Very Interesting Statistics
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law St. Paul, Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19
Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2
Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won by Republicans was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.
Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
January 8, 2009 at 7:10 pm | Trackback
41 comments
democrats won 28 states + washington dc + nebraskas 2nd congressional district
in addition, the statistics you provided are overwhelmingly skewed. for example, the statistic “analysis” provided by this professor asserts erroneously that Republicans won the “land owned by taxpaying citizens.”
that is hilariously inaccurate in several accounts. first, everyone pays taxes, directly or indirectly, through sales, income, and property taxes and other fees. the second inaccuracy is the implication that the republicans pay all the taxes. if you actually look at the breakdown of the votes on election day, you will see Obama decisively winning 5 out of 8 income brackets (including the highest one) and narrowly losing 3 of them. more over, of the states won by democrats, the majority of them actually LOSE tax revenue to red states. states with metropolitan or suburban areas actually generate the MOST economic activity in the country and higher level of taxes (due to higher incomes), only to lose these dollars propping up poorer and sparsely populated states such as oklahoma and mississippi.
i would get your facts straight before posting misinformation…
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.....olls.main/
http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm
When I look at the map I can identify the locations of cities and indian reservations.
Can you count can you read? This map is a county by county breakdown of the vote.
The posit is the area won by the Republicans comprises land OWNED by the taxpaying citizens. Just whom do you think owns the land, the government?
As to losing revenue to red states that is a laugh.
Kindly explain why the great metro areas, the fine liberal hubs of America are going bankrupt, to wit: CA, NY MI and soon VT, NJ, RI, MA and CT. Have a few more you’d like to add? Every one an Obama jockstrap. All did just what Obama is proposing to do once in office; put everything on the credit card.
Although you like to point to the red states as receiving all the money, VT and ME would be third world countries without the governmental pork. Tell me how conservative they are. The clueless blues are crying a lot now. The old grasshopper and ant story getting a reprise; I loved it as a kid, really enjoy it now.
FYI, the GDP of Mississippi is over $36,000/capita/annum which is higher than Germany, a vaunted socialist economy. They finally realized, under Merkel, that country’s economy is moribund and are turning a hard right to capitalism.
Isn’t that quaint!
Vermont,
I thought the GDP per capita of Germany is around $40,400 (according to the IMF and CIA Factbook ).
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita)
In any case, I suspect that many statistics could be used in relation to your comparison of Germany with Mississippi without ‘proving’ much one way or another.
I wouldn’t exactly say Germany is turning a hard right towards capitalism, especially given the current climate, but I would agree that the Germans as a whole seem determined to reduce social spending and make their welfare systems more affordable e.g. the increase in the retirement age etc.
There is also a drive to relax labour laws. However, this is proving difficult as Germans place a very high value on education and qualifications and thus see it as manifestly unfair to bring in an ‘anglo-saxon hire ‘n’ fire culture’ when so many firms demand such qualifications. The feeling is that if some-one, invests the high level of effort required to get a professional or trade qualification, then in essence it is good for society if those people can not just be sacked ‘on a whim’ or without a long process being followed.
I don’t mean to sound argumentative, but given that GDP can be defined as GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + (exports – imports), is there any accurate measure of what proportion of Mississippi’s GDP is extra federal funds directly related to Hurricane Katrina?
Just a thought, but might this infusion of central government funds skew the figures?
Of course figures of any sort can be used to ‘prove’ or ‘dis-prove’ any position!!!!!
Bailout 2008, a poem by David Jeffrey
Like a bloodied warrior,
laying broken and torn.
Like a dying soldier, hopeless and forlorn.
But the blood, it be green,
the color of money.
And the soldier is an economy,
and it is anything but funny.
Broken are it’s people and shattered are their dreams.
Thanks to the ultra rich and their full proof schemes.
It is a tragedy with more pain to come.
Finance will be Hell, and their wills will be done.
The latest figures I have for the German GDP are here: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=mr&v=67.
I was high on the German numbers; I quoted Sweden. Germany ranks with West Virginia and Mississippi, at the bottom of the US. Luxembourg comes out on top, but that place really is a bank big enough to have an airport.
Katrina dollars were squandered and stolen by the state governments. Very little found a path into the pockets of the people in those states. An ice manufacturing plant in Maine did well as did a batch of MRE producers. The place is still a disaster area where the government had a hand; where the faith based organizations worked, people were taken care of in a timely manner with no graft.
Say what you wish about how the Germans view things, Nokia last year packed up its last remaining mobile phone assembly facility in “old” Europe and moved it to Romania. People in Eastern Europe want to work, not sit in the Gasthaus and discuss life’s pleasantries.
The newest entries into the booming economy are the former eastern Soviet satellite countries. Estonia especially is vibrant, low taxed and totally non-socialist. GDP of $21,800, not long ago it was an outhouse.
When Obama gets finished trashing our banking system, we’ll rank even with Zimbabwe or maybe the Gaza Strip.
Nice job posting a ‘hoax’ email as fact:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfa.....lsons.html
The statistics are greatly incorrect and Professor Olson says he didn’t write it. And has been saying so since the original hoax came about after the 2000 election.
VW,
No matter, I like the sentiment shown in the map and article. It is simply a presaging of things to come. The “blues” (aka trough wallowers) under the Big “O” will suck everything from the “reds” (aka hard working americans). Soon, the reds will have nothing left, but by then they will be denied access to any “programs deemed to help the poor” since at one time they didn’t need help, and therefore do not now qualify.
If socialism worked, Russia would have kicked our ass during the cold war.
I ignore him, fact check has been quite wrong before and fred is so left he’s never right.
Snopes acknowledging the original hoax in 2000?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp
Urbanlegend.com saying the same a month ago?
http://urbanlegends.about.com/....._stats.htm
Rush Limbaugh acknowledging it a month ago as well?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho.....guest.html
Professor Olson’s own web page mentioning it as a hoax and referencing the Snopes article?
http://law.hamline.edu/node/784
The fact that the ability to count to 28 should even be in VW’s capacity should he have bothered to do even a modicum of fact checking?
It suits me to abuse you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....er_capita_(nominal)#2006_Rankings_.28Latest_Available.29
GDP of mississippi=24k
GDP of germany=40k
also, did u even read what i wrote? blue states account for the vast majority of economic activity in the united states.
for example, 8 of the top 10 wealthiest states are blue states, and the largest one, california, is the worlds 5th-7th largest economy, depending on what statistic you use.
second of all, i will repeat it again, red states enjoy, overwhelmingly, a net return in federal taxes dollars.
to make it simple…mississippi receives $2.02 in federal tax for every $1 it pays. on the other hand, california only gets 80 cents for every tax dollar it pays. you know why? because the federal government has to support the perpetual development of these red state backwaters with massive subsidies.
indeed, 8 of the top 10 states which receive the biggest return on its federal tax dollars are red states…. now who is the one sucking money from the “hard-working americans”?
http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm
at any rate, regardless of all these economic arguments, can you please explain to me why mississippi is so superior to germany?
not only is it poorer (actually cite your sources please-real ones), its rankings in the standard of living are lower in every respect. germans have longer life expectancies, better overall health, higher levels of education, higher literacy rates, and the list goes on…
and FYI, democrats are capitalists. you seem to exhibit a visceral tendency to automatically stuff democrats into the socialist mold.
If Democrats were actually forced (while kicking and screaming) to enact what conservatives have been loyally and chronically advocating forever they had better hope that the capitalist Big Box stores will be around and will show mercy on them…..
AUGUSTA — State workers would feel the impact of Gov. John Baldacci’s $6.1 billion two-year budget in three ways: More workers would be laid off, others would be given incentive money to retire, and still others would be required to pay a portion of their health insurance.
Under the proposal, employees with salaries of $50,000 to $89,999 will be required to contribute 5 percent of the cost of their coverage, and those earning $90,000 or more will have to contribute 10 percent of the cost of their coverage.
The state expects to save about $1 million a year.
http://morningsentinel.maineto.....02130.html
Interesting question. With all that Federal largesse, MS should be a paradise, and CA a dystopia .
Which social problems are intractable?
Furthermore, the “quality of life” in Germany, against the same in MS, is better in ways we customarily rate as essential to good living. There’s always more to the subject than the usual metrics. I don’t think I can argue them; I just don’t think the subject is so easily closed as to equate public spending and average income with the general welfare. Education spending is a good example of diminishing returns.
…also, Snopes doesn’t dispute the red/blue county distribution on the map. Something is happening to America, which is probably more meaningful than the accuracy of any of the other data here.
Figure it out.
“Education spending is a good example of diminishing returns.” kn u cnt is proving your statement, Hotspur. Perhaps, someone will show him how to use the shift key.
I posted this link above for Andy; it is also available for your use. Here is a special invite just for you. GDP listings for the various countries in descending rankings as of 2008. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=mr&v=67. Oh yes, it’s one of your beloved government sources.
My latest numbers for MS was pre-Katrina, not after the government trashed the economy by “helping” with aid.
“…8 of the top 10 wealthiest states are blue states, and the largest one, california, is the worlds 5th-7th largest economy…” It has squandered it’s wealth and is bankrupt. The saner residents have been fleeing for years though truly to other states’ detriment. NY is another example of folly at it’s finest. NYC (Democrats) controls everything, the upstate is Dogpatch. Typical liberal caring, they outnumber the upstaters, so screw’em.
Vermont and Maine are Third World countries without getting DC pork. Soon New Hampshire joins them. They suck up the tax dollars just like RI, WA and OR do.
I don’t want to leave out that Liberal Paradise, Michigan. Socialism had years to correct every ill known to man, form the perfect workers society. Truly a Democrat bastion of power, Unionism and a tribute to the “Society of the Red Shovel.”
The auto manufacturers dream state, solidarity with the masses.
Didn’t this work out swell!
I don’t think CA or NY should be sending money to the Feds, nor VT, MS, LA or any other state get money. The obverse of this coin is CA and NY go toes up for their spending habits. Lots of pain, spread it around, they enjoyed the party, the hangover is the wages for amoral behavior. No aspirin for you.
I suspect much of the red state largess is farm subsidies. Businesses either make it on their own or fail. Subsidies increase costs to the public, period. Sugar and ethanol are just two examples. We can both from S. A. for 1/5 of what we are forced to pay due to acts of Congress.
Your second comment contains normative statements, except for the last, which is positive. So, name me Democrats who are true capitalists.
I don’t want to hear about some social reformer, Nanny stater, do-gooder. That requires using someone else’s money. Capitalists will tell you to use your own. Rush Limbaugh is a Nanny Stater, Social reformer. He wants the state to control behavior so don’t use that argument either.
Definition: A fiscal conservative eschews social policy formulated by the government. Leaves that to the faith based organizations of recognized creeds. Will demand limited government with some necessary regulation to avoid our current state of governance. See also: Libertarian
Vermont,
I’ve got to be honest, I’ve never really bothered to look into this before but the range of ’statistics’ clearly shows how easy it is to argue one way or the other with the ‘backing of figures’.
As a point of interest, how large do you think California’s economy would be if actually had to trade as a separate entity with all the issues that involves? It just seems odd to me to say California is the forth, fifth or six largest economy in the world (depending on measurement type) when it is part of such a huge country.
Do you think it would be stable enough to survive as an independent ‘going concern’?
If you look just at the GDP numbers you would say yes. When you look at what they need to import verus their exports, no.
Their main export is AG and that requires water from other states plus the illegals which cost the state more in schools, crime, health care and welfare than they produce.
All this “green” crap has them locked into drawing power from other states. Solar and wind sounds dreamy; that is exactly what it is, a dream. No nuke power, no coal, and God forbid a dam on a river for hydro. Solar and wind cannot provide a base load.
Take out Silicon Valley and what do they manufacture? Movies? Union rules have them making those in Canada and overseas to avoid the labor costs. Fine “for the working man” liberals they are, no?
They’re bankrupt as a state; somebody show me how they survive as a separate country. I want solid economic figures, not Marxist wishes or what if we didn’t send the money to DC. That’s all trash. They spend more than they take in and they cannot tax more or the rich liberals will leave. Nice of them, isn’t it.
Actually, CA is proposing an Exit Tax just to prevent that from happening. Why is it that only the Blue States have to do this? MA talks about this; Vermont may do it to the trustafarians to keep them from bolting. Sooooo peculiar.
So what do they have to export? Earthquakes, big fires, mud slides, drugs, the occasional race riot, wild floods, a variety of pervs, large gang wars and Hollyweird. See anything you like to buy? They haven’t had a 60′ tsunami yet, but there is still time.
Heard recently: Schwarznegger came as a penniless immigrant to a land of plenty; now he’s an immigrant of plenty in a penniless land.
Nice twist!
Woodchuck, your arguments are slanted and qualified.
In your baseless attacks on California, you have to “take out” Silicon Valley and reason that it “takes water from other states” to try and trash our reputation. Using the same logic, “taking out” the agricultural sector of any number of rural red states and they would have nothing, especially since they receive so much money from federal subsidies.
Also, I don’t know where you’re getting your statistics from, but electronic goods (i.e. computers) are California’s biggest exports, not agricultural goods, which is only the 10th largest sector in California, in terms of both jobs and economic output.
And not to debase any more of your arguments, but California generates 20% of its power from hydroelectric sources, despite your assertion that “God forbid a dam on a river for hydro.” Natural gas accounts for roughly 50% of generation, nuclear plants account for another 20%, and other alternative forms of energy account for the last 10%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#Energy
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/st.....r_cap.html
And as the source above indicates, California uses the 3rd least amount of energy per capita, despite high levels of car ownership and energy intensive industries such as agriculture and electronics manufacturing.
And to once again rebut an oft repeated argument of years, California is partially bankrupt because we lose so much of our taxes (much like other wealthy liberal states) to subsidize development in rural red states.
http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm
As the source above shows, for every dollar California pays in federal taxes, we receive only 80 cents back. Keep in mind that we have the largest population (36,000,000). If California achieved parity between federal taxes and federal spending, we would recoup $60 billion, more than enough to balance our state budget deficit.
And your demands for “solid economic figures, not Marxist wishes or what if we didn’t send the money to DC” are pure hypocrisy. I’ve actually provided analysis and statistics, while you just spout off ideological and routinely and arbitrarily disregard my arguments purely based on whether they fit your politics or not.
If we followed your own tenets and abolished unfair federal spending, California and other wealthy blue states wouldn’t have to keep subsidizing dirt poor red states and we wouldn’t have budget deficits.
And why do you keep citing Vermont and Maine? Maine, at least, ranks above 8 red states, even though comparatively it receives much less federal spending ($1.40 for everyone $1 paid in federal taxes) vs Mississippi ($2.04 and the poorest state), West Virginia ($1.75 and the second poorest state) and so on. Vermont is 30th ($1.09) and is wealthier than 17 red states. In fact, if you look at the GDP per capita of each state, you will see that there is only 1 red state in the top 10, and 6 in the top 30.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....er_capita_(nominal)
The reason why I keep using federal spending vs federal tax ratios is to show the relative economic merits of each state. California is not rich because we siphon off resources from other states; we pay for the resources we import from other states and countries (free trade anyone?) and we also support the development of other states. If you are so keen on bashing liberal states, just keep in mind the condition red states would be in without our tax dollars.
If you think all that is true, secede, keep all your tax dollars, we’ll keep all the water going to the valley and LA, the power you import and you should be way ahead of the Red states. Just remember to coin your own money, provide for your own defense and assume all the duties and responsibilities of an independent nation. Start with a military draft, you’ll need one for your war with Mexico.
Of course everything that belongs to the U.S. departs your territory, so you get a chance to do it your way. Should be fun.
There is a group that wants to secede and form Free Vermont. What they’re going to produce I don’t know, probably maple syrup and vacation homes. I’m encouraging them.
CA is broke because they are spending taxpayers money on free social programs. such as health care for illegals which drives up the insurance costs (hospitals recoup that somewhere) for businesses and individuals.
Clinics have closed due to lack of funds from non payments.
Your schools are overburdened with people that should not be in this country, raising up the tax burden. Cut your school budget. Oh no can’t do that.
Underfunded pensions, overblown public sector contracts with age 55 retirements are killing small cities and towns plus counties. THAT’s liberal largess, something free for everybody. Cut those budgets. Oops, can’t do that.
OK, you have what you wanted, now live with it.
Bailing your state out is akin to giving a 3-year-old a loaded handgun. In fact, the 3-year-old is a safer bet. Your government will just squander the money again.
Saving the banks and other states is rewarding abject malfeasance. They should be arresting them and the miscreants in Congress that allowed this debacle, yes, on both sides of the aisle.
I still see zero statistics or any proof of what you’re saying. Everything, thus far, is pure speculation and rumination.
And once again you fail to understand my argument. All the money California sends to the federal government is obviously spent on programs such as defense spending, social entitlements, subsidies, etc. However, the federal government spends a disproportionate amount of tax dollars in other rural red states instead of California. Instead of building military bases, funding research projects, employing civil servants, and subsidizing projects in California equivalent to the amount of taxes we pay, we lose 20% of our tax dollars. Other rural states such as Mississippi gets 2x as much federal spending, despite “paying” for only 50% of that spending.
Like I provided above, if we actually got $1 back for every $1 we pay, California would recoup $60 billion, more than enough to balance our budget.
My argument is not for succession but to rebut your original argument that blue states siphon off tax dollars from red states, which is just WRONG.
The main reason why California suffers from a budget deficit is mainly because of the recession. When people lose their jobs or earn less money, there is less of a tax base from which to collect. In addition, the state has to spend more money on unemployment benefits (which California carries a disproportionately heavy burden for, compared on a per capita basis to other states, since it is usually funded by the federal government).
The deficit is, very simply, caused by the recession. Our state’s spending was projected for economically better times. Now that those days are gone, we, of course, will have to pare our budget to match the times.
If you want to use Republican talking points, that’s fine by me, but please provide warrants for them (unless there are none…lol).
Outside of defense, coining money, regulating interstate commerce and delivering the mail I don’t want anything from the Feds.
No social engineering, no help with Katrinas (what a farce that was) and certainly stay out of the schools and churches. No where in the Constitution do they have that authority. The states can do that what they wish, provided the Bill of Rights is not violated.
Screw welfare, work or starve. For those that cannot there are charities that will provide, such as the Salvation Army, the Lutheran Church, Catholic Charities, B’nai B’rith and more. I donate to several. I won’t give the United Way or the Red Cross a cent. Let those PC over paid bungholes get real jobs.
Conservatives donate to charities, liberals don’t, they rather use other people’s money.
Yes the country is in a recession. So do what everybody else better do, cut back and quit crying or go tits up. You cannot spend what you don’t have.
If you don’t want to send the money to Washington, elect people that will change that equation. Since you have all those liberals running things, you can’t consider your money yours.
I have absolutely no sympathy for your plight unless and until I see the liberal idiots tossed out of office.
Your choice.
Well Mr. Mann beat me to that point but I agree with him.
Adios Cah-lee-fawn-eeee-yaaahhh….
(If they only had those Fed taxes back, the state would be flush instead of flushed)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....lifornia_3
More on the Tinsel State. How did libs eff up the state? Let me COUNT the ways.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6616.html
well.. it looks cool!
Weds. morning links…
In the new surveillance societies, why can’t we watch back at the watchers? Glenn Reynolds
State pension losses approach a trillion
Science is rational: scientists are not. Gene Expression
For a mere $495, the spiritual vibes of your water can be…
Ah, the undeflectable defense of obvious stupidity, you can count on the ‘Chuckie for that.
VW gave you a subject to unclog your blog drains, LL. So much bulk and so little energy.
It’s called Lovable Motility.
Two posts, same day, same subject! I piss off the libs and get traffic and LL gets bupkis. So, LL go back in the corner and sulk.
She needed to increase her traffic, so she posted a link here.
The way I see it is, every great cathedral has a couple of gargoyles…that’s what fredct and LL are for. But no one mistakes the gargoyle for the church.
Actually on her post she did nothing but attack me.
And to once again rebut an oft repeated argument of years, “California is partially bankrupt because we lose so much of our taxes (much like other wealthy liberal states) to subsidize development in rural red states. ”
The problem with this discussion is that everyone is trying to look at it state by state, and attributes the economic benefits and liabilities of each state to a collective “liberal” or “conservative” mind set.
There is no good way to divvy up the economic output of California between liberal and conservative, as best I know. But I have my suspicions, of course.
But that federal money is being siphoned off to rural states (red or blue) for “development” strikes me as just wrong. What development? I don’t see any big rural infrastructure projects. Urban ones, maybe … like the Boston Big Dig.
I’d be curious to see the list of these “rural development’ works, because I’d bet that most of them are highway money, designed to make it easier for city folks to drive from one city to the next with minimum inconvenience. Or to install telecommunications (cell phone towers) so as they drive, they don’t hit those “dead zones”. Rural development is like foreign aid … “we’ll give you this money, but you have to spend it with us on the things we want to sell you.” Then the pols and urban dwellers can pat themselves on the back and pretend they gave something of value to the boonies. When it was really just self-serving.
Or its federal money that has been used as the carrot in a scheme to force states to enforce federal standards and regulations that would otherwise violate Federalism principles (i.e. the feds couldn’t legally require the states to do X, so they bribe them to do X). Probably in areas like education, transportation, and police powers.
But rural development?
The last real rural development was probably the TVA and rural electrification … nearly 70 years ago. And that has paid back the urban taxpayers many times over, since a huge part of the country gets their power from TVA coal or hydro plants, and the TVA supplied the power to run the US nuclear program inits early years (Oak Ridge uranium enrichment, Savannah River).
You have to get umpteen permits from various gov’t agencies to turn a shovelfull of dirt these days. This is encouraging development? That’s why this talk of “shovel ready” infrastructure projects from the Obama bailout folks is such horseshit. It takes years just to get the permits.
So how do you characterize all this TARP and post-TARP bailout money? Seems like that is the equivalent of urban redevelopment projects. Welfare for the urban service sector, that got stuck holding bad paper after they’d suckered all the low income folks to dump their life savings into unsustainable mortgages, followed shortly by all the real estate speculators.
Bottom line, the standard of living in this country, and even state by state, isn’t easily studied because the figures are misleading and the categorizations flawed. Nor are how the wealth is created. Californians, for example, aren’t responsible for the significant natural resource wealth of that state. Nor Vermonters for the sparseness of theirs. Nor are Californians collectively creditable with the economic engines like Chevron, Northrup-Grumman, Getty Oil, Disney …or other big corporate taxpayers in the Silicon Valley.
It’s good to be able to count, but the numbers have to really mean something to draw good conclusions.
Can we focus this conversational energy salve? There is an old understanding that prioritized order of social responsibility is self first, followed by family, neighbors, community and then finally State and Federal governments. Problem solving is as effective as an individual’s ambition can capably earn at any level but it’s clear to see moving lips that flap without the integrity of that which precedes self. Genuine, individual Americans, motivated and ready will appear when and wherever the need throbs, be they concerned with state issues or federal issues.
On a local level Maine has its very own set of issues relative to Maine as do all other states theirs. Jobs are good. Increased numbers of jobs reduce unemployment. Mainers want jobs as soon as right now and are “Fed Up” not only with taxes but also committee after committee after committee, decade after decade after decade after decade.
“Over the past four decades the island had been targeted, at one point or another, as an ideal site for a nuclear power plant, coal-fired power plant, oil refinery, aluminum smelter, liquid natural gas facility and cargo port. All met with strong opposition from environmentalists. Although a number of environmental groups have signed on to the joint use plan, there are others that remain adamant that the island be protected from all development. “
http://bangornews.com/detail/97133.html
Too many of us are jobless and cold. We are scolded and cornered. We fear for our kids’ futures and once again, know the tyranny of abused power the likes of which led Patriots to defend their (and our) Liberty. Once again their gilded lips move and once again we will live their lies while they abscond with our property for political purpose…
http://www.stateline.org/live/.....tId=368540
Say and do nothing and we guaranty losing our blessed bequeathment. If we wait for government we will wait decades more barring a worse fate. Find every true-hearted neighbor who understands “American” and then demand what you (We) want…the gift as left to us.
Ruralcounsel intentionally or inadvertently notes the homongenization of culture (in favor of unbanism) by the colossus of our federal government. The wealth redistribution is one thing; its invisibility and camoflage behind the trope of “rural development” is just another persistent government lie.
I don’t know if the Farmers Home Administration still exists (don’t care to research it), but 30 years ago it used to underwrite easy mortgages for housing in towns with fewer than 10,000 population, even here in CT, when those small incorporated towns were within 20 minutes of a huge urban city. It had no “way of life” rural goal, and everyone knew it, but plenty of the hippie class knew how to use it.
Helen points out that government, while almost always corrupt in large and small ways, almost always incompetent and wasteful and stupid, might be less dangerous than proximity to Massachusetts. Good roads and disposable income have built another Ho Chi Minh Trail from MA to less prosperous neighboring states.