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.
We are and most of us don't think that y'all are a bunch of inbred hicks either.
Well, thanks. That's nice to know.
Quote:
And I was the one who used the word satire for whoever it confused.
I did make a sarcastic remark about being confused by the concept of satire, but I made the statement as a way to vent my frustration with what I felt was an overly simplistic characterization of rural Kentuckians on the part of Mr. Welp. I suppose this frustration is the result of a lifetime of hearing "Kentucky jokes." When I was a child, I innocently (and perhaps naively) assumed that all human beings were of equal intrinsic value, but as I began to get older I learned that us folks in Appalachia were apparently supposed to be inferior to the more sophisticated, "civlized" individuals in the rest of the country.
I agree that this article is probably satirical, and I doubt that Mr. Welp really believes everything he's written about Kentuckians. If he really does believe some of these things, he needs to get out more. I'll gladly lead him on a tour of the state beyond the city limits of Louisville. In a way, it's unfortunate that he resorts to such "cheap shots," as you've described them, because they tend to distract the reader from the points he actually intends to make. I think there are indeed some ideas contained in the article that are worth debating, most notably our disfunctional state legislature. However, after reading the article, I feel as if some guy has just walked up to me, punched me in the gut, and then spit in my face. In between the gut-punching and face-spitting, the guy might actually say something valid. However, I'm surely not going to walk away from the experience thinking, "he really made a good point back there in the midst of assaulting me." All I'm going to remember is that some jerk attacked me for no apparent reason.
I do believe that our state government is not doing a particularly good job of addressing important issues. Both parties seem to be preoccupied with arguing over casinos and the ex-governor's hiring practices. In the end, they don't seem to ever really come up with any solutions. Then again, why should I even expect the government to come up with solutions?
Regarding the cigarette tax, I am generally a proponent of first trying to make government more efficient and only raising taxes as a last resort. However, in this case I think there may be room to incrase the cigarette tax a little. Kentucky's 30 cents per pack tax is the fifth lowest cigarette tax of the fifty states and the District of Columbia (or so says the Foundation of Tax Administrators). The median cigarette tax among all the states is $1.00 per pack. Kentucky could raise the cigarette tax by 10 cents per pack, and it would still only be the 43rd highest state cigarette tax. A 20 cent increase to 50 cents per pack would give Kentucky the 41st highest cigarette tax. In light of these figures, I think there is some room to raise the cigarette tax, but at the same time I think the state needs to figure out what its priorities are, and try to spend money wisely. Otherwise, tax increases could end up being a crutch to support inefficient government.
So I read this article and was very confused, which is not surprising, considering the fact that I was born and raised in the Appalachian region of Kentucky, and therefore am not able to comprehend things like satire....
As a fellow mouth breather, I concur wholeheartedly with this post.
I did make a sarcastic remark about being confused by the concept of satire, but I made the statement as a way to vent my frustration with what I felt was an overly simplistic characterization of rural Kentuckians on the part of Mr. Welp. I suppose this frustration is the result of a lifetime of hearing "Kentucky jokes." When I was a child, I innocently (and perhaps naively) assumed that all human beings were of equal intrinsic value, but as I began to get older I learned that us folks in Appalachia were apparently supposed to be inferior to the more sophisticated, "civlized" individuals in the rest of the country.
I agree that this article is probably satirical, and I doubt that Mr. Welp really believes everything he's written about Kentuckians. If he really does believe some of these things, he needs to get out more. I'll gladly lead him on a tour of the state beyond the city limits of Louisville. In a way, it's unfortunate that he resorts to such "cheap shots," as you've described them, because they tend to distract the reader from the points he actually intends to make. I think there are indeed some ideas contained in the article that are worth debating, most notably our disfunctional state legislature. However, after reading the article, I feel as if some guy has just walked up to me, punched me in the gut, and then spit in my face. In between the gut-punching and face-spitting, the guy might actually say something valid. However, I'm surely not going to walk away from the experience thinking, "he really made a good point back there in the midst of assaulting me." All I'm going to remember is that some jerk attacked me for no apparent reason.
I do believe that our state government is not doing a particularly good job of addressing important issues. Both parties seem to be preoccupied with arguing over casinos and the ex-governor's hiring practices. In the end, they don't seem to ever really come up with any solutions. Then again, why should I even expect the government to come up with solutions?
Regarding the cigarette tax, I am generally a proponent of first trying to make government more efficient and only raising taxes as a last resort. However, in this case I think there may be room to incrase the cigarette tax a little. Kentucky's 30 cents per pack tax is the fifth lowest cigarette tax of the fifty states and the District of Columbia (or so says the Foundation of Tax Administrators). The median cigarette tax among all the states is $1.00 per pack. Kentucky could raise the cigarette tax by 10 cents per pack, and it would still only be the 43rd highest state cigarette tax. A 20 cent increase to 50 cents per pack would give Kentucky the 41st highest cigarette tax. In light of these figures, I think there is some room to raise the cigarette tax, but at the same time I think the state needs to figure out what its priorities are, and try to spend money wisely. Otherwise, tax increases could end up being a crutch to support inefficient government.
Good post, although why not raise the tax at least back to the national average? With all the smokers, I would guess that alone would cover the huge gaps that have caused major cuts to the states top research universities in its urban areas, the only hope for the state to "home grow" high paying jobs. Why does KY want to be "below average?" And there is nothing wrong with having rural areas, but every state needs cities as economic engines. NC knows it. So does TN. Certainly GA. Even SC!!! Why is KY so reluctant to get with the times? Why tax one thing? Are you serious? Do you know the morbidity and mortality that smoking causes? And KY is well known as the number one state for smoking, lung cancer, and yes, even missing teeth.
The good people of KY deserve better. It is well known I relocated here and LOVE Louisville and KY although the regressive and rural mindset in much of the state irks me. Why no casinos? The good people of KY deserve better. Bottom line, the health and education of Kentuckians have to improve or it is in MAJOR trouble in the global economy. And Louisville cannot compete with her peer cities with the state taking around 60 cents of every dollar in taxes the city pays according to local economist Paul Coomes. These are all realities and it is not about picking on tobacco or messing with the morals of conservative Baptist legislators who oppose casino gambling, but it IS about creating high paying jobs so all Kentuckians have opportunity!
Good post, although why not raise the tax at least back to the national average?
I thought about that, but I figured there'd be no chance of such a bill seeing the light of day in the legislature. I just kind of threw out some random figures in my previous post. If I had to come up with a proposal, I'd say double the cigarette tax to 60 cents per pack, which would still be well below the median rate for all the states. The state also charges businesses a one cent fee for each pack they sell. I think the only other state to charge such a fee is Virginia, which charges 1/20th of a cent per pack. I'd eliminate this silly fee which almost no other state charges in conjunction with the cigarette tax increase.
I must admit, it's hard for me to write about tax increases, since I'm generally a proponent of small government and lower taxes. But, if the state government finds it absolutely necessary to raise taxes, I'd prefer for the increase to be on the cigarette tax rather than the gas tax, sales tax, or income tax.
The state just seems to make decisions that make no sense. What was the cost of the new DOT headquarters that censusdata quoted? I think it was $600 million...is it necessary to spend this much? Would $400 million have been adequate? I could go on and on with questions like these.
I am curious about this topic:
Quote:
the regressive and rural mindset in much of the state
This could be opening a huge can of worms, but I'd be interested in discussing the concept of progressive vs. regressive and/or urban vs. rural mindsets. Different people have different ideas of what constitutes "progress." Are there some things that Kentucky residents, urban and rural alike, would consider signs of progress? How can the state as a whole grow and advance if its residents are so divided on this issue?
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,473,841 times
Reputation: 12187
Demographics will take care of the rural legislators. 95% of the population growth is in the Louisville, Lexington, NKY, & Bowling Green metro areas. This areas will continue to gain state senate and house seats until they are a super majority
what a trip, i posted a comment on another thread just saying that my experience in texas and arizona wasnt great since there are so many illegals in my trade(construction)
and none of them could speak english, and that gang crime in arizona is through the roof....(these are facts not opinions)....the moderator warned me and edited my post saying they were racist comments??
.....and yet people are called white trash on some kentucky threads and thats ok, what a double standard we have in this country...jeeeez
Demographics will take care of the rural legislators. 95% of the population growth is in the Louisville, Lexington, NKY, & Bowling Green metro areas. This areas will continue to gain state senate and house seats until they are a super majority
I hope that the MSAs overtake over time. Frankly, the rural good-ol'-boy, let's-help-the-underprivileged-rural-folks mindset set forth by, well, rural legislators (and mostly from southern and eastern Kentucky, at that) is holding our state back.
Kinda funny yet sad, actually, considering most rural folks live the same standard life as most metropolitan folks...cable or satellite TV services, close access to Wal-Mart and four-lane highways, nice houses, gas, electricity, water, often times sewer (except in eastern Kentucky,) and low crime rates.
Until more economically and "urbanly" progressive-minded legislators take the reins in Frankfort, we'll frankly continue to be stagnant or even go backwards as a state. Give it 25-30 years and I think you'll see you'll see truly more substantial influence being yielded from Jefferson, Oldham, Bullitt, Boone, Kenton, Campbell, Fayette, Madison, and Warren Counties than, say, Pike, Elliott (who lives there, anyway?), Boyd, and Floyd Counties.
Frankly, the rural good-ol'-boy, let's-help-the-underprivileged-rural-folks mindset set forth by, well, rural legislators (and mostly from southern and eastern Kentucky, at that) is holding our state back.
Okay, so rural legislators (especially from southern and eastern Kentucky) are holding the state back. Could you provide some examples of progressive bills that would have improved Kentucky, but were defeated by rural legislators? Which legislators from eastern Kentucky districts are standing in the way of progress? I think it's only fair to ask for examples that support your argument...and you may very well be able to provide examples, in which case I'll willingly admit that you're correct. However, often rural and urban individuals (or you can substitute conservative and liberal individuals, if you wish) have very different ideas of what constitutes "progress." The casino issue is the prime example of this. Some say casinos would provide a badly needed source of revenue for the state. Others argue that casinos will diminish the quality of life in Kentucky, increase crime, and cause many poor people to throw their money away. Which side is right?
You speak of your desire to see more "economically and urbanly progressive-minded legislators." What types of ideas would these legislators propose? How would these legislators be superior to rural legislators? Wouldn't an urban, progressive legislator support bills that fit his or her worldview? Wouldn't an urban, progressive legislator support bills that are in the best interest of his or her constituents and other like-minded individuals? Is it acceptable for an urban, progressive legislator to do this, but unacceptable for a rural legislator to do the same? Whose ideas are superior? Who gets to judge which ideas are superior? Should rural individuals, those you would label as "unprogressive," sit idly by and allow urban progressives to pass any bill they wish, because the progressives supposedly know what's best for the state? I'd answer that question with a big fat NO. I'd also answer an equally vehement NO if the roles were reversed, and someone asked if urban legislators should let the rural folks do whatever they want.
Perhaps the more pertinent question is, "Is Kentucky one state, or two (a red state and a blue state)?" Actually, I could ask the same question about the entire country. Can we reach a common ground somewhere in the middle?
Oh, and in answer to your question about who lives in Elliott County, I believe the 2006 estimate is 7,187 people. These are 7,187 people who deserve the same representation as 7,187 people living in Louisville or Lexington. No more, no less.
Again, if this is a serious problem, I can try to contact Gov. Manchin to see if West Virginia would be willing to annex the eastern 1/3 of Kentucky, so that the rest of the state can do whatever it wants without the powerful bloc of rural eastern Kentucky legislators dominating the legislative sessions and keeping the state in the stone age. Actually, after watching the squabbles between the governor, the House leadership, and the Senate leadership, being annexed into West Virginia might not be so bad.
Okay, so rural legislators (especially from southern and eastern Kentucky) are holding the state back. Could you provide some examples of progressive bills that would have improved Kentucky, but were defeated by rural legislators? Which legislators from eastern Kentucky districts are standing in the way of progress? I think it's only fair to ask for examples that support your argument...and you may very well be able to provide examples, in which case I'll willingly admit that you're correct. However, often rural and urban individuals (or you can substitute conservative and liberal individuals, if you wish) have very different ideas of what constitutes "progress." The casino issue is the prime example of this. Some say casinos would provide a badly needed source of revenue for the state. Others argue that casinos will diminish the quality of life in Kentucky, increase crime, and cause many poor people to throw their money away. Which side is right?
You speak of your desire to see more "economically and urbanly progressive-minded legislators." What types of ideas would these legislators propose? How would these legislators be superior to rural legislators? Wouldn't an urban, progressive legislator support bills that fit his or her worldview? Wouldn't an urban, progressive legislator support bills that are in the best interest of his or her constituents and other like-minded individuals? Is it acceptable for an urban, progressive legislator to do this, but unacceptable for a rural legislator to do the same? Whose ideas are superior? Who gets to judge which ideas are superior? Should rural individuals, those you would label as "unprogressive," sit idly by and allow urban progressives to pass any bill they wish, because the progressives supposedly know what's best for the state? I'd answer that question with a big fat NO. I'd also answer an equally vehement NO if the roles were reversed, and someone asked if urban legislators should let the rural folks do whatever they want.
Perhaps the more pertinent question is, "Is Kentucky one state, or two (a red state and a blue state)?" Actually, I could ask the same question about the entire country. Can we reach a common ground somewhere in the middle?
Oh, and in answer to your question about who lives in Elliott County, I believe the 2006 estimate is 7,187 people. These are 7,187 people who deserve the same representation as 7,187 people living in Louisville or Lexington. No more, no less.
Again, if this is a serious problem, I can try to contact Gov. Manchin to see if West Virginia would be willing to annex the eastern 1/3 of Kentucky, so that the rest of the state can do whatever it wants without the powerful bloc of rural eastern Kentucky legislators dominating the legislative sessions and keeping the state in the stone age. Actually, after watching the squabbles between the governor, the House leadership, and the Senate leadership, being annexed into West Virginia might not be so bad.
Again, if this is a serious problem, I can try to contact Gov. Manchin to see if West Virginia would be willing to annex the eastern 1/3 of Kentucky, so that the rest of the state can do whatever it wants without the powerful bloc of rural eastern Kentucky legislators dominating the legislative sessions and keeping the state in the stone age. Actually, after watching the squabbles between the governor, the House leadership, and the Senate leadership, being annexed into West Virginia might not be so bad.
you should do that. after watching this video, it would be okay with me.
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.
But, if the state government finds it absolutely necessary to raise taxes, I'd prefer for the increase to be on the cigarette tax rather than the gas tax, sales tax, or income tax.
