Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Though at times it does seem like we're splitting into two nations, there is no practical way to do that. Most "Red States" aren't completely Red, and most Blue States aren't completely Blue. To see what I mean, just take a detailed look at the county-by-county electoral maps for the 2012 Presidential election. Place your cursor on any state and click.
California, for example, is widely considered a Blue State, but the county electoral map reveals it to be more of a bluish purple. Arizona and Georgia are both widely considered Red States, but the county electoral maps show them to be more of a reddish purple.
Assume that we, somehow, did decide to split into two nations. Just exactly how would we sort out this mess?
The whole "Haves versus Have-Nots" concept is pretty much dead-on. During the Great Depression there was no sudden shortage of money. Nope, it just stopped circulating. Today there is no shortage of money either; in fact, as an earlier poster pointed out, there's even more than there was in 2006. Once again, it has simply stopped circulating.
Whether you liked him or not, or agreed with him or not, Presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich had one thing absolutely right. "We no longer have two political parties, but a single party masquerading as two." This is echoed daily inside the Washington Beltway, in sentences sort of like this: "In this town it doesn't matter whether you're Democrat or Republican. What matters is whether you're a Have or a Have-Not."
There is a war going on, alright. Its a war to eliminate the middle class -- and the middle class is losing big-time. When taken to its obvious conclusion, the good-ol' United States is going to look very much like Mexico and Columbia, and very much unlike any EU nation.
======================================
This isn't a Red Problem, or a Blue Problem. Its a Red-White-and-Blue problem, folks. Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, "Jesusland" or "United States of Canada" we need to heed Ben Franklin's words:
We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately!
Last edited by Nighteyes; 11-23-2013 at 08:13 PM..
I don't agree except that regions are cultural different altho some more blue and others more red. But since the mid 60's the parties have become more democratic wealth sharing and republicans more smaller government and less taxes.Now we have tea party which is less tax;spend and borrow middle class mostly .Many in fact are the same ones who distrusted government in the mid 60's.
I don't agree except that regions are cultural different altho some more blue and others more red. But since the mid 60's the parties have become more democratic wealth sharing and republicans more smaller government and less taxes.Now we have tea party which is less tax;spend and borrow middle class mostly .Many in fact are the same ones who distrusted government in the mid 60's.
Regions, and generally NOT ENTIRE STATES (a possible exception being Utah), may be politically different. Some differences are caused by culture; some are NOT. Take a look at the Great State of Texas which, with a name like texdav, I assume is where you live:
Some of this may be cultural; in fact a good bit of it may be. But there is no way anyone can objectively explain all of the Red/Blue differences as "cultural".
Last edited by Nighteyes; 11-23-2013 at 08:27 PM..
So, the conservative whites get to practice "ethnic cleansing" against blacks and Latinos as well as "social cleansing" against gays and lesbians and "religious cleansing" against non-Christians? You really think that's a good idea?
I suppose it would be a "win-win" as long as you weren't the wrong race/ethnicity/sexual orientation/religion on the wrong side of the line.
Bingo, and that's really what this is about.
If a person wants to live in a more conservative part of the US, they can move there. But, there's no part of the US in which it is acceptable to treat non-whites like property, wield assault weapons with impunity, "cleanse" away the people who are different, or replace the rule of law with one religion's book of myths. So, since none of that can be done legally in America, those types need to create a new nation - a New Confederacy, where "those people" won't be welcome - except as property - and where the clock can be reset to 1850.
Because if it was just about general political leanings, taxes, or some other issue, they could just move to a different part of America... but what they want isn't legal here anymore, nor anywhere else in the civilized world, hence their need for a new nation.
fairlaker, only the rich have benefited from the Fed’s largess.
What largesse? QE involves swaps of certain note assets for interest-bearing excess cash reserves within the banking system. That's all that happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
The Fed has also lowered interest rates, and billionaire Mark Zuckerberg was able to get a mortgage at a rate of 1%.
Lowering interest rates happened years ago and is the rational monetary response to a collapse in aggregate demand. Who meanwhile cares what Mark Zuckerberg got?
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
Most Americans would consider themselves lucky if they could get any mortgage, let alone at such paltry rates.
Perhaps banks are unfairly restricting mortgage credit to people with 20% down-payments and almost impossible FICO scores. But where is the Fed involvement in all this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
Small business lending remains anemic and credit card rates remain high.
Risk tends to be underpriced when times are good and overpriced when times are bad. But no Fed factor here either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
Mr. Buffet on the other hand just announced a major acquisition financed mostly by cheap debt. Such leveraged buyout deals are lucrative when rates are this low, but ironically by law only millionaires are allowed to invest in the Private Equity Funds that utilize them.
Which law prevents Joe Blow from participating in a private equity fund? Where is the list kept of those who are allowed to enagage in leveraged buyouts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
The disproportionate gain by the wealthy from Federal Reserve actions via the stock and bond markets is captured in a recently published by the Pew Research Center on the first 2 years of the recovery. Their analysis reveals that from 2009 to 2011 the mean net worth of the top 7% rose by 28%, while the mean net worth of the lower 93% actually fell.
As the study points out but you didn't, affluent households have their wealth concentrated in stocks and other financial holdings, while less affluent households have their wealth more concentrated in the value of their homes. The results you point to merely confirm what everyone already knew -- financial markets recovered more quickly than real estate markets. Did you have other revelations to offer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
The sharp rebound for the wealthy had nothing to do with their investment acumen, their risk-taking foresight or their hard work, as it was entirely driven by Government and Federal Reserve action.
No, it was driven entirely by the fact that these roughly 8 million affluent households own most of the stock while the roughly 111 million other households own hardly any stock at all. The stock market has more than doubled since its lows in March 2009, so we can pretty much guess who made out from that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
The next time you ponder the growing wealth-gap, ask yourself this simple question: Since the start of the crisis our government has borrowed over $6 trillion and printed several trillion more. Into whose pockets did that money go?
Well, let's see. The $6 triilion was simply federal deficit spending -- so food stamps, unemployment benefits, soldiers' pay, satellite launches, and the like. Lots and lots of different pockets there. The supposedly "printed" money more than tripled the monetary base and is simply sitting out there as excess reserves in the banking system. Basically nobody's pockets at all on that front. Any other questions?
So, since none of that can be done legally in America, those types need to create a new nation - a New Confederacy, where "those people" won't be welcome - except as property - and where the clock can be reset to 1850. Because if it was just about general political leanings, taxes, or some other issue, they could just move to a different part of America... but what they want isn't legal here anymore, nor anywhere else in the civilized world, hence their need for a new nation.
Indeed. Quite a lot of this sovereign, libertarian, Bizarro Constitution nonsense can be seen as strongly parallel to (the late) Osama bin Laden and his desires to return to the golden age of the Muslim Caliphate back in the 12th century or so. A few of these retro's would be content with a return to the Gilded Age of the robber barons before the Progressive Era, but most would indeed need to get back before the Civil War and that dreaded 14th Amendment. But the Constitution itself was problematic with its general powers and strong central government, so it's really the early colonial period that these folks are actually longing for, a time when men were men, slaves were slaves, and women simply shut up and did the cooking. Oh, if only we could go back to days like that!
If a person wants to live in a more conservative part of the US, they can move there. But, there's no part of the US in which it is acceptable to treat non-whites like property, wield assault weapons with impunity, "cleanse" away the people who are different, or replace the rule of law with one religion's book of myths. So, since none of that can be done legally in America, those types need to create a new nation - a New Confederacy, where "those people" won't be welcome - except as property - and where the clock can be reset to 1850.
Because if it was just about general political leanings, taxes, or some other issue, they could just move to a different part of America... but what they want isn't legal here anymore, nor anywhere else in the civilized world, hence their need for a new nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
Indeed. Quite a lot of this sovereign, libertarian, Bizarro Constitution nonsense can be seen as strongly parallel to (the late) Osama bin Laden and his desires to return to the golden age of the Muslim Caliphate back in the 12th century or so. A few of these retro's would be content with a return to the Gilded Age of the robber barons before the Progressive Era, but most would indeed need to get back before the Civil War and that dreaded 14th Amendment. But the Constitution itself was problematic with its general powers and strong central government, so it's really the early colonial period that these folks are actually longing for, a time when men were men, slaves were slaves, and women simply shut up and did the cooking. Oh, if only we could go back to days like that!
The fact that you compare us to slave owners and Osama bin Laden really does speak volumes about you and your ignorance and your bigotry.
I think we're splitting along many fault lines at least culturally.
1) Religion. Religion is front and center of most life here in the South. Many people will openly invite you to church as a polite gesture. Others are quite pushy in their proselytization. After living in the Midwest, people are much more private about their religion. Many people from out of the area or who aren't religious are taken aback by such outward displays of religion in the public square, even in workplaces, local government offices, etc, where religion should play no part in routine business.
2) Social assistance and education. Tennessee is a very regressive state from the standpoint of taxes and minimal social benefits, whether in the form of cash welfare, unemployment benefits, or even education assistance, are offered. The "bootstrapper" mentality is strong here, even though we are among the poorest and least educated states overall in the country. However, whenever there is a free rural medical clinic or it's time for SNAP benefits to be issued, those who criticize social assistance are often the first ones with their hands out. Blue states like MA and MN invest more in their people and it shows up in any social metric you can find.
3) Second amendment rights are one of the top, if not THE top, issue on the ground in red states today. Here in the South, you can't even have a reasonable discussion on the second amendment anymore - the prevailing thought pattern is simply to allow anyone and everyone to have unfettered access to any and all types of firearms, with no restrictions in place. The second amendment has taken the place of the so-called "moral issues" under the Bush administration.
4) Work and employment. With some exception, states that vote one way tend to be the economic powerhouses where wealth levels are high and places where people go for high-end careers (CA, MA, NY, MD, NJ, etc), whereas states that vote the other way are often economic wastelands and socially backward (AL, MS, WV, KY, etc). This trend has been in place for some time, but seems to be becoming more pronounced. TN was a place where my grandparents and to some extent my parents were able to live well to decently. It's not the case for my generations - wages are too low and there are few quality positions in the state relative to the amount of job seekers.
These are just a couple of ways the nation is splitting up. I don't think it will lead to secession, but instead to less cooperation and more regionalism.
Though at times it does seem like we're splitting into two nations, there is no practical way to do that. Most "Red States" aren't completely Red, and most Blue States aren't completely Blue. To see what I mean, just take a detailed look at the county-by-county electoral maps for the 2012 Presidential election. Place your cursor on any state and click.
California, for example, is widely considered a Blue State, but the county electoral map reveals it to be more of a bluish purple. Arizona and Georgia are both widely considered Red States, but the county electoral maps show them to be more of a reddish purple.
Assume that we, somehow, did decide to split into two nations. Just exactly how would we sort out this mess?
The whole "Haves versus Have-Nots" concept is pretty much dead-on. During the Great Depression there was no sudden shortage of money. Nope, it just stopped circulating. Today there is no shortage of money either; in fact, as an earlier poster pointed out, there's even more than there was in 2006. Once again, it has simply stopped circulating.
Whether you liked him or not, or agreed with him or not, Presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich had one thing absolutely right. "We no longer have two political parties, but a single party masquerading as two." This is echoed daily inside the Washington Beltway, in sentences sort of like this: "In this town it doesn't matter whether you're Democrat or Republican. What matters is whether you're a Have or a Have-Not."
There is a war going on, alright. Its a war to eliminate the middle class -- and the middle class is losing big-time. When taken to its obvious conclusion, the good-ol' United States is going to look very much like Mexico and Columbia, and very much unlike any EU nation.
======================================
This isn't a Red Problem, or a Blue Problem. Its a Red-White-and-Blue problem, folks. Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, "Jesusland" or "United States of Canada" we need to heed Ben Franklin's words:
We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately!
California is not bluish purple. The only part of California which has conservatives is the Central Valley. There are only a few sizable cities in that area (Bakersfield, Fresno, Visalia). The other conservative counties are way small and dont need to be counted.
Are we gradually seeing a divide between white urbanites/minorities on one hand and rural whites/old money on another? About a decade ago there was a meme of 'Jesusland' and the 'United States of Canada' and indeed sometimes it does seem like there are two Americas - an urban one and a rural/suburban one.
It's more complex than that too, within the blue states the 'Hipster Nation' is pretty separate from the 'Black Nation'; and in the Red States the 'Redneck Nation' has little to do with the 'Old Money Nation' aside from their support for lassiez faire capitalism.
Do you think we are seeing a Balkanization of sorts? With the national government being increasingly less respected and private enterprise filling in many of its former roles, is the US only 'one nation' in the most technical sense?
Was it ever one nation?
This is why our founding fathers set up the republic a system the typical democrat despises.
I don't care if we Balkanize as long as I don't have to endure the OWS and San Francisco crowd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
