• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Amazing isn't it that people in this country can easily go from state to state, move with total freedom yet according to you they live in poverty, violent crime, and no healthcare? Does personal responsibility exist in your world?

You have no idea what our Founders created when they put the power in the states not the central govt. Think it is easier to change state or national policies? Does logic and common sense exist with you

Only a true liberal accepts the 18.2 trillion dollar debt, ignores it and just piles on more by creating more entitlement programs that only give the bureaucrats more money to spend.

"Personal responsibility"? WHY is it that poverty is generally significantly higher in RED states? WHY? If "personal responsibility" is what is truly part and parcel of what makes a conservatives, then why is it that majority-conservative states tend to have the highest degree of poverty? And of violent crime? And the lower levels of educational attainment? And the higher levels of teenage pregnancy?

Y'know, almost all my friends are conservatives - I'm the oddball out of the bunch. And y'all are great on the individual level...but y'all simply suck when it comes to the big picture. Y'all have a REAL hard time seeing the forest for the trees - you look at a few trees and assume the whole forest must be like those few trees because "personal responsibility".

And that's why, sir, y'all are so good when it comes to talking about "personal responsibility", but on almost every single metric red states are generally worse off than blue states. The only metric I've yet found where blue states are worse off than red states is on drug use...but every other single metric - violent crime, homicide, teenage pregnancy, educational attainment, life expectancy, you name it - the red states are generally worse off than blue states.

WHY?

I would be willing to bet money that you're thinking that the answer in my mind is conservative governance...but it's not. The real answer would surprise you...and not necessarily in a bad way. Intrigued yet?
 
"Personal responsibility"? WHY is it that poverty is generally significantly higher in RED states?

Could it be because the cost of living is lower and thus the salaries are lower in those localities, but the poverty line is set nationally? Also, since the poverty line is set nationally, it's entirely possible those in the blue high dollar cities are actually earning poverty wages even though they are above the poverty line.
 
Glen Contrarian;1064823518]"Personal responsibility"? WHY is it that poverty is generally significantly higher in RED states? WHY? If "personal responsibility" is what is truly part and parcel of what makes a conservatives, then why is it that majority-conservative states tend to have the highest degree of poverty? And of violent crime? And the lower levels of educational attainment? And the higher levels of teenage pregnancy?

Don't know nor do I care because I understand personal responsibility you don't. Could it be that red state taxpayers don't give away "free" goodies to people who don't take personal responsibility seriously? Do you have a solution? How about a federal nanny in each home to make kids go to school, do their homework, and eat properly? Why is it that conservatives states have the lowest cost of living?

Y'know, almost all my friends are conservatives - I'm the oddball out of the bunch. And y'all are great on the individual level...but y'all simply suck when it comes to the big picture. Y'all have a REAL hard time seeing the forest for the trees - you look at a few trees and assume the whole forest must be like those few trees because "personal responsibility".

Define the big picture but more important give us a solution? you believe that solution is the govt and I believe that solution is personal responsibility and neighbor helping neighbor. It is you that cannot see the forest for the trees. How many trillions have been spent to eradicate poverty? How many trillions has been spent to solve the education problem? When will you realize the Federal Govt. is the problem not the solution no matter how many dollars you throw at the problem

And that's why, sir, y'all are so good when it comes to talking about "personal responsibility", but on almost every single metric red states are generally worse off than blue states. The only metric I've yet found where blue states are worse off than red states is on drug use...but every other single metric - violent crime, homicide, teenage pregnancy, educational attainment, life expectancy, you name it - the red states are generally worse off than blue states.

Therein lies the problem you don't understand personal responsibility, what is it about personal responsibility that is foreign to you? People choose to live in those red states and your problem is you don't understand the word choice except when it comes to abortion. I love living in TX, moved here in 92, best move I have ever made except for my marriage

I would be willing to bet money that you're thinking that the answer in my mind is conservative governance...but it's not. The real answer would surprise you...and not necessarily in a bad way. Intrigued yet?

Raise any kids? some times tough love is the answer but more importantly empower neighbors to help neighbors and stop making a federal bureaucrat your neighbor. So tell me what the real answer is
 
So all you ACA cheerleaders who buy the liberal rhetoric and tell us how bad the healthcare costs are in this country please show me the line item where those costs exist in the budget of the United States? Now put up or shut up

The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances Current Report Page Has Moved

Y'know, conservatives are really good at seeing where we are...but not so good at seeing where we're going. And that's the key: thanks to the ACA, the RATE of increase in health care costs in our nation is now and will continue to be significantly LOWER than in the past. It's not what it is RIGHT NOW that's the concern - it's where it will be ten, twenty, thirty years down the road...and the ONLY way to stop the eventual train wreck was to bring down the RATE of increase of health care costs to the consumer and to the taxpayer. And this pre-ACA/post-ACA graphic from the Kaiser Foundation makes clear the real benefit of the ACA:

7305-08-exhibit-4.jpg

From the same reference:

On a historical basis, Medicare spending per enrollee grew at an average annual rate of 7.7% between 1969 and 2012....

Looking ahead, net Medicare outlays (that is, Medicare spending minus income from premiums and other offsetting receipts) are projected to increase by two-thirds from $512 billion in 2014 to $858 billion in 2024—an average annual growth rate of 5.3% in the aggregate....


Do you see that? Thanks to the ACA, we're cutting the rate of annual change of our Medicare costs by 2.4%...and that's even given the growth of the Medicare-covered population thanks to the retirements of baby boomers.

In other words, when it comes to the ACA, the Heritage Foundation had a GOOD idea...and Newt Gingrich was right to support it...and Mitt Romney was right to implement it in Massachusetts. It's just unfortunate that instead of taking credit for the idea of the ACA (which in hindsight would have been MUCH smarter and quite accurate), the conservatives and the GOP have vowed to fight it to their dying breaths.
 
Could it be because the cost of living is lower and thus the salaries are lower in those localities, but the poverty line is set nationally? Also, since the poverty line is set nationally, it's entirely possible those in the blue high dollar cities are actually earning poverty wages even though they are above the poverty line.

If the poverty rate were the only metric, then you might have a point...but it's not the only metric, is it?

It's also educational attainment, and teenage pregnancy rates, and violent crime and homicide rates. It's also which states receive more federal dollars than they pay out in taxes (generally red states), because that's an indicator which states receive more in federal aid for things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare.

Look at the conservative grand example of Texas - sure, they're doing really well economically, and part of the reason they did so was because they slashed education funding - nearly half of ALL teachers there have to moonlight in order to make ends meet...which means that instead of doing things like staying after school to grade papers, helping students with problems, working on extracurricular student activities, they're rushing off to their other jobs...and they're tired at their work. And as a result, when it comes to educational attainment, Texas is DEAD LAST.

Are you going to claim that's also somehow because of the eeeeeeeevil federal government? Or is it because of the simply short-sighted conservative "let's-pay-them-less-and-they'll-do-lots-better" economic fantasy?
 
If the poverty rate were the only metric, then you might have a point...but it's not the only metric, is it?

...

Reminds me of the Dear Red States internet joke...except there is a lot of truth in the joke.

Dear Red States:

We're ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we've decided we're leaving.

We in New York intend to form our own country and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the rest of the Northeast.

We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A).

To sum up briefly:

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin.


We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ol' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.

You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.


Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

We're taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,

Citizen of the Enlightened States of America


Red vs Blue Joke - Dear Red States
 
Y'know, conservatives are really good at seeing where we are...but not so good at seeing where we're going. And that's the key: thanks to the ACA, the RATE of increase in health care costs in our nation is now and will continue to be significantly LOWER than in the past. It's not what it is RIGHT NOW that's the concern - it's where it will be ten, twenty, thirty years down the road...and the ONLY way to stop the eventual train wreck was to bring down the RATE of increase of health care costs to the consumer and to the taxpayer. And this pre-ACA/post-ACA graphic from the Kaiser Foundation makes clear the real benefit of the ACA:

View attachment 67187301

From the same reference:

On a historical basis, Medicare spending per enrollee grew at an average annual rate of 7.7% between 1969 and 2012....

Looking ahead, net Medicare outlays (that is, Medicare spending minus income from premiums and other offsetting receipts) are projected to increase by two-thirds from $512 billion in 2014 to $858 billion in 2024—an average annual growth rate of 5.3% in the aggregate....


Do you see that? Thanks to the ACA, we're cutting the rate of annual change of our Medicare costs by 2.4%...and that's even given the growth of the Medicare-covered population thanks to the retirements of baby boomers.

In other words, when it comes to the ACA, the Heritage Foundation had a GOOD idea...and Newt Gingrich was right to support it...and Mitt Romney was right to implement it in Massachusetts. It's just unfortunate that instead of taking credit for the idea of the ACA (which in hindsight would have been MUCH smarter and quite accurate), the conservatives and the GOP have vowed to fight it to their dying breaths.

And what liberals do are provide projections as fact and ignore the fact that those projections are seldom accurate. Only in the liberal world is slower PROJECTED growth a good thing when the reality is it still is growth and does nothing to eliminate the deficit thus lowering the debt. I posted the link to the Clinton deficit and the Obama deficit in fiscal year 2014 which obviously you and others ignored. The question is why? What is it about projections that you believe are fact?
 
Reminds me of the jokes the left makes about Texas. No big deal
 
And what liberals do are provide projections as fact and ignore the fact that those projections are seldom accurate. Only in the liberal world is slower PROJECTED growth a good thing when the reality is it still is growth and does nothing to eliminate the deficit thus lowering the debt. I posted the link to the Clinton deficit and the Obama deficit in fiscal year 2014 which obviously you and others ignored. The question is why? What is it about projections that you believe are fact?

You're assuming that because it's a projection, it isn't going to be accurate...even though the hard numbers show that rate of growth thus far is ALREADY significantly lower than it was before.

And what you're forgetting is that while y'all want SO much to go back to the way it was before...but under that barely-fettered free market, for the past 43 years, the annual rate of growth was significantly HIGHER than it is now. We are ALREADY getting better results than what it was before...just as the Heritage Foundation predicted twenty years ago.

It's just sad that y'all despise liberals in general and Obama in particular so much, to such a degree that even when we successfully implement YOUR side's idea, y'all can't accept it, much less take pride in it.
 
You're assuming that because it's a projection, it isn't going to be accurate...even though the hard numbers show that rate of growth thus far is ALREADY significantly lower than it was before.

And what you're forgetting is that while y'all want SO much to go back to the way it was before...but under that barely-fettered free market, for the past 43 years, the annual rate of growth was significantly HIGHER than it is now. We are ALREADY getting better results than what it was before...just as the Heritage Foundation predicted twenty years ago.

It's just sad that y'all despise liberals in general and Obama in particular so much, to such a degree that even when we successfully implement YOUR side's idea, y'all can't accept it, much less take pride in it.

What you are ignoring is that the slowing of growth is still growth and adds to the deficit and debt. Also what you are ignoring is the foundation upon which this country was built. This isn't about hatred for Obama but rather for liberal social engineering trying to handle personal responsibility issues. I don't despise liberals, I feel sorry for them as they have bought into an ideology that borders on socialism and destroys personal responsibillty
 
What you are ignoring is that the slowing of growth is still growth and adds to the deficit and debt.

But WHAT is the solution that eliminates the growth of health care spending???? THAT, sir, is the question that the conservatives never provided in their quest to destroy Obamacare. Even after fifty-odd attempts to repeal (and two SCOTUS cases) y'all still have never provided a real roadmap, a real solution or alternative. It's always been, "Let's repeal Obamacare! And THEN we'll show you what we'll do to replace it!"

In other words, if you can't show us how to eliminate health care spending (not counting the politically-impossible dream of kicking the elderly off Medicare, or the proven-fiscally-idiotic proposal of handing out vouchers to all and sundry), then the best that can be done is to slow its growth...and y'all have shown zero plans how to do that, either.

The choice was, then, to leave health care at its 7.7% ANNUAL rate of growth - or to at least TRY to make it better...and we have. We've cut the annual rate of growth by over two percent while at the SAME time having the lowest percentage of uninsured on record.

Also what you are ignoring is the foundation upon which this country was built. This isn't about hatred for Obama but rather for liberal social engineering trying to handle personal responsibility issues. I don't despise liberals, I feel sorry for them as they have bought into an ideology that borders on socialism and destroys personal responsibillty

And I refer once again to what I've pointed out to you again and again and AGAIN...that if YOUR personal (apparently Ayn Randian) concept of "personal responsibility" was the key to national prosperity, then the red states in general (and the Deep South in particular) would be economically blowing the blue states out of the water. But they aren't, are they? No, they aren't. Quite the opposite, in fact.

And one big reason why is because y'all can't seem to think of a social safety net as anything but nanny-statism...when in REALITY what the social safety net actually does is PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY for people who are down on their luck to actually make something of themselves. Yes, there are a few who abuse the system, but the great majority, given the opportunity (as blue states provide), strive to actually make something of themselves. And in the red states...there's no such opportunity, and so they sit in their trailer parks singing "Gloom, despair, and agony on me...."

(and yeah, I figure you'll get that last reference)
 
If the poverty rate were the only metric, then you might have a point...but it's not the only metric, is it?

It's also educational attainment, and teenage pregnancy rates, and violent crime and homicide rates. It's also which states receive more federal dollars than they pay out in taxes (generally red states), because that's an indicator which states receive more in federal aid for things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare.

Well now, there you have to look at a more granular reporting to prove your case. No state is red or blue, they are all varying shades of purple. So, how are those blue areas doing in what you are calling red states? Are they doing better than the red areas in the same state or are they dragging the average down for the state?

Because you know the blue areas tend to be the highly populated areas.
 
Glen Contrarian;1064824408]But WHAT is the solution that eliminates the growth of health care spending???? THAT, sir, is the question that the conservatives never provided in their quest to destroy Obamacare. Even after fifty-odd attempts to repeal (and two SCOTUS cases) y'all still have never provided a real roadmap, a real solution or alternative. It's always been, "Let's repeal Obamacare! And THEN we'll show you what we'll do to replace it!"

No, the solution is stop buying what the left tells you and look at reality. Most healthcare expenses are at the state and local level, not the Federal level which is why you don't see any major reduction in growth of the line items in the budget. All you have done is create another entitlement program that gives the Federal Govt. more money to waste. Where were ACA charges on the budget of the United States before ACA? How is ACA paid for? Since liberals are concerned about tax revenue where do you think subsidies come from?

In other words, if you can't show us how to eliminate health care spending (not counting the politically-impossible dream of kicking the elderly off Medicare, or the proven-fiscally-idiotic proposal of handing out vouchers to all and sundry), then the best that can be done is to slow its growth...and y'all have shown zero plans how to do that, either.

I have already posted the line items of the budget which you ignored. If the costs of healthcare are an expense to the United States they would appear in the line items in that budget. You bought a bill of good while thinking only with your heart. The best plan is let the states handle it and then let the federal govt. truly help those high risk people with catastrophic coverage and for that we don't need ACA


The choice was, then, to leave health care at its 7.7% ANNUAL rate of growth - or to at least TRY to make it better...and we have. We've cut the annual rate of growth by over two percent while at the SAME time having the lowest percentage of uninsured on record.

There you go again, a broken record. 7.7% annual growth is shown where on the Federal Budget? Try solving the problem instead of just creating another entitlement program. Best way is define expenses and solve them first including the cost of regulations and lawsuits.

And I refer once again to what I've pointed out to you again and again and AGAIN...that if YOUR personal (apparently Ayn Randian) concept of "personal responsibility" was the key to national prosperity, then the red states in general (and the Deep South in particular) would be economically blowing the blue states out of the water. But they aren't, are they? No, they aren't. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Any you keep ignoring personal responsibility. If those people below the poverty level are so poor why do they stay in such a hell hole? The South is blowing the blue states out of the water in both Florida and TX. Suggest you read something other than leftwing blogs.


And one big reason why is because y'all can't seem to think of a social safety net as anything but nanny-statism...when in REALITY what the social safety net actually does is PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY for people who are down on their luck to actually make something of themselves. Yes, there are a few who abuse the system, but the great majority, given the opportunity (as blue states provide), strive to actually make something of themselves. And in the red states...there's no such opportunity, and so they sit in their trailer parks singing "Gloom, despair, and agony on me...."

No, in TX we have people helping people but in the blue states you are always looking for someone else to pay for your poor choices. Let me know when that nanny will be going into someone else's home to take care of their kids
 
Well now, there you have to look at a more granular reporting to prove your case. No state is red or blue, they are all varying shades of purple. So, how are those blue areas doing in what you are calling red states? Are they doing better than the red areas in the same state or are they dragging the average down for the state?

Because you know the blue areas tend to be the highly populated areas.

Why do you think the taxpayers are paying farmers literally billions of dollars every year in subsidies? Have you ever thought about that? The reason, sir, is because the economic hearts of any economy is not found on the farm or in the mines or even in the oil fields...but in the cities. And the larger the city, generally speaking, the better the economic strength of the nearby regions.

Why? Where are the best universities found - in the rural areas, or in the urban areas? Where are the factories and industrial sectors found - in the rural areas, or in the urban areas? When are the transportation hubs for imports/exports/travel found - in the rural areas, or the urban areas? Even when it comes to oil and gas and mined resources, where are the most of the refineries and processing plants found - in the rural areas, or the urban areas?

In almost all cases, you know that the answer is in the urban areas. Yes, there are some very good universities in rural states...but the best universities are in urban areas...and many more of them. Yes, there are some great factories and industries in rural states...but the biggest and strongest are in urban areas...and many more of them.

Besides, if urban areas depended on rural areas for prosperity and tax revenue, democracies like Singapore - with almost zero rural land - would be economic hellholes.

This is why, sir, blue states generally pay out more in federal taxes than they receive in aid and spending...while the opposite is true for red states. The cherry-picked example of Detroit notwithstanding, our cities really are the beating heart of our economy. Yeah, we DO need what our vast rural areas give...but don't make the naive mistake of thinking that cities are somehow a drain on the economy - for the fact is, it's just the opposite.

And one more thing - before you start pointing out the problems with inner cities (which do exist, of course), remember that the most prosperous part of most American cities is in the suburbs, the exceptions being those cities whose populations have adapted to living in high-rise condos and apartments. And it's not just in America this is happening - go look at the great (and incredibly prosperous) of Asia like Hong Kong and Tokyo and Seoul and Singapore. Most of their populations live in condos, and their cities are clean, safe, prosperous, and generally more modern than our own.

This isn't to say that city living is for everyone - it's certainly not. But don't make the mistake that the cities depend on the rural areas for tax revenue...because they don't. It's just the other way around.
 
Why do you think the taxpayers are paying farmers literally billions of dollars every year in subsidies? Have you ever thought about that? The reason, sir, is because the economic hearts of any economy is not found on the farm or in the mines or even in the oil fields...but in the cities. And the larger the city, generally speaking, the better the economic strength of the nearby regions.

Why? Where are the best universities found - in the rural areas, or in the urban areas? Where are the factories and industrial sectors found - in the rural areas, or in the urban areas? When are the transportation hubs for imports/exports/travel found - in the rural areas, or the urban areas? Even when it comes to oil and gas and mined resources, where are the most of the refineries and processing plants found - in the rural areas, or the urban areas?

In almost all cases, you know that the answer is in the urban areas. Yes, there are some very good universities in rural states...but the best universities are in urban areas...and many more of them. Yes, there are some great factories and industries in rural states...but the biggest and strongest are in urban areas...and many more of them.

Besides, if urban areas depended on rural areas for prosperity and tax revenue, democracies like Singapore - with almost zero rural land - would be economic hellholes.

This is why, sir, blue states generally pay out more in federal taxes than they receive in aid and spending...while the opposite is true for red states. The cherry-picked example of Detroit notwithstanding, our cities really are the beating heart of our economy. Yeah, we DO need what our vast rural areas give...but don't make the naive mistake of thinking that cities are somehow a drain on the economy - for the fact is, it's just the opposite.

And one more thing - before you start pointing out the problems with inner cities (which do exist, of course), remember that the most prosperous part of most American cities is in the suburbs, the exceptions being those cities whose populations have adapted to living in high-rise condos and apartments. And it's not just in America this is happening - go look at the great (and incredibly prosperous) of Asia like Hong Kong and Tokyo and Seoul and Singapore. Most of their populations live in condos, and their cities are clean, safe, prosperous, and generally more modern than our own.

This isn't to say that city living is for everyone - it's certainly not. But don't make the mistake that the cities depend on the rural areas for tax revenue...because they don't. It's just the other way around.

Please name for me in the top 10 cities in the country the name of the city that is Republican? Where is most of the poverty throughout the country? Is it a coincidence that the murder capital of the nation is in major blue cities? It you truly look at the suburbs in most big cities you will find them voting almost overwhelmingly Republican. It is the inner city where votes are bought, people are taken to the polls, and "freebies" are distributed, that is where the votes are created for Democrats. That is reality.

Example, NYC-Blue, LA-blue, Chicago-Blue, Houston-Blue whereas the suburbs are Red but it is the inner city that carries the vote for Democrats
 
Why do you think the taxpayers are paying farmers literally billions of dollars every year in subsidies? Have you ever thought about that? The reason, sir, is because the economic hearts of any economy is not found on the farm or in the mines or even in the oil fields...but in the cities. And the larger the city, generally speaking, the better the economic strength of the nearby regions.

Why? Where are the best universities found - in the rural areas, or in the urban areas? Where are the factories and industrial sectors found - in the rural areas, or in the urban areas? When are the transportation hubs for imports/exports/travel found - in the rural areas, or the urban areas? Even when it comes to oil and gas and mined resources, where are the most of the refineries and processing plants found - in the rural areas, or the urban areas?

In almost all cases, you know that the answer is in the urban areas. Yes, there are some very good universities in rural states...but the best universities are in urban areas...and many more of them. Yes, there are some great factories and industries in rural states...but the biggest and strongest are in urban areas...and many more of them.

Besides, if urban areas depended on rural areas for prosperity and tax revenue, democracies like Singapore - with almost zero rural land - would be economic hellholes.

This is why, sir, blue states generally pay out more in federal taxes than they receive in aid and spending...while the opposite is true for red states. The cherry-picked example of Detroit notwithstanding, our cities really are the beating heart of our economy. Yeah, we DO need what our vast rural areas give...but don't make the naive mistake of thinking that cities are somehow a drain on the economy - for the fact is, it's just the opposite.

And one more thing - before you start pointing out the problems with inner cities (which do exist, of course), remember that the most prosperous part of most American cities is in the suburbs, the exceptions being those cities whose populations have adapted to living in high-rise condos and apartments. And it's not just in America this is happening - go look at the great (and incredibly prosperous) of Asia like Hong Kong and Tokyo and Seoul and Singapore. Most of their populations live in condos, and their cities are clean, safe, prosperous, and generally more modern than our own.

This isn't to say that city living is for everyone - it's certainly not. But don't make the mistake that the cities depend on the rural areas for tax revenue...because they don't. It's just the other way around.

So, a rather long screed about rural versus city life (with you glorifying the anthill model of living), and precisely NONE of it addresses the post you quoted as responding to. :lamo
 
Why do you think the taxpayers are paying farmers literally billions of dollars every year in subsidies? Have you ever thought about that? The reason, sir, is because the economic hearts of any economy is not found on the farm or in the mines or even in the oil fields...but in the cities. And the larger the city, generally speaking, the better the economic strength of the nearby regions.

Why? Where are the best universities found - in the rural areas, or in the urban areas? Where are the factories and industrial sectors found - in the rural areas, or in the urban areas? When are the transportation hubs for imports/exports/travel found - in the rural areas, or the urban areas? Even when it comes to oil and gas and mined resources, where are the most of the refineries and processing plants found - in the rural areas, or the urban areas?

In almost all cases, you know that the answer is in the urban areas. Yes, there are some very good universities in rural states...but the best universities are in urban areas...and many more of them. Yes, there are some great factories and industries in rural states...but the biggest and strongest are in urban areas...and many more of them.

Besides, if urban areas depended on rural areas for prosperity and tax revenue, democracies like Singapore - with almost zero rural land - would be economic hellholes.

This is why, sir, blue states generally pay out more in federal taxes than they receive in aid and spending...while the opposite is true for red states. The cherry-picked example of Detroit notwithstanding, our cities really are the beating heart of our economy. Yeah, we DO need what our vast rural areas give...but don't make the naive mistake of thinking that cities are somehow a drain on the economy - for the fact is, it's just the opposite.

And one more thing - before you start pointing out the problems with inner cities (which do exist, of course), remember that the most prosperous part of most American cities is in the suburbs, the exceptions being those cities whose populations have adapted to living in high-rise condos and apartments. And it's not just in America this is happening - go look at the great (and incredibly prosperous) of Asia like Hong Kong and Tokyo and Seoul and Singapore. Most of their populations live in condos, and their cities are clean, safe, prosperous, and generally more modern than our own.

This isn't to say that city living is for everyone - it's certainly not. But don't make the mistake that the cities depend on the rural areas for tax revenue...because they don't. It's just the other way around.

Reality

Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America - The Atlantic
 
Please name for me in the top 10 cities in the country the name of the city that is Republican? Where is most of the poverty throughout the country? Is it a coincidence that the murder capital of the nation is in major blue cities? It you truly look at the suburbs in most big cities you will find them voting almost overwhelmingly Republican. It is the inner city where votes are bought, people are taken to the polls, and "freebies" are distributed, that is where the votes are created for Democrats. That is reality.

Example, NYC-Blue, LA-blue, Chicago-Blue, Houston-Blue whereas the suburbs are Red but it is the inner city that carries the vote for Democrats

Really? I guess it was all those 'inner city' people who carried Iowa for Obama. Twice.

Bear in mind as I continue about the differences between rural and urban areas, that I was raised in a more rural setting than the great majority of Americans. My high school graduation class was a whopping 42 kids...and it was in the next county over. But back to your assumptions.

You really can't keep from using your assumptions, can you? You're making the assumption - on ZERO evidence - that the Dems buy votes...and that the GOP does not. You're making the grand assumption that it's somehow a crime to provide transportation to people to go to the polling place. If you'll recall, each vote is done in private, regardless of what is said on the way there.

AND you're assuming that suburbs are automatically red...when such is NOT the case. If that were true, then mostly-suburban Puget Sound would be strongly red...and so would the state of Washington in turn. The ONLY areas that generally lean strongly red are rural areas...just as the only areas that generally lean strongly blue are urban areas. There's no indication that suburban areas automatically lean one way or another...except perhaps in your mind.

And here's a little something to broaden your mind about poverty in America:

Screen-Shot-2014-12-22-at-12.12.10-AM.jpg

The Midwest isn't so bad...but when it comes to poverty, who generally does worst? Rural areas. And don't go blaming it on minorities, either - see Montana, Oregon, and the Appalachian regions of Kentucky and West Virginia. Whereas if one looks at the counties all throughout the Northeast...or in the counties in and around Chicago, San Francisco, LA, and up here in and around Seattle, what does one find? The poverty generally is not as bad as it is in rural areas.

Why? Because we have the best universities and schools, the best industries and factories, the best access to medical care, and the best social safety nets. Rural areas generally don't.
 
So, a rather long screed about rural versus city life (with you glorifying the anthill model of living), and precisely NONE of it addresses the post you quoted as responding to. :lamo

I addresses your post quite well, sir - but just as one can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink, I can respond to your posts but I can't force you to accept anything no matter how obviously my words address your posts.
 

Yeah? So what's your point? That the votes of a million people in rural areas should somehow count as much as the votes of five million people in cities?

It's not just America that's becoming more urban - it's the whole doggone world, guy. Get used to it...because bar utter catastrophe (like uncontrolled global warming), it's going to get even more crowded.

And you know what? In a democracy, the side with the most votes wins. That's the way it was designed, last I recall (unless you really want to quibble about things like "it's actually a representative democracy" or some such). But as time goes on, the cities are growing larger and more numerous, and the rural areas...not so much. Democracy is majority rule and minority rights (by which I mean not ethnic minorities but the electoral minority). And that's the way it is and the way it will be. Get over it.

And here's another question that you'll likely refuse to answer: why is it that people in cities tend to be significantly more liberal than those in rural areas? Here's a hint - it's only partially because of the 'social safety net'.
 
Yeah? So what's your point? That the votes of a million people in rural areas should somehow count as much as the votes of five million people in cities?

It's not just America that's becoming more urban - it's the whole doggone world, guy. Get used to it...because bar utter catastrophe (like uncontrolled global warming), it's going to get even more crowded.

And you know what? In a democracy, the side with the most votes wins. That's the way it was designed, last I recall (unless you really want to quibble about things like "it's actually a representative democracy" or some such). But as time goes on, the cities are growing larger and more numerous, and the rural areas...not so much. Democracy is majority rule and minority rights (by which I mean not ethnic minorities but the electoral minority). And that's the way it is and the way it will be. Get over it.

And here's another question that you'll likely refuse to answer: why is it that people in cities tend to be significantly more liberal than those in rural areas? Here's a hint - it's only partially because of the 'social safety net'.

No, the point is the inner city will always be kept poor because of the dependence they have on the bureaucrats which is why bureaucrats continue to buy their votes

The question is very easy to answer and my post above is part of it. Inner city people are used to getting everything provide for them whereas in the suburbs people are used to taking care of themselves and understand personal responsibility and are tired of paying for the "things" the inner city people are getting off the spoils of their labor

What the Federal Govt. has done is create so much dependence that the liberal base has an entitlement mentality. One of these days the silent majority is going to wake up
 
No, the point is the inner city will always be kept poor because of the dependence they have on the bureaucrats which is why bureaucrats continue to buy their votes

The question is very easy to answer and my post above is part of it. Inner city people are used to getting everything provide for them whereas in the suburbs people are used to taking care of themselves and understand personal responsibility and are tired of paying for the "things" the inner city people are getting off the spoils of their labor

What the Federal Govt. has done is create so much dependence that the liberal base has an entitlement mentality. One of these days the silent majority is going to wake up

The "inner city will always be kept poor"? How familiar are you with the big cities of today? Yeah, there are a very few in very bad shape - like Detroit - but why do you think that New York City - you know, that place where Really Scary Black People Live In Harlem - has about HALF the homicide rate that much-more-rural entire state of Louisiana does?

No, it really looks like you're not as familiar with the big cities of today as you seem to think. Yes, every big city - just like every regular city, small town, and rural county - has 'bad areas" that you really don't want to go to. In the very, very rural Delta, we referred to it as 'the other side of the tracks'. And it wasn't just where the black folks lived, either. Over in the hills (basically, anywhere outside of the Delta) one just didn't go to the wrong trailer park, or didn't go down *that* road, or wherever. Go up to the Ozarks - there's places that you just don't want to go, either. Same thing up in the Appalachians.

In other words, just because there's what *you* want to call a ghetto, that doesn't mean that ghetto defines life in that city, or in any city. There's a place in Manila called 'Tondo' - it's a half-million people stuck in the poorest, meanest, most violent part of Manila. Thing is, though, Metro Manila's got about 15M people (and has a lower homicide rate than Mississippi btw)...and life in Tondo doesn't define life in Manila. Same thing where I'm at right now in this quite-conservative small town of Bremerton (it's conservative not because it's small, but because it's been a Navy town for over 100 years) - there's a couple of sections of town where I wouldn't want my family to go at night...but these two places don't define life in this town as a whole.

Same thing goes for the countryside, too - there's places out there that really aren't that safe...but does such places define life in the countryside? Of course not.
 
Glen Contrarian;1064825765]The "inner city will always be kept poor"? How familiar are you with the big cities of today? Yeah, there are a very few in very bad shape - like Detroit - but why do you think that New York City - you know, that place where Really Scary Black People Live In Harlem - has about HALF the homicide rate that much-more-rural entire state of Louisiana does?

Oh, I don't know, spent a lot of time in LA, Chicago, Houston who constantly vote Democratic, why? Because they have that entitlement mentality in city government gives it to them just like the Feds

No, it really looks like you're not as familiar with the big cities of today as you seem to think. Yes, every big city - just like every regular city, small town, and rural county - has 'bad areas" that you really don't want to go to. In the very, very rural Delta, we referred to it as 'the other side of the tracks'. And it wasn't just where the black folks lived, either. Over in the hills (basically, anywhere outside of the Delta) one just didn't go to the wrong trailer park, or didn't go down *that* road, or wherever. Go up to the Ozarks - there's places that you just don't want to go, either. Same thing up in the Appalachians.

I gave you the article, you ignored it, done with this topic

In other words, just because there's what *you* want to call a ghetto, that doesn't mean that ghetto defines life in that city, or in any city. There's a place in Manila called 'Tondo' - it's a half-million people stuck in the poorest, meanest, most violent part of Manila. Thing is, though, Metro Manila's got about 15M people (and has a lower homicide rate than Mississippi btw)...and life in Tondo doesn't define life in Manila. Same thing where I'm at right now in this quite-conservative small town of Bremerton (it's conservative not because it's small, but because it's been a Navy town for over 100 years) - there's a couple of sections of town where I wouldn't want my family to go at night...but these two places don't define life in this town as a whole.

In other words you cannot refute actual election data
 
Back
Top Bottom