Get Your Money For Nothin'

Only you could see a truly good opportunity for school kids in need and make a truly odd twist of it into something evil.

Of course you keep up the lie of the government takeover of health care, you naturally have no proof but it doesn't stop you from promoting the lie. Nevermind that we already have socialized medicine in this country with Medicare/Medicaid and the VA. Nevermind that our congressmen and military receive the best health care coverage in the country and it is through government run medicine.

I believe this is the first time I have ever heard of someone digging into his own pockets to help school children that need help as evil and "magic" (whatever that means).

Oh and let's not forget your wonderful line to start off the whole thing, "In the article in the State run Obama media - via the New York Daily News ...", that is such a joke.

You shouldn't be surprised anymore about getting heat for your lies and distortions and now you are going after school children because you don't like the person giving the money. How you equate George Soros giving money to needy children to him trying to buy votes is one of the greatest twists of logic of all time. If it were an Olympic sport you would have just won the gold medal for this.

Mike,

You seriously misrepresent that congressmen receive "government-run medicine". They have the same plans that are available to all federal employees. They're not specific to members of Congress. Their plans are chosen from a range of private insurers who made a lot of concessions to have access to the large amount of federal employees who would be on their plans. That large number of people, alone, gave them the power to negotiate plans that cover pre-existing conditions. They receive better plans and lower premiums because of the large group of federal employees who are pooled together. Their great coverage has nothing to do with a public option that is run by the government. It has to do with the federal government being the single largest employer in the US looking for great health plans for its employees.

Obama sings,

Get your money for nothin, just vote for me

Your children will pay, just vote for me

Just do as I say, just vote for me

Or you will pay, just vote for me.

Sam,

You are correct. This was a sad display, and none of it represented America. This was an example of how low these Democrats truly are. Waste trillions and trillions of dollars, and throw a few million in the streets. What a sad sad day for New York City. Toss a few dollars for the sheep.

Mr. Hendricks,

It is not we conservatives that have so little respect for people, it is you liberals. Sam is right, you liberals are really twisted. You think Soros is Robin Hood? You'd be so very funny, if your thinking were not so very dangerous to America.

First I had to define 'liberal' states and 'conservative' states. Unfortunately, this is a pretty subjective process.

Do we look at the governorship? Well, California (which most people would call a 'liberal' state) has a Republican governor. So that might not be an appropriate indicator.

What about state legislatures? Alabama (which most would agree is a 'conservative' state) has a democratic majority in their state legislature (though they are likely mostly conservative democrats). So we might not want to use that.

I decided the easiest thing to do would be use the old faithful red state/blue state division. That is, which way each state voted in the last presidential election. I freely admit that this is not the optimal way to measure how 'liberal' a state is. Ideally, we would need to factor in public opinion, state legislatures, governorships, etc. But I'm not a statistician, so this makes it a bit easier. Plus, the majority of Americans seem to know a whole lot more about national politics than state politics. And this last election was pretty polarizing. So I think the red state/blue state divide is a reasonably accurate (if not perfect) barometer of a state's conservative/liberal leanings.

So for our simple purposes, a 'red' state is conservative, and a 'blue' state is liberal.

So, let's look at how the more conservative (red) states did with education. If it's liberal policies that are creating bad results, we'd expect to see some pretty interesting results. Education is run by the states, so we would expect red states to run their system more 'conservatively' and blue states to run them more 'liberally' (not taking into account the federal mandates that ALL states must follow, NCLB).

http://imgur.com/MEGJ9.png

We can see that out of the top 20 states, there are only 6 red states. And that the very top states are the ones widely considered to be the MOST liberal in the country (Vermont, Mass., Connecticut).

The bottom 20 states show a more even spread, including 12 red states and 8 blue states.

OK. So the liberal blue states seem to do pretty well with education. Even though NY was 16th, it still only lost to 3 red states. (kudos Nebraska, number 11.)

disclaimer: education statistics themselves are very difficult and subjective to process. I got my ranking from Morgan Quitno Press, a Kansas-based independent research and publishing company. They use 21 factors to decide their rankings, and a cursory search turned up no substantial controversy over their education rankings.

Now, let's look at poverty levels. We would expect that if liberal policies were worse for the economy, that poverty would be higher in more liberal areas. And that if conservative 'trickle-down' policies were the best way to go, we'd see less poverty in the red states.

http://imgur.com/htZEB.png

Of the 20 states with the lowest poverty levels, only 5 are red. A full ¾ of them are blue states. Of the 20 states with the HIGHEST poverty levels, 14 are red.

(Another kudos to Nebraska, with the second lowest poverty rate among red states.)

But poverty can be caused by a variety of socioeconomic factors (I said so myself). So without accounting for those, we might not want blame specific political policies. So maybe we should look at a better economic indicator. Per Capita GDP. Certainly, if conservative economic policies were preferable, we should see more red at the top and more blue at the bottom.

http://imgur.com/3wXGi.png

Only two red states make it into the top 20 here. Alaska (thanks oil!) and Wyoming (thanks...Yellowstone?)

And of the 20 states with the lowest GDP per capita, 13 of them are red.

(My stats for GDP and poverty came from the census bureau)

Are these statistics definitive? No. Things like how liberal/conservative a state is are too subjective to accurately measure (not to mention the myriad of other factors we need to account for). But we definitely see a trend. And that trend does not show that liberal states are worse off for education, or worse off economically. In fact, some of the states that would be considered the liberal strongholds (New England States, New York) do particularly well across the board in these measurements.

And for fun. Let's look at one last chart. I admit, that I didn't get this idea on my own. I have seen it before on the Internet. But I did get the numbers right from the Tax Foundation (who got them from the Census bureau, I believe).

The following chart shows the federal spending on each state per dollar of federal income tax that was collected from that state.

So if a state has a value that's LESS than $1, that means they are receiving LESS than $1 of federal money for every $1 of federal taxes collected from them.

And if a state has a value that's MORE than $1, that means they are receiving MORE than $1 for every $1 of federal taxes collected from them.

http://imgur.com/gzVLD.png

Every state that gives more than it gets from the Federal government is blue (with the exception of Texas, which gets $0.94 for every $1 they send to Washington.)

Maybe it's us liberals who should be complaining about redistribution of wealth. ;)

ah jhat, another thought-provoking, insightful post. I believe you are the only liberal poster on here that I truly respect. My opinion only, but I think most conservatives' problem with soros is the thinking that he truly represents the "one world" view that a great many of us find reprehensible.

doodle,

Thank you. I try whenever possible to do my own research, instead of cribbing from liberal sources. I think far too many people nowadays simply copy what certain 'news' outlets tell them.

News today has become too partisan. You've got your guys on the left (Olberman, Maddow, Matthews, etc.) and your guys on the right (Beck, Hannity, O'reilly). And everyone presents the news with a twist that supports their positions (though some are much worse than others). There seem to be fewer and fewer unbiased newsmen who simply report facts without a liberal or conservative spin.

I think it's this way for one simple reason, partisan politics sell. It's boring to listen to people just deliver the facts. It is must more interesting for most people to sit and watch someone espouse the same opinions that they feel. It's also much of a rewarding emotional experience.

When I watch Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann get 'riled up' about something, I almost feel like I'm watching a movie. Something that is intentionally designed to create an emotional response from the viewer. It's simply more entertaining. It's the profit motive. As a producer, why would I air someone who is unbiased and calm who gets half the ratings of an emotional partisan hack? I wouldn't. So it becomes harder and harder for us to find unbiased news.

(I even asked myself while I was researching: If the stats I find show that conservative states are better off with education, would I still post the results here? I'd like to think I would).

McCook1,

That's entirely the point. If we fund education for under-privileged children today, then they will be paying taxes along WITH us 20 years from now.

But if we allow them to receive a substandard education today, we'll be paying for their welfare/unemployment/incarceration in 20 years, WITHOUT their tax dollars.

Thanks for the info YGTBK. I didn't realize there was a high concentration of coal out that way. I thought most of the deposits were concentrated under the eastern seaboard (PA, VA, NY).

Also interesting is the severance tax. Is that somewhat like the tax Alaska levies on oil leaving the state?

I am tempted to complain that by taxing those energy resources leaving the state, they are essentially levying a tax on the other states. But I suppose it's their natural resources and their state, and they can do what they wish.

And that's another reason I emphasized that people should take my numbers with a grain of salt. There are so many factors other than politics that go into how a state's economy is doing.

States with large reserves of natural resources have a head start on others. States with large energy reserves have an advantage of sorts over the others.

And conversely, some states fall into misfortune that is outside of their control. For instance, California's humongous deficit. Now, I'm not denying that some of the states governance came into play there, but CA was unlucky enough to get hit by the burst of the 'tech bubble', and then promptly got the brunt of the 'housing bubble'.

And that's why I am not apt to complain when some states receive a disproportionately large amount of federal funding when compared to other states. Yes, we have to consider state rights, but we are the UNITED States of America. One country, one nation. And the states that are doing well financially SHOULD help the states that are struggling. Whether they are red, or blue, or whatever. It benefits the entire country as a whole to redistribute some of the wealth to the states that need more funding.

Sceptre,

I have seen similar crude and crass emails about President Bush flying around since 2003. They provide nothing of substance to the national discourse and serve only to further polarize our country. I was disgusted with those emails about Bush, as I am similarly disgusted by the ones about Obama.

And I think states that are not doing well SHOULD be able to rely on the other states for assistance via federal funding. If they couldn't rely on federal funding from the pockets of other states, many of the 'red' states and a few of the 'blue' would be screwed.

According to the figures I provided, red states receive on average $1.40 in federal funding for every $1 of federal taxes collected from them. While blue states receive on average $0.99 in federal funding for every $1 of federal taxes collected. We are not the ones not pulling our weight. In order for the red states (averaged) to get to equilibrium ($1 for every $1), they'd have to give up over 1/4 of their federal funding. Quite a hit to any state's budget.

And let me be clear, I am NOT complaining about the red states receiving more money. If those states need it, they should get it. Just like the blue states in similar situations. We are one country, and the states need to support each other if we are to remain a united nation.

What I AM sick of is 'red-staters' complaining about 'redistribution of wealth' when they are (on average) the beneficiaries of a massive redistribution of wealth (from the other states).

shaarhues,

"According to published reports, this money was spent on TVs..."

Which published reports? I'm not calling you a liar, I just won't believe you until you provide evidence of this claim. (and just because something is "published" doesn't make it credible. Technically, this blog/comments are "published".)

And Steffanie,

You are missing the point. You might be correct in your assessment that our debt is too far gone (and I'd advise you to look into which presidents racked up the lion's share of it).

But the point IS, we are going to end up paying for those kids one way or another. If we don't pay to provide them with an adequate education and opportunities to escape from poverty, we'll end up paying for their unemployment/welfare later.

Or, if they can't get government assistance, we'll end up paying for more police enforcement and more incarceration because it's likely they will resort to criminal/gang activity when they have no other options.

People need to survive. They can either provide for themselves (which typically requires a decent education), receive public assistance, or resort to criminal activity (which is costly for everyone).

(and ironically, maybe there should be more money buying them condoms. Reducing teenage pregnancies, especially for people already in poverty, is positively correlated to reducing poverty).

Dang Sam,

You must have sent all you buddies oversized barn shovels!!

Anyone notice the SAGE OF OMAHA giving away a whole bunch of BILLIONS, specifically earmarked for the global poverty population?

Self-made Billionaire Soros giving away part of his fortune to specific poor American kids -- Steff labels him a "twisted, lazy, 'envious' sloth."

Dadgum Steff, there goes that complaint of his friends, associates and staff that he works 18 to 20 hour days.

Soros is actually a "twisted, lazy -- sloth."

Now Sam, you are by your own declaration a semi-educated redneck -- and I bow to Jeff Foxworthy's definition -- A Glorious Lack of Sophistication.

At best, you ain't no attorney and having personally worked on legislation in all stages, your expressed level of expertise allows you to maintain your amateur status.

Simple reality, having helped personally to write several Plain English concepts, no one but a very involved attorney really has a clue about what is in any bill going through mark up and first draft in committee.

I would suggest you arrange private consultation with any of the many committee chairs (more than two dozen in both houses), who have reviewed at least ONE of the FIVE Health Care Bills under consideration and find out what is really included.

The Fifth Bill has not been cleared by the SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, so you sure as Hell have not read it.

After each house passes something, there will be at best weeks, possibly months of Joint Conference Committee sessions to create the final bill for both houses -- and then the Executive Branch gets to sign or veto.

RULE ONE --

The President Proposes -- CONGRESS DISPOSES.

As for this huge War of Words regarding education.

California had the nation's best public schools through the 1950s, 60s and into the early 70s.

Sometime around the early 70s, the super-conservative "Jarvis-Gann Amendment" initiative got on the ballot and with a fear-fueled campaign it was passed -- totally destroying the financial base for all schools and local governments.

The World's Fifth Largest Economy has a government which is now BANKRUPT -Thanks to a conservative measure promoted with bald-faced lies.

On the other hand, Wyoming is climbing steadily, thanks to the severance tax revenues on coal, oil, natural gas, soda ash, wealthy migrants and resurgent tourism.

Wyoming schools may soon be the best in the nation, with students who can actually perform math at the level we knew in one-room schools of the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s in Nebraska.

Remember the teacher swept, washed windows, built a fire, carried coal and shoveled the path to the outhouse -- unless there were students who arrived early or stayed late to help -- and unless teacher was a young, attractive female, in which case there was always some eager young male to help with school chores.

If teacher was a beauty -- expect three or four eager young males to help, morning and evening.

But folks, SCEPTRE capped them all -- Obama having a fundraiser by meeting with felons.

Sorry, SCEPTRE, but I just cannot see the President fundraising among the remaining members of the Nixon White House staff, or wasting his time with Scooter Libby -- although Karl Rove has a good chance of making the list, now that he has been caught in bald-faced lies to Congress.

Steff -- You are sure concerned about Obama's deficit and federal debt.

Give him at least 12 years, he might yet match the $20-TRILLION-Plus federal debt piled up by POPPA and DUBYAH BUSH.

Not likely, but possible.

Get real, you clowns -- President Obama was elected by a huge majority of the American voters.

Major portions of his campaign:

HEALTH CARE REFORM.

Another -- Get to Hell out of Iraq.

Another -- Get the economy turned around as quickly as possible. Stop the bleeding and reverse the trends As Fast As Possible.

Another -- Go after Al Qaeda, where Al Qaeda lives and stop the Taliban from taking over again in Afghanistan -- and stop them from going after Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Another -- Energy Independence.

Another -- rebuild the national highways and bridges infrastructure.

Another -- rebuild our decaying schools and hospitals.

Having supported so many Republicans who have not only back tracked on their campaign promises, but actually turned 180 degrees -- Is it total frustration that brings you to blind opposition??

Have you all bought into the Rush Limburger hope for making sure "Obama fails."

People!! --if the U.S. President fails, we all pay and we all fail.

Because I lived through the 1932-1941 Depression and the equally lean WWII years -- I want to see President Obama succeed in HELPING turn around this economy.

At every turn, he emphasizes he can only help, the American people will have to do the heavy lifting.

But there is NO CHANCE unless we can reduce the 16.2% of our Gross National Product being eaten up for Health Care.

That percentage must come down to less than 10 percent, and it should be down to 7.5% at the highest.

Concurrently, specific and generally, quality and availability of Health Care must improve. We get to choose our own doctors, hospitals, and HMOs.

The difference is HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, quite possibly ONE AND ONE HALF TRILLION DOLLARS, with a major improvement for everyone.

Driving these highways, Sam will be able to pull into any hospital -- small town or big city, public or private, access any doctor or specialist who will accept a new patient.

He won't have to call dispatch, who then calls the Group Insuror and gets the name of a doctor they will accept near his location.

Under the present system, what do any of you want to bet -- the doctor they will accept -- is the one who contracted to work the cheapest.

jhat,

The irony is the highly-educated uber-conservatives who keep hurling invectives and insults on here carefully ignore one simple fact.

It was a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS who passed and their revered PRESIDENT DUBYAH who signed the Medicare modification bill -- wherein the REPUBLICANS PROPOSED and Created "end of life", Living Will consultations involving the primary care physican for elders.

This is the exact same proposal two Republicans insisted upon including in the Health Care Reform proposals which is being attacked by a multitude of geniuses -- including Little Sary Palin -- as being the 'Obama Death Panels.'

In their rants here, these super intelligent conservatives repeatedly attack President Obama and the Democrats as SOCIALISTS.

Then in the next breath or paragraph -- or rant -- they declare the President and Democrats are Fascists.

I do wish they would get their lies straight, there is serious risk of generating whiplash from people trying to follow their geometrically opposing lies.

Of course, we must remember -- LIES -- are the stock in trade of some people.

Karl Rove, that great Republican theorist, intellect and strategist swearing under oath that he and no one in the Bush White House were involved in political firings of U.S. Attorneys.

Now we learn, federal archivists and investigators have discovered thousands of E-Mails which clearly show Rove and associates were up to their eyebrows in politicized efforts to fire U.S. Attorneys who would not start immediate investigations and prosecutions of Democrats.

Scooter Libby convicted of federal felonies, Rove trying to explain activities he swore he was never involved in.

Major hope, we don't end up with the same percentage of top Bush White House staff convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors, as was the case for the Nixon White House.

MEANWHILE, a Bush appointee as U.S. Attorney for eastern North Carolina has launched investigations into the Democratic former governor and the current Democratic governor -- and that Raving Partisan OBAMA refuses to ask for his resignation.

Owen,

Read the part where I said I was not complaining about 'red' states receiving more federal funding. Partly because of the reasons you mention. The red states do have certain disadvantages that many of the blue states don't have to contend with.

And please don't put words in my mouth by calling red states 'flyover country' or blue states 'more enlightened'. That's certainly not what I think about the American midwest and south.

As for why we "aren't willing to let [you] go"...

I wasn't aware there was a concentrated secessionist movement with wide public support in the red states. I haven't heard much national conversation about the red states legitimately wanting to leave the union.

On the one hand, it does seem like our nation has become so polarized and split down party lines, that it would be best for everyone if we just split. Essentially a national divorce.

But I couldn't support this, for a few reasons.

First, the national is not really red and blue. It's mostly purple. And while a state's results in the last election can be an indicator of how liberal/conservative the state is, it's not that simple. There are many conservatives living in the rural areas of blue states. And there are many liberals living in the cities of red states. Our red/blue divide could be considered a rural/urban divide, as much as it's considered a divide between the states.

Additionally, the blue states need the red states, just like the red states need the blue states. While much of America's economic prosperity lies in the blue states, much of America's food supply comes from red states. As well as many natural resources, and a large part of it's workforce.

We are stronger united than we are divided. We're stronger economically and we're stronger on foreign policy matters.

And as much as I agree with the democrats most of the time, I think it's important for their to be a voice of opposition. It's important for there to be people on the other side making their case. (However, that doesn't mean I condone the alarmism, paranoia, and outright lies I see coming from the other side today.)