Who Hijacked Our Country

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Red States: Lower Cost, More Efficiency

Not to mention their superior morals and decency.

Senator John Thune (R-SD) summed it up best. He was defending Bush’s veto of that disgraceful socialized medicine bill that was passed by Congress. The trouble with that well-intentioned-but-fuzzy-headed legislation, he said, is that “low-cost, efficient states such as South Dakota...end up subsidizing higher costs in inefficient states.”

Ah, efficiency. Mississippi is the most efficient state in the Union, and for some odd reason Southerners are always saying “thank God for Mississippi.” Apparently these people are GLAD not to live in America’s most efficient state.

The economy is generally better in the blue states. And because of that, a larger amount of federal tax money is spent subsidizing those hardworking bootstraps-as-a means-of-self-ascension Red States.

Check out this table showing the ten states which are the largest federal tax consumers. Nine of these states are…drumroll…RED.

The next table shows the ten largest tax-PAYING states. Eight of these are BLUE. These socialist layabouts are actually subsidizing those stand-on-your-own-two-feet Red State residents.

Well, at least the people’s morals are better in the red states. Decency, clean living and a healthy Fear of The Lord — that’s what really counts. Oh wait. Divorce rates are higher in the red states; lower in the blue states. A sociologist at Catholic University of America says “the higher the educational level, higher the occupational level, higher the income, the less likely you are to divorce.”

Now check out this page and see how much everything has changed since the Civil War. Before the Civil War, the Free States and Territories were almost exactly the same as…[fast forward 150 years]…the Blue States.

Too bad those Northern states were so damn inefficient.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Randal Graves said...

Gotta be illegal immigrants/[insert wingnut boogeyman] in South Dakota sucking up all those funds. White, Christian America always pulls itself up by its collective boostrap without any help from the nanny state.

October 3, 2007 at 12:21 PM  
Blogger PoliShifter said...

We truly live in a bizarro world.

Those that preach the "stand on your own 2 feet" typically already have money and didn't earn it but inherited it.

Those that preach the "stand on yer own 2 feet" are often glad to cash their social security checks and veterans benefits, however small they may be.

Those that preach the "stand on yer own 2 feet" will have to concince that at no time in their life did they need some assistance be it unemployment for a few months, some health insurance, or grants for college.

They would also have to convince that where they work isn't somehow getting either grants from Fed, State, or local government, or tax incentives to operate.

October 3, 2007 at 4:48 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Randal: In South Dakota it's probably them damn injuns. God's plan was for them to be replaced by His People, but them reds are still here, sponging off of decent Christians and making a nuisance of themselves.

PoliShifter: That's absolutely right. This Nanny State began in the 1930s and started expanding in the 1950s. Social Security, the GI Bill, home loans for veterans, labor laws, millions of safety regulations -- the list goes on and on. Hardly anybody has acheived their success in a vacuum. It's just more fun for them to pretend they did so they can feel superior.

October 3, 2007 at 5:00 PM  
Blogger Larry said...

Good comparisons and if you check out Thune's state, it would be one of little wealth and high in low wage earners.

October 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Larry: Yup, Thune comes from one of those states that is being subsidized by those librul blue states.

October 3, 2007 at 5:48 PM  
Blogger Candace said...

How IS it that they get away with framing themselves as being fiscally responsible, compassionate, patriotic, etc. (fill in the blank), even in the face of all evidence to the contrary? How do they DO that? They're fantastically effective on spin and framing, and somehow the media and the sheeple enable them. It's so frustrating! I'm just sayin.

October 3, 2007 at 9:14 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Candace: Those are interesting questions. And I have no idea what the answers are. George Orwell wouldn't even be able to get a handle on them. His Ministry of Love and their constant wars with Oceana and Eastasia -- it's like comparing a Model A with a Ferrari.

October 3, 2007 at 11:35 PM  
Blogger Gracie said...

I agree, Orwell couldn't have imagined exactly how much doublespeak could be perfected to this degree. They are masters at framing the debate on every single issue.

Great post - it's important to know these statistics.

October 4, 2007 at 1:22 AM  
Blogger Randal Graves said...

Don't forget roads. All the cheesy wares they sell need roads. Unless all those semis on the highway are transporting air. And let's not even talk about the money manipulators. Thanks for contributing essentially zip to the improvement of society. If this country only believed in taxing wealth, not work.

And about the framing issue, I'm as puzzled as you guys are. To us, it seems as blindingly obvious as the sun, but for some reason, their noise machine they've built up over the past 40+ years has been a model of efficiency and success. But things ARE easier when you appeal to emotions, when you stoke the lizard brain. Give me Beethoven's 7th every single day, but damn if that ridiculous pop song doesn't have a catchy hook. Same thing here, I suppose.

October 4, 2007 at 4:54 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Gracie: Thanks. I don't know which is worse -- that the Republicans are so shrewd at framing the debate and defining the issues, or that the Democrats are so inept at it. The Democrats are gonna have to start fighting fire with fire or they'll keep on getting trounced.

Randal: Yup, a catchy tune; that's what we've been hearing for decades. And millions of people are humming along with it and reciting the words.

As far as taxing wealth instead of work -- if only. I have no idea why playing with other people's money is somehow higher or more noble and should be taxed at a lower rate. I think people who earn their money through working should be taxed at a lower rate than people who dabble with investments -- but what do I know.

October 4, 2007 at 10:18 AM  
Blogger Randal Graves said...

Which they've successfully turned into some ridiculous notion of class warfare. "You're just jealous of them. If you were rich, you'd want to keep your money, too. Fair is fair!" People have so bought into this bullshit Horatio Alger crap, I wonder if it can ever be washed out.

October 4, 2007 at 10:24 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Ah yes, "class warfare." I don't know what the wingnuts would do without that soundbite; they might have to actually try making a coherent statement. As far as Horatio Alger goes, I think several of those European nanny states actually have more economic mobility than the U.S. So their old refrain about "only in America can a ditchdigger pull himself up and become a self-made millionaire" is just another urban legend.

October 4, 2007 at 10:33 AM  
Blogger Mile High Pixie said...

During research for one of her papers, my sister (Miss Kitty at Educated & Poor) discovered that the average welfare recipient was not a "welfare queen" of color, but rather a single white mother in her mid-30s with three children. Another stereotype bites the dust? Hardly. It's easier to blame brown people than to look in the mirror.

October 4, 2007 at 7:09 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Mile High Pixie: Only 3 kids? That's odd, since the more kids they have, the larger the welfare check. That's why all these Cadillac welfare queens have umpteen children (according to the urban legend).

And don't forget about that ironclad rule among welfare recipients: Always, always make sure there's a Republican standing behind you in the checkout line, so that when he sees you paying for your steak and caviar with food stamps he'll have something to rant about at his next cocktail party.

October 4, 2007 at 7:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home