I wrote the fairly popular and intense Second American Civil War world in the article section. One of the issues I talked about in the piece that led to the war was financial strains in the Blue cities, and the rising Red powers not wanting to pay for them.
Well, just today, I read this article....
http://city-journal.org/2010/eon1103fs.html
It points out that the Republican congress, which won big time in the solvent Red states, is not going to be happy about bailing out the nearly bankrupt Blue states of California and New York (which defying the national trend went even more Blue). And the ensuing fight could get nasty....
I have to say, I have little desire to bail out those who cheated their way to the top, and then found bankruptcy, the cheater's reward. If we did bail them out, I'd have to insist on some sort of Red state governage of the two states....kinda like MacArthur did to Japan.
The ultimate reason why the American Civil War took place was because the citizenry was armed. Can't exactly fight a war if you have no weapons, no matter how upset you are about something. I was thinking about a world in which the anti-gunners won, the Second Amendment was repealed or redefined, and only the police had guns, as far as the population was concerned. Now bring in an invading army, Red Dawn style. The citizens are helpless to fight, the military is swamped elsewhere, leaving only the local police departments to fight against the invaders. They are quickly outnumbered and overrun. It would be (obviously) a not-so-subtle testament to why gun control is a bad idea.
"For the first time in history, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. Ours will be the model for the world to follow well into the future."
Adolf Hitler.
(Doing Therapy)
I can't find the nicely colored version of this, so I guess I'll have to make do without.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
I'll have to look for a more recent version, too.
JTM,
You're not arguing against the fact that Blue strongholds tend to be financial catastrophes, I notice.
I do not know, but I suspect there are wrinkles in the data.
NPR gleefully goes out and tells us that it only gets 2% of its cash from the Feds. But at the same time, if I'm remembering right, it gets 60% of its operating cash for member stations from the Fed.
That type of wrinkle.
Also, I look at the numbers, and they don't seem real. The biggest thing is that America sends in money to the Feds, and the Feds skim off a large percentage of that as operating expenses/wastage/bribery. The money is then sent back to some state agency which does the same thing (The City of New Orleans was so bad that 8 of 10 dollars for the levees ended up buying new cars for the councilman's girlfriend and the like).
So an honest chart would have the fact that the sum of the parts is less than the parts themselves written into it.
But it is nice to see a Blue state partisan admit that he wants to defend the rich against the predations of the poor. :)
You're not arguing against the fact that Blue strongholds tend to be financial catastrophes, I notice.
I endeveour to avoid disputing the truth. Their legislatures need to raise taxes to a sensible level.
Also, I look at the numbers, and they don't seem real. The biggest thing is that America sends in money to the Feds, and the Feds skim off a large percentage of that as operating expenses/wastage/bribery. The money is then sent back to some state agency which does the same thing
Actually, every single dollar of federal spending is spent somewhere. It might not be given to a state agency, but only a small proportion of the federal budget is spent outside of the 50 states and DC. Virginia is probably as high as it is because of the Pentagon and all the contractors around here. That's presumably also why DC, which is put at the bottom and not ranked, has such a stupidly high rating. The thing is, even operating expenses/wastage (bribery as such isn't something federal money gets spent on, although employee pay might well be. Pork-barrel bribery does the opposite of not go to states.) is generally spent inside a state. The operating expenses are either paid to individuals living in a state/DC or used to buy stuff from a company that is generally inside a state/DC. Wastage generally means operating expenses that are higher than they ought to be, and is also spent in states.
Of course, some amount of money has vanished from the chart due to being spent in US territories or in other nations, but that wouldn't effect relative positions.
But it is nice to see a Blue state partisan admit that he wants to defend the rich against the predations of the poor. :)
Right, because the entire population of blue states is rich, hence why democrats draw much of their base from the urban poor populating them </sarcasm>.
I heard something about how the five or so counties around Washington DC were doing really well. This is a bad sign.
Ok, tis true that the money all gets spent in the US. But the impression given by the chart is productive usage instead of a large percentage wasted which would be more accurate.
The base of the Dem Party is the urban poor and unionized gov't workers and limosine liberals (and people who want to be like limosine liberals). The first is far poorer than average, teh second is better than average, and the last is better to far, far better.
The base of the Rep Party is more small businessmen, married couples, white collar (and increasingly blue collar) workers, and a few maniac artists destined to obscurity (me.)
Its interesting because during th etime of the Puritans and the rise of the Middle Class you had the same sort of fight. Middle Class vs. Poor and Nobles.
I heard something about how the five or so counties around Washington DC were doing really well. This is a bad sign.
Well, relatively well. I mean, no one has recieved a raise for three years running. I'm not sure how it constitutes a bad sign, though. It's pretty much to be expected.
Ok, tis true that the money all gets spent in the US. But the impression given by the chart is productive usage instead of a large percentage wasted which would be more accurate.
Actually, the chart indicates nothing one way or the other about wastage. It just tracks spending. For the presumed purpose of the chart, wastage and non-wasted spending are largely irrelevent unless the rate of wastage can be compared by state and adjusted for.
Also, wasted money is still a net benifit for the state, since it makes the people the money is wasted on richer, allowing them to respend it inside the state. They also pay state income tax on it in some cases. It's obviously not as good as non-wasted money, but it's still worth including.
The base of the Rep Party is more small businessmen, married couples, white collar (and increasingly blue collar) workers, and a few maniac artists destined to obscurity (me.)
You left out large buisness owners. They and the limosine liberals make up a small percentage of the voting base for their party, (and therefore have limited impact on what party a given state supports, hence why I didn't mention them) but a large portion of the money comes from them.
Large business owners tend to be Dem, but are willing to support Rep.
I'm in the young generation, have above average intelligence (tyvm), and I can say civil unrest is rising. All it will take is one good strong charismatic idiot and we'll have a blaze of a fight like we've never seen on this country's soil. I'd say some time in my lifetime, in the second half, probably in the dusk of my life, if not the twilight.
I'll be goin to Canada when it happens. It's my closest border.
Oh, I do agree, it's going to be the haves against the have nots.
Large business owners tend to be Dem, but are willing to support Rep.
I would be interested to hear any sort of evidence for the first part of the statement being true overall.
I wouldn't be too sure it would actually come to a civil war. Nationalism is much stronger and the difference between the military and armed civilians much greater than at the time of the original civil war. Regardless, it probably will be ugly.
Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats. A number of high-ranking government officials in recent years have spent part of their careers at Goldman Sachs.
From http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085
I should instead say 'high level executives' in the finance and hi-tech industries instead.
I think the Business Roundtable gave more to Obama than McCain. But perhaps not. Here's another.
ArticleCommentsEmail
Print
RSS
Share
DiggFacebookNewsvineFurlMixxRedditStumbleYahoo! BuzzDeliciousPropeller..
Barack Obama has collected nearly twice as much money as John McCain
BY David Saltonstall
DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT
Updated Tuesday, July 1st 2008, 4:23 AM
Zurga/BloombergWall Street firms have chipped in more than $9 million to Barack Obama. Related ArticlesArticles
Goodwin: America's stress testI know how to fix Wall Street! say Obama & McCainObama: 'Decisiones irresponsables' estropearon economíaE.J. McMahon: Voters, proceed with caution
Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.
Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.
===============
Its not as clear as I'd like. I think what is going on is that some of the biz leaders are taking cultural cues from the other members of the Elite Establishment, and also there is a large measure of An Active Gov't Favors the Rich (who can afford to bribe the governors).
=============
I don't think its going to come to a civil war. I think the Blue side is going to get crushed electorally.
Bump.