« what happens if obama loses? | Main | a tribute to a life well lived »

Tuesday, 16 September 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

nanc

it shows how easily a society can slide into communo/socialism - when i worked in the public service system, there were some fourth and fifth generation welfare families - not only did it work for them - they felt entitled! the left depends on this aspect, heidianne. the 10 planks of communism are at work right here in the good old u.s.a.

Angel

isn't it interesting that the ten cities - large or small - with the highest rates of poverty per capita are run by democrats? ..ha Brilliant Heidianne!..and so telling aint it!!!..will go vote now!

Defiant_Infidel

You are in the ten ring on each of your well made points. I recently heard an ominous comment regarding the inflow of Soros money predictably coming in Oct... and surely to fund attack ads against McCain/Palin. I agree, and I think this will occur.

But what is not taken into account (or at least not enough so... and should be given due gravity) is the pronounced and distasteful effect that the totally groundless assaults on Sarah Palin have had... and they can't even awaken from their rabid fury to see what they are doing. They are summarily duplicitous, hypocritical declarations (Angel laid it out extraordinarily well just a couple of days ago).

People who think deeply tend to recognize and understand what you have skillfully and accurately assembled here, Heidianne. The rest of them vote more from their gut... and they are unquestionably the majority. Attack ads such as those surely coming, have their effect on that gut instinct... but people are being deeply impacted by the unabashed trashing attempts against this woman who has captured almost ALL the attention lately.

Joe Who???

And those attacks have no teeth... none. They are doing, IMHO, irreparable damage to OBamBam's campaign. It must be a complete nightmare for him... much to my delight. He is being repeatedly strangled by his own unhinged idiots who would blindly follow him into a gas chamber, chanting and dancing the whole way.

And the rest of us, who have some degree of common sense, are observing this. I see huge rallying on the Conservative base side. I see many totally pissed off women who are over the moon about this unrelenting, seething series of salvos on a woman with a record of accomplishment and honor. I see numerous Democrats, still with their party for reasons unknown or explained, who have directly told me they will vote for the McCain ticket BECAUSE of Sarah Palin... just exactly like I will. They, and I, see her as keeping him in check... "honest" to his campaign pledges. They see her, as I do, as our Presidential candidate in 2012 (I can't see McCain running again then at 76 years old... nor getting the nomination with her there if he tried). They see her as returning a true definition to Conservatism... one that was all but lost a few short weeks ago... and would have been if she wasn't added to the McCain ticket.

The election is now McCain's to ruin... again, IMHO. The election is otherwise bleeding out for OBamBam... due to continued throat slashes of suicidal rage from his whacko minions. And they are still flailing away wildly.

It's a beautiful thing... :)

heidianne jackson

true dat! nanc - on all counts.

heidianne jackson

it is telling angel - so why can't so many see? thanks for the vote.

heidianne jackson

di, thanks for your words. i agree that angel made that point brilliantly - as ever.

joe who is right!

as a woman i'm furious about the attacks on palin. and i know others who are as well. many of them who WERE going to vote for obama are now saying they're voting mccain.

Dora

What you write is undeniable, but it all depends on how far you "zoom."

The poorest states are firmly republican ones. The states that take the most federal tax dollars are also Republican ones.

The richest countries in the world are pretty much all, except for the US, run by socialists.

Something to think about, no?

heidianne jackson

proof, my dear, dora. where's your proof? you keep saying you post links to support your premises, but i don't see any links here. or do i need a secret decoder ring to find them?

Dora

Sure thing.

On the federal spending side, we take the amount of dollars the state pays into the federal cookie jar, and the number of dollars it takes out:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

The higher the number, the more money the state gets per dollar put in. Notice that the states most dependent on federal money are red states, and least dependent are blue states. So basically, blue state taxpayers, when paying federal taxes, are not getting their money's worth back, and are instead subsidizing the red states.

On the poverty of red states, here is a ranking of states by % of residents below poverty level: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_lev-economy-percent-below-poverty-level

Highest % of people living in poverty:

#1 Mississippi: 21.6%
#2 Louisiana: 19.4%
#3 New Mexico: 19.3%
#4 District of Columbia: 18.9%
#5 Arkansas: 17.9%
#6 West Virginia: 17.9%
#7 Kentucky: 17.4%
#8 Texas: 16.6%
#9 Alabama: 16.1%
#10 South Carolina:

Gee whiz, the only blue "state" in there is DC. So 9/10. Everyone else is SOLID RED.

Lowest % living in poverty:

#42 Iowa: 9.9%
#43 Virginia: 9.5%
#44 Massachusetts: 9.2%
#45 Vermont: 9%
#46 Maryland: 8.8%
#47 New Jersey: 8.5%
#48 Minnesota: 8.3%
#49 Alaska: 8.2%
#50 Connecticut: 7.6%
#51 New Hampshire:

Look at them blue states go! 8/10 are either toss-up or blue states. Sad, but true.

Let's look at the richest countries:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

1
Qatar $ 80,900
2
Luxembourg $ 80,500
3
Bermuda $ 69,900
4
Jersey $ 57,000
5
Norway $ 53,000
6
Brunei $ 51,000
7
Singapore $ 49,700
8
United States $ 45,800
9
Guernsey $ 44,600
10
Cayman Islands $ 43,800
11
Ireland $ 43,100
12
Hong Kong $ 42,000
13
Switzerland $ 41,100
14
Kuwait $ 39,300
15
Andorra $ 38,800
16
Iceland $ 38,800
17
Netherlands $ 38,500
18
British Virgin Islands $ 38,500
19
Austria $ 38,400
20
Canada $ 38,400

Out of these, the only ones not being run by socialists are Qatar, Kuwait, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the US.

z

Thanks, Heidianne...excellent post.
I just saw a discussion about what higher taxes to corporations will do to America. NO jobs, jobs moving overseas.....disaster.
What a country, when it's run by socialists. What a shame so many people here depend on gov't instead of themselves or private relief groups.

Jess

As always well done Heidi, now I've got to catch up on what I've missed here the last few weeks! Jess

The Griper

dora,
"Gee whiz, the only blue "state" in there is DC"
when did dc become a state?

as for your comparison. it is an invalid comparison. if you want to put up an opposing view to hers, you need to use the same methodology as she did and your comparison does not.

heidianne jackson

dora, i find it interesting that the documentation provided by the u.s. census bureau does not tie-out to the information you've put here. according to the document i used for my comparison (you can download it from within my post) the top ten most poverty stricken states are as follow:

Mississippi . . 20.6
Louisiana . . . 18.6
New Mexico. . . 18.1
Arkansas . . . 17.9
Kentucky . . . 17.3
Alabama . . . 16.9
West Virginia . . . 16.9
Texas. . . . 16.3
Oklahoma . . . 15.9
Tennessee . . . 15.9

i'll address each one.

1. mississippi - it is true that they currently have a republican governor. it is also true that there has been a .3% decrease in the number of people in poverty since the 2006 numbers. additionally, aside from 10 years of republicans in the governorship in missippi (and not consecutively) the state has been solidly democrat at the governor's level since 1876.
2. louisiana - another state that currently has a gop governor. however, at the time of the survey, the state was run by a democrat. additionally, the bulk of the people in the state of louisiana live in it's 10 largest cities: new orleans, baton rouge, shreveport, lafayette, lake charles, kenner, bossier city, monroe, alexandria, and new iberia. the majority of these cities are run by democrats and we should also note that only the republican run cities have a poverty levels of less than 20%.
3. new mexico - i'm pretty certain bill richardson is a democrat, so that makes it a democrat controlled at the state level.
4. arkansas - democrat controlled at the state level.
5. kentucky - democrat controlled state.
6. alabama - this is a republican run state for the past 5 years. once again, the majority of the top ten cities (holding the majority of the population for the state) are run by democrats.
7. west virginia - democrat controlled at the state level.
8. texas - republican controlled at the state level. again the majority of the 10 largest cities, where a majority of the population lives, are controlled by democrats.
9. oklahoma - democrat controlled at the state level.
10. tennessee - democrat controlled at the state level.

hmmm, not quite the picture that dora paints now, is it?

Pirate Farmer John Peachfuzz

Ahoy there, Cap'n Jackson!

Just thought I'd put a shot across yer bow and see if'n ya needed any help repellin' boarders, yet I see your colours 'r still flying at the top o yer mainmast and the scurvy rats all seem to be drownin' in yer bilges.

Keep up the g'd work. If'n ya ever need a boardin' party, I know a port where pirates are plenty and crews 'r ready, willing and able!

Yaaarrrrggghhhh!!!!

Americaneocon

Cool post, Heidi: I'm especially interested to see what kind of economic development policies Democrats push at the local level.

If we drive through the downtown areas in many of these cities, what will wee see? How business friendly are they? What are the policies on the poor, minorities, and the homeless? San Francisco spent over 100 million on shelter programs for people who were not homeless. These are corrupt, big city machines with no interest in improving government and city services.

Kwame Kilpatrick got caught, but who knows what else goes on in the city halls of urban America.

JMK

“Let's look at the richest countries...Out of these, the only ones not being run by socialists are Qatar, Kuwait, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the US.” (Dora)
<
<
Funny story! There are NO, that is ZERO “socialist economies” among ANY of the Western European nations, the United States and Japan.

Socialism is a specific type of economy based on the foundation of the eradication of private property. Socialism CANNOT exist where private property rights (the private ownership of homes, lands and businesses) are preserved. As such, all the economies of Western Europe, the USA and Japan (along with Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, the Philippines) are Corporatist – regulated economies in which governments protect established businesses and provide an array of social services). A corporatist economy, with a large welfare state, like Norway or Denmark, or until recently France, Germany and Sweden (all those have moved away from the large welfare states that had negatively impacted their economies) is NOT “a socialist economy,” it’s "a Corporatist economy with a large welfare state."

The U.S. fits into that same category as France, England, Canada, Japan and Germany all do.

So, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden aren’t “socialist economies?” Nope, they’re all as Corporatist as is the United States. Ericsson, Volvo, Nokia are ALL privately owned corporations, just like those found on the NYSE.

Well, how about Ireland?

Ireland is a market-based economy, like the U.S and most of Western Europe, its recent economic resurgence has been built on one of the lowest Corporate taxes in the world.

As to Singapore, from the CIA World Fact Book: “ Singapore has a highly developed and successful free-market economy. It enjoys a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and a per capita GDP equal to that of the four largest West European countries.”

How about Iceland?

Again, from the same source; “Iceland's Scandinavian-type economy is basically capitalistic yet with an extensive welfare system” (much like Western Europe and the United States).

What about Austria?

Nope, “Austria, with its well-developed market economy and high standard of living, is closely tied to other EU economies, especially Germany's. The Austrian economy also benefits greatly from strong commercial relations, especially in the banking and insurance sectors, with central, eastern, and southeastern Europe. The economy features a large service sector, a sound industrial sector, and a small, but highly developed agricultural sector.”

Canada, socialist???

Apparently NOT, “As an affluent, high-tech industrial society in the trillion-dollar class, Canada resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and affluent living standards.”

Socialism implies a government-run, or at least state-managed (not just regulated by directly managed by government officials) economy.

NONE of the above nations have a government-run economy, so you either lied or don’t understand basic economics...most likely the latter, as most people and almost no self-proclaimed Liberals/socialists understand basic economics.

Ironically enough, you know which countries actually HAVE socialist economies?

Haiti, Zimbabwe and Chile and they’re all economic basket cases.

Food for thought huh!

Jonathan Paul

Hey,
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Thank you
:)
Keep blogging

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner