The last word in the Sunday TV Spin Zone was given to North Dakota Senator DINO Kent Conrad. This man has fewer folks in his entire state than do most neighborhoods in any major city in America. Why does he get to frame the debate?Let's take a look at Kent Conrad, the man saying no to the public option -- and let's take a closer look at the teensy population he represents.
Conrad favors the "co-op" idea (which the insurance industry will probably co-opt) because he doesn't like the idea of gummint involvement:
The notion of a cooperative plan is that it's membership-controlled, membership-run -- not government-run, government-controlled.North Dakota, you see, is far too independent and rugged and ornery for all that big-gummint socialism. They tried that shit in Russia, buddy.
Kent Conrad is the way he is because his constituents are the way they are. For an insight into the mindset of the folks back home in ND, check out this fascinatingly ugly piece published a few months back in the Minot Daily News:
Whenever disaster strikes North Dakota, we see the spirit that made America great. We roll up our sleeves to help ourselves and our neighbors. We take the initiative rather than waiting for a cavalry from Washington. We are independent, self reliant and nobody owes us.The editorial goes on and on like that, castigating the Katrina victims as a bunch of lazy you-can-guess-whats. Then:
Compare this to the pathetic scene in New Orleans. People were so dependent on government that they were waiting for government buses to show up at their doorsteps to evacuate them. Later, they resorted to looting.
Obama and the socialist Democratic Party intend to crush this spirit of independence with Marxism.All right. So this is about socialism versus the "spirit of independence." Fine. For the nonce, I accept those terms. Let's see whether the "spirit of independence" actually holds sway in North Dakota.
As I have explained in many previous posts, the U.S. has leech states and producer states. For many years, my state of California has been a leading producer state -- that is, we give more to the federal government in taxes than we receive in goods and services. (Despite this history of generosity, Obama is now screwing Californians in their hour of need.)
Leech states take more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. Leech states steal from Californians and other productive citizens.
So, is North Dakota -- land of those fabled gummint-hating, Conrad-voting rugged individualists -- a producer state? No, it is not. In fact, it has not been productive since 1981. If you look at the chart here, you will see that for every dollar paid in taxes, those North Dakotan thieves take in roughly $1.70 from Uncle Sucker.
Guess who makes up the difference? We Californians and New Yorkers do.
Yet North Dakotans routinely disparage their funders.
Senator Conrad may decry any involvement by the federal government in the health care system, and he has long decried budget deficits. Nevertheless, he insists on taking in those federal farm subsidies. I feel pretty confident that if Conrad were to vote against those subsidies, every newspaper in his home state -- including the Minot Daily News -- would demand his hide.
Speaking as the proud son of a state with a long history of productivity and generosity, I'm not going to stand for any lectures on "socialism" or "Marxism" from any North Dakota teat-sucker.
13 comments:
"Speaking as the proud son of a state with a long history of productivity and generosity, I'm not going to stand for any lectures on 'socialism' or 'Marxism' from any North Dakota teat-sucker."
Is there any way we can get this to go viral?
"Socialist Gummint: they put their finger in the pie 'n it turns black."
A reporter went to Montana two days before Obama's townhall meeting outside Bozeman. He talked to a woman whose entire family could not afford health insurance and dental care.
So she went to a local clinic which receives $4 million dollars annually in federal subsidies and had to have her tooth extracted. How much did it cost her? A mere $50 dollars. (Try going to a private dentist and getting a deal like that...)
So this genius who condemned Obama's public option as "socialist" (see her comment above) had her tooth pulled on the GUMMINT's dime because she didn't take care of her teeth and couldn't afford to pay for the insurance mob's protection money in the form of annual premiums. WTF - we are living in mediaeval times.
The only thing that turned black with this woman was her tooth. And the evil Gummint she condemns and fears came to her aid, anyway. This and more is what's so wrong with the Tea drinkers. They don't know what they don't know...
This analysis of distribution is one liberals really need to get away from. It shows a lack of understanding in basic economics.
Consider federal expenditures. If one includes Social Security and Medicare, then of course older states (such as North Dakota) will get a greater share. They paid into it these systems their entire life and people who begrudge that are rightist themselves.
The only other significant aspect of federal expenditure is the military, whose bases are concentrated in red states. But Bay Area liberals, for instance, were more than happy to see regional military bases close down in the 1990's.
This doesn't even get into the dependency California has for oil and gas from Texas, the Plains States, and North Dakota.
you will see that for every dollar paid in taxes, those North Dakotan thieves take in roughly $1.70 from Uncle Sucker.
Preach it Joe. And can anyone tell me why Dem Senate leaders( Daschle, Reid) are so often from small red states? WTF
The part of my family that needed Uncle Sam the most during the 30's , became the biggest right wingers years later...it was ever thus.
I would never say a good number of the Tea drinkers aren't dumb. However they have the excuse of lack of education and opportunity. What I find harder to understand is my very educated and opportunity galore Obots friends being so very dumb about Obama. The tea drinkers have no monopoly on dumb....and really it's emotions that's involved in both cases , not brains .
During the 2006 elections there was a map posted with similar data on taxes and how they voted. Nearly all the red states were leech states and the blue state donor states.
Nebraska and Louisiana are the same damned thing. Most of the Blue Dogs come from states that have no viable economies for the most part and miles and miles have highways to nowhere because all those antigovernment ranchers and farmers like the roads paved to their front doors and the snow removed.
It's pretty much the same pattern for all of them. They come from states with low populations needing tons of federal funds and they beg for agriculture subsidies continually. Yet, anything that could benefit any other state and suddenly big government is the problem.
from one west coaster to another, excellent post, joseph!
emmag
Technically, this leech senator is from Washington, D.C. Opensecrets gives his 2008 campaign contributions as being 93% from out of state with D.C. area tops followed by New York, Chicago, Bridgeport and Grand Forks. While D.C. provided $305,349, the local Forks provided $20,388.
Similarly, the leech senator from Montana was funded primarily by New York. Check it out using the donor geography function on opensecrets.
Wow, nothing like being hated because I happen to live in state with some military bases. btw, Hawaii, those scumsuckers, seems to do real well with the Federal dollars according to the chart. Maine, Minnesota, and Maryland also are getting more than they paid. I voted for the most Socialist candidate, McCain. I want national health insurance even though I have private insurance and I'm from one of those states that can't spell "government."
All those paved roads have much more to do with which rich flatlander is building what real estate development than the locals. Well, in truth, there is a paving exception for football stadiums at all levels.
Anonymous : 10:39 AM
That's very interesting. So the usual big money centers buys red state reactionary muscle. Makes sense
Joseph can't handle the truth of progressive taxation.
2Truthy - While the rest of your comment is solid, please don't assume that the woman had to have her tooth pulled because she didn't take care of it. Some people take very good care of their teeth, yet have to have a tooth or teeth pulled because they have congenitally soft teeth which just don't hold up (that includes me and some of my relatives, by the way).
Hey, let's not get completely down on agricultural subsidies; without them, farmers would actually LOSE money. Back in the 70s, the new Ag Sec Dr. Earl Butz (sp?) declared that farmers would no longer be paid to NOT grow food (keeping prices high), but to grow it instead. The result has been a HUGE increase in farm production, with very low prices as one consequence. While I'm not necessarily in favor of this policy, I will point out that without subsidies farmers would produce based on a minimaxing formula, so instead of just farm states screaming, EVERYONE would be screaming as the cost of food tripled or quadrupled overnight.
(Yes, this might prompt farmers to switch to organic/sustainable farming methods, but that would take several years to a couple of decades, and in the meantime there would still be the high prices.)
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment