independence in other countries, just not their own.
Love the map Brooker

 

[Mal]

It seem that the government like to promote democracy and independence in other countries, just not their own.

You know, I have Irish people tell me that all the time as well, but I don't quite understand what they're getting at - how about you?

 

[Censport]

One other thing I noticed while trying to find this information is that there are ALOT of sites on the web about fringe groups in southern states wanting to seceed from the Union. I sort of wish they would actually - all they do is soak up northern states tax dollars and pollute our nation with their 19th century ideas ><

Really? Fascinating. Tell me, how much manufacturing is going on up there? Car plants? Grains? "Youse guys" growin' a lot of food up there? How much of your business is simply trade?

Another thing you have to keep in mind is the spending habits of state governments. Most of the time, how much federal money is allotted to a state depends on how much they spent the year before. For example, our state government spends a lot of money tearing up good roads to build ever nicer roads. That way, they can point to how much they spent in 2004 and say "if we needed that much in '04, we'll need more for '05". Speaking of which, how much federal money went into Boston's "Big Dig"?

 

[Mal]

I love picking apart specious arguments like these so forgive me if I come across as pedantic, you seriously just made my day

Really? Fascinating. Tell me, how much manufacturing is going on up there? Car plants?

Response:

California has more manufacturing companies than any other two states combined. There are 80,000 manufacturing companies in this state, with more then half in the L.A. five- county region.

Some 2 million people in California are employed by manufacturing companies. The average yearly manufacturing wage in California is $39,000.

Source - California Manufacturing Technology Center.

PS: California also has a vibrant defense sector, health sector, drug manufacturing center and of course, food packing sector, which we are about to get to right now...

Grains? "Youse guys" growin' a lot of food up there?

Note: These numbers are 5 years old, the farm business here in California is booming and continues to boom.

California has 87,500 farms, which make up 4% of the nations farm total. These farms account for 13% of national gross cash receipts from farming. California's top 20 crop and livestock commodities account for 72% of the state's gross farm income.

California has some of the most agriculturally productive counties in the nation. Eight of the nation's top 10 producing counties are in California. Fresno is the leading agricultural county in the nation with an agricultural value worth over $3.5 billion in 2000. Ranked alone Fresno County's agricultural cash receipts would rank it ahead of more than half of the other states in the union.

California produces almost one out of every five glasses of milk in the nation. California produces some of the best wines in the world. In 2000, 92% of all the grapes produced in the nation where grown here in California. California grows more than half of the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables.

Agriculture production and gross cash income in 2000 increased to $27.2 billion, a 1% increase over 1999.

How much of your business is simply trade?

Well, uh, all business is trade. If you mean "How much money does California make trading every year" that answer would be 1.4 trillion dollars. How much of our economy is dependant on trade with other powers? That answer would be 25%


Anyway, I'll put the rolled up newspaper away now because I'm generally a nice person

But I do find it highly amusing that most red-staters refer to California as the "left coast" and believe it is populated by a bunch of tree hugging hippies or socialists or just flat out commies ^_^ Just like anything in life, I suppose the truth is stranger than fiction. What with, California and New York both being predominately liberal and progressive states, while also being the twin juggernaughts at the heart of the USA's capitalist economy. Not so bad for a bunch of hippies that just want to hug trees and give everyone welfare, right?

 

[TheKansaiKid]

I know disagreeing with Mal is inviting a barrage,

but while I lived in California I never thought California was ...well what you said:

But I do find it highly amusing that most red-staters refer to California as the "left coast" and believe it is populated by a bunch of tree hugging hippies or socialists or just flat out commies

(BTW I think the most would be more accurate if it was changed to a few. Remember even the red states have their share of pink commies or the vote wouldn't have been close )

I found politically most of my California friends were similar to me (a igernent read stator) they were progressive on social issues conservative on fiscal issues, and concerned with the direction our country was taking in both catagories.

Of course I wasn't up in ole tree huggin flag burnin commie lovin San Francisco

 

[Mal]

but while I lived in California I never thought California was ...well what you said:


I found politically most of my California friends were similar to me (a igernent read stator) they were progressive on social issues conservative on fiscal issues, and concerned with the direction our country was taking in both catagories.

Of course I wasn't up in ole tree huggin flag burnin commie lovin San Francisco

Hey I qualified my statement by saying "most" (which is honestly how I see it). You need to live here in the center of the tempest to truely understand how much vitrol and bile was spewed towards my state during the last election. To hear different people tell it California is populated by nothing but "hollywood elite" who understand nothing about the economy or foreign policy or anything germaine to running the country. Which is kind of ironic because if we were a country, we'd be somewhere around the worlds 4th or 5th most powerful one. We even conduct international trade on our own behest and send dignitaries overseas ><

I think (atleast I hope so!) that its pretty obvious that I neither think that California has the right to seceed, nor do I think that it should.

I also consider myself socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Which is why I rail so damn much about congresses inability to stop hemmoraging cash like a stuck pig.

Anyway, my point in this thread had pretty much always been the same:

California gives a tremendous amount to the Republic in terms of cultural, social and financial wealth. The USA quite simply would not be able to maintain our current levels of expenditures if it wasn't for the economic powerhouses that also happen to be the two largest "liberal" states.

Now, I blame the president and the congress for what I am about to say - because I feel that they have squandered opportunity after opportunity to show that they care about the interests of all states, in favor of pandering to their base supporters. Anyway, I feel that as it stands right now the federal government is so unresponsive to any forward movement on issues we "blue staters" would like to see, while actively persuing legislation that we don't want to see, that we might as well not even exist if it wasn't for out tax dollars. Which btw, they give to states that support their agenda :kaioken:

I mean, even our Republican Govenor can't get any help from his supposed "buddies" in Washington in trying to get us out of the mess that Pete Wilson and his republican (sigh!!!) buddies got us into with the entire power plant de-regulation ponzai scheme. I mean we're suing these bastards now (and going to win obviously) but in my opinion all of them along with Wilson and his buddies need to be strung up by their nuts for defrauding the state of billions of dollars and putting us in the mess we are in right now.

Frankly alot of people out here on both sides of the political spectrum are pretty pissed off about alot of things. People don't realize that outside of Orange County, Republicans in this state are not likely to toe the party line and even inside Orange County alot of them are getting pissed off at the way things are going. The hardcore people here are annoyed because they support these guys, but they continue to take massive dumps all over us.

Anyway, I will listen to any sort of criticism people want to heap on us (lord knows I got more than an earful in this last propaganda - er I mean election cycle). But I reserve the right to crack open things such as "facts" and "reasoned argument" to counter all assertations I don't agree with. I am one of those wierd individuals that likes to make up his opinions based on examining evidence instead of political rhetoric, which evidently makes me wierd.

Or something

Don't get me wrong, I am a hardened flame-warrior (lol), but generally speaking I try to keep my personal attacks down to the level of a dog slapping someone with their paw. However, I am definately an American of the loud-mouthed-opinionated kind.

But hey, thats the kind of rollicking and rambunctious democracy I like. If it gets people thinking instead of spouting out party lines - I'm all for it

 

[TwistedMac]

North America would become very divided.

I guess it's very relative...

Look at Europe... Unlike what some Americans seem to think, when you go to Europe, you're not going to "Europe" so much as you're going to whatever country in the union you're choosing to go too...

You could say Europe is even more divided than what north america would be already.. and we're doing pretty good...

I really think that big of a country is too much for one regime anyway... When one becomes too powerful, he starts taking liberties... which affects the rest. If everyone were the same size, they'd be under the constant threat of getting beaten into the ground by the rest if they tried anything..

I'd like to see China and Russia split up too. They're just too big... it's pretty scary for us small countries standing in the shadow of the threatening giants of USA, China and Russia (the Russian bear is more alive than we think.. give it some time and it'll be completely back on its feet.) Places like India only have an army of cabbies, and we are more amused by them than we are scared of them.

 

[TheKansaiKid]

I'm living in the "center of the country" where all this bile supposedly originated, and honestly I have heard none of it, if any state is teased about being too liberal it is Taxachusetts and even they have a republican governor. Just my oppinion here but I think you seriously overestimate the sentiment of people who live here you cannot think that people on fark.com or any other forum are a fair representation of the vast # of people living outside Californias boundaries. The only people on those sites are pushing an agenda and everyone pushing an agenda makes it sound like their oppinion is the one held by all in their area. If you want to know the attitude of people turn off cable news and the computer and take a drive to Kansas and hang out in a cafe for a few hours I think you might be pleasently surprised

 

[Mal]

If you want to know the attitude of people turn off cable news and the computer and take a drive to Kansas and hang out in a cafe for a few hours I think you might be pleasently surprised

I agree with that in sentiment, but you can't just ignore that the mass media plays a major role in shaping national perception on issues.

Basically its like this, the Republican party has spent decades pretty much maligning the Democrating party in California. Ok, whatever, these two groups of morons hate each other beyond reason - congrats for them. However, in the last decade or so its gone from being specifically about the party, to being generally about the state itself.

And I'm sorry, but considering that the cable "news" entertainment industry (and yes, most of can agree thats basically just what it is) has such high ratings, you can't just ignore it either. I mean, decades of this kind of junk has basically turned the word liberal in this country from a synonmn for progress into a term that equates to socialist. Thats just messed up. I know the American public has a short political memory, but it wasn't that long ago that Republicans AND Democrats both refered to themselves as "liberal". Infact, progressiveness (or liberalness) used to totally be a virtue of our society. Now we have people confusing the entire concept of what it means to the point where the very idea that being progressive is a virtue is slowly leaking out of our society.

Anyway, I know its a losing battle - but I'll fight it anyway. Tongue firmly planted in cheek of course ><

PS: The center of the country isn't where this is coming from, I'm a former midwesterner myself and I know better than that. We just aren't that kind of people. It's coming from the south and its coming from politically aligned media.

 

[Mycernius]

You know, I have Irish people tell me that all the time as well, but I don't quite understand what they're getting at - how about you?

Were they catholic Irish or protestant Irish? Their opinions can differ on the subject.

 

[TwistedMac]

Were they catholic Irish or protestant Irish? Their opinions can differ on the subject.

their opinions differ on just about everything

 

[Censport]

But I do find it highly amusing that most red-staters refer to California as the "left coast" and believe it is populated by a bunch of tree hugging hippies or socialists or just flat out commies ^_^ Just like anything in life, I suppose the truth is stranger than fiction. What with, California and New York both being predominately liberal and progressive states, while also being the twin juggernaughts at the heart of the USA's capitalist economy. Not so bad for a bunch of hippies that just want to hug trees and give everyone welfare, right?

"tree hugging hippies"
"socialists"
"commies"
"liberal"
"progressive"

And the differences are....? Just kidding!

Sure, the numbers for CA and NY themselves are impressive, but misleading if you don't factor in the populations. Also, hasn't business in California (and New York) decreased in the wake of tightening regulations (enter the tree hugging hippies) and increasing taxation (enter the socialists)? In fact, wasn't the Governator elected because he promised to bring industries back to California? Well, that and Gray Davis is a schmuck.

From my perspective, California is a producer in spite of its blue state status. Disagree? Take a look at the county-by-county breakdown from the last election and you'll notice that manufacturing area of Cali is red while the surfer, hippie and actor area is blue. And say, doesn't the San Andreas separate the two?

Finally, when I made my statements, I knew someone would bring up California as the exception. That's right, the exception. After all, where is your defense of Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oregon, etc.?

 

[No-name]

Geography probably has a lot to do with California's relative prosperity. All the plush toys from China that WalMart sells come through the West coast somewhere. Strong agriculture, strong technology and even some aerospace make their home here. California is a crossroads. Also our high numbers of undocumented aliens probably provides a great deal of cheap labor.

We need to spend some money on infrastructure and education sometime soon. But who will pay for it?

We still have an overly bureaucratic, unfriendly business regulation and tax system, including workman's comp insurance- which Arnold started to fix...

And finally with a median home price nearing $400,000, there is a logical limit to our growth and a possible bubble to burst.

 

[Mal]

Sure, the numbers for CA and NY themselves are impressive, but misleading if you don't factor in the populations.

Not particularly misleading. New York ranks #6 in the nation with an individual GDP higher than that of the USA as a whole and California is in the #12 spot.

California and New York btw are the #1 and #3 most populous states in the Union. And not by a little bit. Texas is #2 and it comes in at a rank of #20 in terms of GDP.

Also, hasn't business in California (and New York) decreased in the wake of tightening regulations (enter the tree hugging hippies) and increasing taxation (enter the socialists)? In fact, wasn't the Governator elected because he promised to bring industries back to California? Well, that and Gray Davis is a schmuck.

Decreased over tightening regulations? What tightening regulations? This is a common myth spouted by right wingers like its some sort of truth. I own a small business here in California, we haven't had our regulations, or our nuts tightened here in a long time. Btw I think I should point out that despite this idea that businesses are leaving California at an ever increasing rate is one you'll hear about quite a bit, but the actual statistics point to the fact that businesses are leaving all states at about the same rate. We were after all, in a recession. And no, our taxes were not being raised.

From my perspective, California is a producer in spite of its blue state status. Disagree? Take a look at the county-by-county breakdown from the last election and you'll notice that manufacturing area of Cali is red while the surfer, hippie and actor area is blue. And say, doesn't the San Andreas separate the two?

The manufacturing sector of California is the Los Angeles 5-county area. It's the largest democratic area in the state in terms of population. I really don't know what you're trying to get at here.

Finally, when I made my statements, I knew someone would bring up California as the exception. That's right, the exception. After all, where is your defense of Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oregon, etc.?

Not quite sure of what you mean by "defense". What should I be defending them about? Vermont is the second smallest state in the union, its mostly agricultural. Massachusetts is a great state to live in, it has a higher GDP than both NY and CA. Pennsylvania also is in the top 1/2 of the nation despite there being no steel to mill anymore (40 years ago it would have been much, much higher but meh, you run out of iron, what can you do). Oregon is also in the top 20, it has nearly the same GDP as Texas, yet has about 1/6th its population.

Also Oregon has no sales tax at all - god damn liberals and their no sales tax'in ways. Infact there are 4 states that don't have sales taxes, they are Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon. 3 out of 4 of those are considered "blue states".

Btw here is a list of State Tax Rates circu 2004:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal04.html

The national average is 10%. Amazingly enough the vast majority of the states are within a couple percentage points of each other.

Conclusion: Despite political rhetoric, tax rates are pretty even across the board no matter who controls the states legislature and executive branches.

People need to stop drinking the propaganda kool-aid and realize that both parties handle their economic issues with almost identical efficiency. Which is to say, pretty ok.