First, let me express my delight. I wanted the perpetual freeloaders of the red states to read my scolding words as the price for taking California's aid money. Thanks to various right-wing sites, those words have indeed found the readers I had hoped to target. Like it or not, Bush voters have received an education as to which states are leeches and which states give more than they receive from the federal government.
As a result of that publicity, I received an open letter from one Eric Gilpatrick. Ansering him will serve as an answer to the hick legions. First, let's hear from Eric. I apologize for the fact that he seems to like unwieldy paragraphs, but his spew does serve to exemplify how the Bush-lovers hope to spin the current disaster:
This puke calls red states "hillbillies" yet the largest growing cities in the country are in red states being flooded with blue state liberals that convert to republican after they realize our way of life is not only profitable but lower in crime, poverty, and homelessness. The only people crying for help are those who jumped on the liberal bandwagon during Clintons era and soaked up every liberal free dollar donated by clinton to feed the laziness of the poor. Those people in New Orleans that are suffering so much were not Bush Supporters. They voted Kerry with hopes of rejuvinating programs for the poor. What a fucking idiot you are. Those who elected bush in the south are those who are tired of feeding the lazy with free taxpayers dollars. The overcrowded, high taxed, high crime blue states are doing nothing more then bitching about their politics. Christ.... quit electing politicians that dissolve the military, close bases, and throw money in programs like welfare, disability, and homeless shelters and watch this country grow its balls back. Bush did not take money from the south, he increased spending down there. After six years of GOP control, the average Republican district in 2000 was getting $612 million more in federal money than the average Democratic district. In 1995, the last year Democrats controlled the budget process in the House, the average Democratic district got $35 million more. No body in this country wants to waive a flag of war in Iraq. Everybody wants it to be over with. But unless we as adults want to walk away once again from what we started like we did in Vietnam (liberals always forget they voted in a war mongrel named Johnson), and teach our children that a comitment does nor constitute integrity. We have to finish the job. Global warming comes from burning of fossil fuels and high amounts of gasses and pollution exposed in the environment for more then 80 years. The 2nd largest national disaster came back at the turn of the century in Texas, did Bush do that to. Hurricanes are a natural phenomenon that has been plaguing the east coast and southern states for hundreds of years. Fact is the human race is to blame for increasing temperatures. Can you name one president that has made a single effort in improving the levies in the last 30 years. Blame goes to both parties as we have known the inevitable for many years. Dont forget that Clinton had the same statistics on his desk. Do you actually think Gore or Kerry would have fixed global warming or repaired the levies in New Orleans in a 6 year tenure. Christ, get over your moronic bullshit and move to Canada.My response to this tripe:
After years of hearing Democrats called "DemonRats" and worse, after years of hearing red staters excoriate Californians and New Yorkers in the worst possible terms, I have a right to refer to southerners as hillbillies. If someone's going to fling offal at my face, I'll fling it back. I'll stop returning fire when I stop receiving fire.
It's always cute to be called a "puke" by someone who thinks my wording is too harsh. Typical southern attitude: "I am allowed; you are not."
(A side note: I was also amused to receive a fairly serious death threat from a southerner who no doubt considers himself bathed in the blood of the lamb. Not that I'm very worried: I've been threatened by experts.)
I'm amazed by the self-delusion of my correspondent. Compared to most blue states, most red states have less prosperity, greater poverty and more crime. And I've certainly noticed no lack of folks from other parts of the country coming to California.
Clinton did not toss free money at the poor. I wish he had done so -- I believe in well-funded jobs programs -- but he did not. Like it or not, he ended the old welfare program and balanced the budget.
Red state voters have no right to lecture any blue stater about economics. Red Staters (with the honorable exceptions of the citizens of Nevada and Colorado) consistently vote for congressfolk who believe in only one thing: Pork, pork, pork.
Californians pay for that pork.
We pay more money to the federal treasury than we receive. The situation is precisely the opposite in southern states. Until that hard fact of life chages, I'll dismiss all snarky comments from the hypocritical leech belt.
My correspondent continues: "Bush did not take money from the south, he increased spending down there." Well, that's my point, isn't it? Odd, though, that he did not spend the cashe where it was needed: On the levees protecting largely-black New Orleans. I think he made an equation similar to the one Nixon famously made about Jews: "They didn't vote for us, so screw 'em."
Turning to historical matters: Liberals never forgot Johnson. Democrats turned against him, making it impossible for him to run again. That corrupt Texas oaf remains the least-favorite Democratic president of nearly every liberal. This history proves that Democrats are not robots. Unlike Republicans, Democrats will not support a failed presidency to the bitter end.
By the way: It's not as though Nixon quickly pulled us out of Vietnam, as RFK probably would have.
My correspondent continues: "Global warming comes from burning of fossil fuels and high amounts of gasses and pollution exposed in the environment for more then 80 years."
Sheesh! If you concede that global warming exists, then why did you vote for a dimwit who expressed strong and loud doubts in 2000?
I doubt if Kerry (or anyone else) could have "fixed" global warming in so short a period -- but yes, I do feel that Gore would not have wasted precious time by pretending that the problem did not even exist.
I can indeed name a president who acted to improve the levees in New Orleans: Bill Clinton. The federal government's dismissive attitude toward the Army Corps of Engineers' requests came AFTER 2001, not before.
Clinton turned FEMA into a fine agency. Bush destroyed that accomplishment by underfunding FEMA, and by appointing a political crony with no disaster experience -- a hack who had failed his previous job in the Arabian horse trade.
Shall I, as my correspondent suggests, move to Canada? I'd rather have MY America back. The one I was born into. This nation was at its most prosperous during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years, when the New Deal consensus reigned and the south did not have such an unfair level of control. Here's a counter-offer: How about re-inventing the Confederacy, so the hillbillies can congregate in the feudal, theocratic hell they seem to prefer?
11 comments:
Joseph, I think this is where your new strategy is going to falter. Re-read whatshisface's letter and decide if he's somebody who wants to be convinced--if he's somebody who wants to make informed decisions--or if he's one of the millions of Americans suffering through our battered-wife-syndrome epidemic who will continue insisting that Bush is the epitome of leadership and morality. The left's great "failing" in recent years has been a willingness to converse on equal terms, whereas the other side's terms have been simply that they're right, and everybody else is wrong--period. Unfortunately, if you begin to mirror that aspect of their abuse, I think you'll wind up at the same point on the wheel as them; you'll just spin it the opposite direction to get there. Therefore, you're left with a true dilemma--you can either attempt to reason with the unreasonable or attempt to emulate the unreasonable. Perhaps you should think about who it is you need to convince if you want to evince any kind of political change. Here's a tip: if right-wing nutjobs could be reasoned with, they wouldn't right-wing nutjobs.
Bah, forgot to add the " - Jon C." at the end. Sure would be nice if Blogger would let me make an account. Sigh.
- Jon C.
I'm a Wisconsinite who lived in the deep south for 6 years, so I recognize the hatred that oozes from your commentator's redneck hillbilly, anti-Christian ( in the true sense of Christianity ) black hole where his heart should be.
Here is a question that I have had for years: what is it with the spelling and the grammar that these sons of Jefferson Davis so proudly display over the internets through their fiery, anti-abolitionist creeds? Maybe they should take some of their KKK dues and try funding a decent educational system. One that pays teachers more than, say, 20,000 a year.
The Confederacy has never died - many honest southerners will acknowledge this with great pride.
But if they are going to publicly "boast", they really have to brush up on the spelling and the grammar.
Lincoln's remarkably compassionate actions toward the South after the Civil War was won--not exacting a severe punishment of the South and its leaders or soldiers for their rebellion--will prove to have been a terrible mistake if a century and a half later we need to fight that damned awful war again.
And isn't that what is coming?
Joseph,
As with my other posts, I reiterate my request for you to reconcile your support of progressive taxation with your disdain for the transfer of funds from relatively wealthy states to relatively poor states.
According to the CBO report commissioned by John Kerry in August 2004, the highest quintile of income tax payers, pay 82% of the total federal income tax. The highest decile pays 66% of the total federal income tax.
Since, as you state and I have no reason to disbelieve you, "[c]ompared to most blue states, most red states have less prosperity", the natural outcome is for red states to have wealth transfered to them from the more prosperous blue states.
"We pay more money to the federal treasury than we receive. . . Until that hard fact of life chages, I'll dismiss all snarky comments from the hypocritical leech belt."
That hard fact of life will not change until the red states become as prosperous as the blue states, or until the tax code becomes less progressive.
I await your enlightening repsonse.
M. Jed, you're twisting words. Joseph's disdain is not for the money being transferred, but for the denizens of the leech states who assault and denigrate the very people who are putting food on their tables.
- Jon C.
Jon C.
I make a sincere effort to not quote Joseph out of context. Here are some of his words on the topic:
"Red state voters have no right to lecture any blue stater about economics."
"As a result, red state voters keep electing politicians who routinely toss tons of pork back home. Red staters receive far more from the federal government than they give in taxes. Californians and New Yorkers and other blue staters pay the difference."
"Because red-staters have a disproportionate amount of power, the presidency now almost always goes to someone from the south."
"New Yorkers and Californians, I must repeat, give far more to the federal government than we receive. So I will never allow any southern hillbilly to pretend that they have helped us in our hours of need. We can take care of ourselves. The hillibillies just take and take FROM us -- year after year, decade after decade -- and then they INSULT us."
Now, insert "Rich" everywhere he refers to "Blue states", "Californians", or "New Yorkers" and "Poor" everywhere he refers to "Red states" or "the South" and re-read his words.
He calls the red states leeches - not the people of the red states, although I assume that's his reference. Are they leeches because they are exercising their First Amendment rights in denigrating whomever they choose? Are they leeches because we have a democracy that chose Bush as president(Bush did win the popular vote this time, didn't he - I don't recall seeing any voter disenfranchisement issues that would have negated that)? Is there something about wealth, whether at a State level, or at an individual level, that warrants an appropriate hierarchy on free speech?
My point is simple. People are entitle to say or think whatever they please, but if someone supports progressive taxation at an individual level, then it's intellectually inconsistent to complain that when aggregated at a State level, the outcome of progressive taxation reaches its logical conclusion.
He thinks the south has disporportionate power in the country because they don't pay their 'fair share' of taxes and yet get an equal say in the outcome of national elections (before getting yourself up in arms, I do remember the popular vote count from 2000 - it happened, get over it. Neither Clinton nor Gore ever had more than 50% of vote. Voter behavior in states with later polling times would likely be different if election law was different). One could make the same argument for the less well-off having disporpotionate policital power, as 40% of the country pays no Federal Income Tax.
california home school network
Information => california home school network
Hey, this blog is neat. I already added it to my favorites. I have a site that pretty much coversmake money free related stuff.
I appreciate the timely information. This sort of stuff really makes you thinkcheat money runescape Thanks.cheat money runescape
So many blogs and only 10 numbers to rate them. I'll have to give you a 7 because you have good content but lack of quality posts.
Free Access To More Information Aboutinternet services
Post a Comment