posted on March 8, 2001 01:04:07 PM new
Jimmy Carter may have a shakey presidency but he is now one of the most admired American statesmen....not just nationally but internationally. I don't anticiapate the same results here.
[ edited by Zazzie on Mar 8, 2001 01:04 PM ]
posted on March 8, 2001 01:26:57 PM new
It's not so bad for Dubya: the media gave President Jimmy Carter a near-total media black-out during most of his time in office. After all, it may be Liberals who report the stories, but its Conservatives who sign their pay checks.
That was unfortunate, as Jimmy Carter passed a lot of great legislation through Congress and did a lot of good for the nation as a whole -- he even had time to make Peace in the Middle-East.
But to compare Dubya with Jimmy Carter - My Ghod! There's no comparison! Jimmy Carter is INTELLIGENT and INFORMED, Dubya is just about Forest Gump level! (Yah, yah, yah - so he went to Harvard: big deal! With enough $$$ money, anyone can get a degree from Harvard! The poor kid has been groomed for the Presidency since he was a kid! No wonder he resents it so much: it shows.)
I only hope and pray for two things with Dubya: that his sense of Deceny and Fairness overcome his taking orders from Cheney and the Right Wing; and that he REBEL against those pulling his Puppet Strings and break away and do what's right for Americans, not Special Interests! That he become His Own Man and become someone to be admired as President! Lots of luck!
posted on March 8, 2001 01:38:03 PM new
Dubya has already far exceeded the expectations set for him. One of the benefits of having the left wing control the media and set the expectations. Pretty much anything he does will be seen as a success because the liberals did such a great job of disparaging him early.
The praises of Jimmy Carter are certainly warranted. He was apparently the last Democratic President (or President wannabe) with a moral compass that actually worked. While some of his policies were suspect (he WAS a democrat after all), as a person and a role model he most deserving of the highest respect. Man, what a difference a few years can make. If only we could have traded Clinton for another 4 years of Carter... And skipped Gore altogether!
posted on March 8, 2001 01:40:16 PM new
I don't know where John Aravosis is getting his information, but out here in Bush Country, we all care about the tax cut and are eagerly awaiting it's passage. Maybe it's because we have the "priviledge" of paying the majority of the taxes to begin with.
posted on March 8, 2001 01:55:38 PM new
They support a smaller Fed. gov't, so I'm sure they'll be calling for less Federal dollars to come their way. To be consistent and stuff.
posted on March 8, 2001 02:13:24 PM new
Another pearl:
"I'm also honored to be here with the speaker of the House--just happens to be from the state of Illinois. I'd like to describe the speaker as a trustworthy man. He's the kind of fellow who says when he gives you his word he means it. Sometimes that doesn't happen all the time in the political process."--Chicago, March 6, 2001
posted on March 8, 2001 02:41:47 PM new
mrpotatoheadd...without a breakdown in that federal spending, it's hard to tell how much went for welfare compared to how much had to be spent for let's say farm aid, or natural disasters (which really knows no political favoritism), or anything else for that matter.
I find it interesting that some of the biggest increases went to Gore states (Hawaii, Maine, Maryland & New Mexico.)
posted on March 8, 2001 02:59:48 PM new
Personally, I think the best thing that could happen for Bush is if Clinton is in the spotlight for the next four years.
As soon as the media focuses on Bush, he will be toast.
posted on March 8, 2001 03:31:54 PM new
Hello Njrazd,
A rather myopic analysis of that map of where the net surpluses and net deficits occurred.
You mention four states that went to Gore that had some of the highest net surpluses.
You fail to notice many of the states that went to Bush that had high surpluses. Montana, North and South Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi and even Alaska (right next to Hawaii which you cited).
You also fail to mention that several large states in terms of population had high net deficits and went to Gore. Namely, Connecticutt, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois.
And you fail to point out that many of the states (regardless of who they voted for) that had high net surpluses are rather sparsely populated.
If anything, a closer analysis of the net surplus and net deficit federal spending patterns in correlation with who got the State's electoral nod might well show that Gore was favored over Bush in spite of the heavy drain in terms of Federal money on the Eastern, MidWestern and West Coast States.
posted on March 8, 2001 04:20:02 PM new
codasaurus...since there was no date attached to that gif of federal spending, you can't tell when this money was spent. Was it 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001? If those figures were for 2000, then they were in place before the election even took place.
Wasn't it last year that massive flooding took place in the northern plain states? It could be that federal monies were spent for natural disaster relief that would not be spent under normal conditions. It is impossible to determine without a breakdown of funding and without other years to compare it to.
Also, at least one state (Wisconsin with a Republican Governor), drastically lowered their welfare roles which could also affect their federal funding total.
jamesoblivion...I would LOVE to see less federal funding of many programs. Let's start with the National Dept of Education and the National Endowment of the Arts. You will have no argument from most people that anything done on a federal level adds a tremendous amount of expense and red tape. I would rather pay a higher state tax and have programs handled locally than send it to Washington where they can take their cut of it first, then pass what's left onto the states.
without a breakdown in that federal spending, it's hard to tell how much went for welfare compared to how much had to be spent for let's say farm aid, or natural disasters (which really knows no political favoritism), or anything else for that matter.
I suppose that's true, but the real reason for posting the two maps is this...
After the election, several Bush supporters used the first map to try to make a point about the large area of the US that preferred Bush over Gore. A strange sort of argument (IMO), when presidents are elected by people, not acerage.
This made me wonder what the reaction to another map might be, when it could similarly be used to argue an inconsistency in Republicans' stated belief in a smaller federal government and their practices when it came to their own pocketbooks.
I find it interesting that some of the biggest increases went to Gore states (Hawaii, Maine, Maryland & New Mexico.)
You might want to leave New Mexico out of that particular group- but for 500 votes, New Mexico would have gone to Bush.
posted on March 8, 2001 04:56:13 PM new
mrpotatoheadd...I think it's safe to say that generally in this past election, urban areas went Gore and rural areas went Bush. So a state's votes would be determined by the population they had in each. And in several states, the difference was single digit percentages. I believe your first map showed each candidate getting 48% each.
So, without seeing a breakdown of the spending, how can we determine if the federal funds go to the rural or urban areas? I don't know why Alaska gets so much federal funding...national parkland maybe?
You may also have to consider the political party of the State's Governor and Representatives when federal funding is concerned.
You make a rather common mistake of attempting to make numbers fit your preconceived ideas.
Here is another way to look at those two charts...
Per capita differentials between federal taxes paid and returned to states.
Bold faced states voted for Gore in 2000.
Some figures may be off due to the small text from the original graphic.
+3944 New Mexico
+3109 Montana
+3068 Virginia
+3043 North Dakota
+2808 West Virginia
+2777 Alaska
+2684 Mississippi
+2327 South Dakota
+2091 Alabama
+1982 Hawaii +1770 Maryland
+1633 Arkansas
+1595 Kentucky
+1576 Louisiana
+1324 Maine
+1265 South Carolina
+1187 Missouri
+1000 Oklahoma
+961 Tennesee
+904 Arizona
+829 Idaho
+750 Iowa +528 Rhode Island
+386 Wyoming
+373 Kansas
+343 Vermont
+320 Nebraska
+256 Pennsylvania
+230 Utah
+148 North Carolina
+47 Florida
-29 Georgia
-189 Texas
-344 Ohio
-399 Indiana
-483 Oregon -533 Washington
-620 Colorado
-685 California -887 Wisconsin -890 New York -895 Massachusetts -1000 Illinois -1025 Delaware -1042 Michigan -1294 Minnesota
-1583 Nevada
-1787 New Hampshire
-2342 New Jersey -2840 Conneticutt
Given that the preponderance of states that voted for Gore are on the short end of taxes returned in terms of federal spending one might argue for any number of conclusions based on one's political persuasion.
For example, if it suits me I could say that this was evidence that people were willing to pay taxes even though they weren't receiving a fair return. In direct conflict with the oft quoted Republican and conservative cant about the Federal government soaking the people. It certainly doesn't look like the people getting soaked voted against Gore and the incumbent adminmistration's policies.
Or, I might argue that the Democrats tried to buy the votes of the heartland by diverting spending from the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast to the West, Southwest and Southeast. And that this craven ploy was recognized by the good folks of those areas and rejected when it came voting time.
There is a very good little book available (since the early 1950s as amatter of fact) titled "How To Lie With Statistics". I recommend it to everyone who would look at a chart or a graph or numbers with a skeptical eye.
posted on March 12, 2001 09:19:12 AM new
I find the silence since my last post on this thread rather interesting.
I take it that everyone is thinking of ways to accommodate my last post to their own notions about returns of federal tax dollars and the voting in the last Presidential election.
My own take is that there really is very little correlation. People tend to vote on perception. Not on a careful and detailed analysis of policy, principles or economics.
posted on March 12, 2001 09:50:55 AM new
Not bored, Zazzie. I was just trying to figure out who we all are out in some place called Bush Country. The state of California's majority voted for Gore. San Diego County also was in that majority, albeit with a slim majority. So I'm still trying to figure out where "Bush Country" is. Certainly wasn't California.
posted on March 12, 2001 10:55:36 AM new
oh, njrazad, you meant north San Diego County when you specified Bush Country. Well, you might as well just said your neighborhood. Yes, North County has historically voted Republican due to its rural character. But as you stated, this is changing very rapidly, and no doubt by next election, we will see voting habits in line with the rest of San Diego County, especially with the increasing minority ethnic population growth there. By then, you will have to move to Orange County, if you plan on living in "Bush Country".
posted on March 12, 2001 11:20:55 AM newno doubt by next election, we will see voting habits in line with the rest of San Diego County
KatyD...we have always had large minority populations in the cities in North County, Escondido & Oceanside in particular. I would not assume minorities are voting Democratic anymore. San Bernardino and Riverside counties are a good example of that as well. Add that to the the large numbers of retired military and it extends well beyond my neighborhood.
posted on March 12, 2001 11:51:43 AM new
njrazad, oh c'mon. I did not fall off the turnip truck in Valley Center yesterday, you know. The "large minority populations in North County, Escondido and Oceanside in particular" are largely made up of non-voting migrant workers and illegal immigrants. While these individuals certainly fall into your "minority populations" they do not vote. North County, San Bernadino and Riverside Counties have been historically "white enclaves", and up until recently largely rural. With the recent push to development of these "back country" enclaves, and the census data showing hispanics will soon make up (by 2015, I think) the largest ethnic group in California, we will continue to see the state go "Democratic". And California hispanics traditionally vote Democrat. Why else did "dumbya" go out of his way this last election to court the hispanic vote? Perhaps the Republican Party are making a little progress in their efforts, but they'll certainly have to do better than they have, and Jeb trotting out his wife's ethnic heritage met with scorn with every hispanic friend I talked to about it. They'll have to do alot better than that or accept the fact that California is lost to them forever.
posted on March 12, 2001 01:26:20 PM new
KatyD...while there are many immigrant workers here, there is a tremendous amount of families that are first and second generation citizens and they are quickly moving out of the fields and into the suburbs. They are the fastest growing segment of the college population. They are hard-working, diligent, intelligent and Christian conservatives. And I would never presume they would vote any one particular party.
Why else did "dumbya" go out of his way this last election to court the hispanic vote?
Oh, I don't know...maybe the same way Clinton became the first Black President to go after the African American vote?
posted on March 12, 2001 02:33:39 PM newThey are hard-working, diligent, intelligent and Christian conservatives. And I would never presume they would vote any one particular party. Yet you "presume" they are "Christian conservatives" which demographic statistics disprove. Hispanics as a "group" historically vote Democratic in this state. Republican sponsored ballot initiatives that support "english only" curriculum, the infamous Prop 187, anti- affirmative action measures, and increased border security have hardly served to endear the hispanic vote to the Republican Party. To suggest otherwise is not living in reality. Nationwide, Gore received 61% of the hispanic vote. In California, hispanic voters chose Gore by more than 2/1. The state assembly added 20 hispanic members, and you can be sure that with the coming redistricting, there will be even more, adding the burgeoning hispanic political clout in this state. And that clout is Democratic. Anyway you slice it, dice it, or mash it, the numbers come up the same. Hispanics in this state vote Democratic.
maybe the same way Clinton became the first Black President to go after the African American vote?HUH??
Really? Then why the initial observation that some of the biggest increases went to Gore states.
Your logic (or lack of logic) is rather transparent. You make an observation that is intended to imply that Gore bought some of the States and then when those figures are presented a bit differently you can't back pedal quickly enough.
Just what do you believe and what are the facts and figures that you call on to support your conclusions?
posted on March 13, 2001 09:11:36 AM new
KatyD...as the Hispanic population becomes more affluent and moves out of the urban area and into the suburbs, there is always a trend towards conservatism. I don't "assume" they are Christian conservatives. I see for myself that they are very religious and view the church as a central part of their lives. Our Hispanic neighbors were the first ones with a Bush sign in the front of their homes this past election and they will become the growing trend. It's more of a rural vs urban line drawn now than a white vs minority.
codasaurur...here is my first comment regarding the map...
mrpotatoheadd...without a breakdown in that federal spending, it's hard to tell how much went for welfare compared to how much had to be spent for let's say farm aid, or natural disasters (which really knows no political favoritism), or anything else for that matter.
My follow up comment regarding the Gore states getting increases was to argue mrpotatoheadd's point that these maps had any relevance to each other. If his point was that Bush was taking care of the states that voted for him, then why the discrepancy? My additional comments that we didn't even know for sure when these figures were put into place again shows that the comparison was invalid. My opinion that these figures are irrelevant to the election has not changed. One can make comments on a point on either side.
excuse me........i'm just placing this on the table........don't want to disturb the great discussion even though I can't read all posts due to the good ole ignore button LOL!!! wink-wink
posted on March 13, 2001 10:05:38 AM newas the Hispanic population becomes more affluent and moves out of the urban area and into the suburbs, there is always a trend towards conservatism.Where are you getting information to support this "theory"? One hispanic neighbor with a Bush yard sign, does not make a "growing trend" however much you may fervently wish it to be. Demographic and ethnographic statistics refute your argument.
Registered Democrats in California outnumber Republicans by more than 1.5 million. Hispanics constitute the fastest growing portion of our electorate, and they register and vote Democrat. Your statement, It's more of a rural vs urban line drawn now than a white vs minority makes no sense in the fact that hispanics in this state are no longer a "minority" but constitute half the state's ethnic population. With these numbers comes huge political clout and the ability to deliver mucho electoral votes in coming elections. Until/IF the Republican Party jettisons it's "exclusionist" rhetoric, THIS state will continue to vote Democratic, negating any proclamations of "Bush Country" despite the yard signs you might view from your living room window in your own little neighborhood. And that's the "big" picture.
