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.
The Euro comparison is invalid on so many levels, the least of which is comparing essentially a 'state' to a country. A socialist society whose provincial process works just fine in the village generally has no universal application.
I'm not sure what "Euro comparison" you are referring to here. Villages?
Commonly repeated conservative "talking points" can each be addressed individually, and a lot of space in this forum is devoted to doing just that, but I think that they reflect a basic divide in entrenched worldviews and not just a disagreement about to best resolve a specific problem or issue. Whether the claims are factually true or false is almost irrelevant - if evidence is presented that conflicts with the claim, the sentiment behind the assertion is usually unchanged, and it is either ignored, or somehow integrated into the preexisting worldview and other issues are raised as the trouble of the day. Many of the common talking points that are offered up by conservative politicians and spread by think tanks, etc. are often myths that may seem to be superficially true based on anecdotes, personal experience, or preconceived notions, and then readily accepted by fact by partisans and those who feel that things could be better, but don't know exactly what should be done and are persuaded by what seem to be "common sense" answers.
For instance, consider how urban areas are typically portrayed as bastions of Democratic support because of urban dependence on government assistance programs, i.e., "makers vs. takers", "the 47%", and the reliance on food stamps, etc. However, 11% of urban residents receive food stamps vs. 14% of rural residents (Daily Yonder. Rural areas - and the food stamp example is just one example - tend to benefit disproportionately from tax revenues generated by economic activity in urban counties. Residents of those more rural counties don't like to see if that way, but if the question is what geographic area receives disproportionate amount of government services proportionate to taxes paid, then the answer is the rural area. Urbanized areas typically send more in sales tax and other revenue to the state than they receive back because the revenues are spent in rural counties. So, while there are a lot of poor people in the urban areas who benefit from government assistance, the urban areas generate enough collective wealth to support them - plus what is sent to the rural counties. Which makes the rural antipathy toward urban areas seem to not make much sense, but I suppose there are probably other more fundamental differences and the argument about who gets what from the collective government is just a convenient cover. Or there is a legitimate misunderstanding. Of course there is government borrowing, too, which is high, and an important factor when talking about taxes and spending, which brings me to my next point.
Here is a list of the 50 U.S. states and the federal tax revenue paid by each state, including the per capita amount: Federal tax revenue by state.
The following image shows the states that contribute the most per capita in taxes vs. those that contribute least:
It is interesting to note that the states that contribute the most per capita are "blue" and those that tend to contribute the least are "red" - 12 of the highest 15 are blue and 11 of the 15 lowest contributors are red. Yet, we constantly hear how the Democrats are "takers", trying to steal wealth from hard working rural Republicans. Not to mention the fact that the low income tend to vote the very least.
There does seem to be some truth to the claim that the U.S. is starting to have a lower employment-to-population ratio, i.e., fewer working people compared to total population (Employment-to-population ratio). U.S. companies have sent a lot of jobs overseas, and most of them probably aren't coming back. Although, some people may be surprised by which countries rank higher (and have ranked higher for some time) than the U.S.:
What? How can "socialist" European countries have higher employment ratios than us?
High taxes. Aren't they so high these days? Job killing, for sure. You can tell from this chart - well, the earlier percent of GDP list gives a clue - how much of our income is taxed. True American Presidents, like Eisenhower, would surely be aghast at moving the top rate up a few points, and wouldn't stand for such blatant communism in the tax code:
This is all just scratches the surface of the common welfare and tax complaints heard from the right - foreign policy and the Defense conflation is another issue altogether. A lot of superficial complaints designed to rile rural people up and rally them around fearmongering candidates who promote ignorance. But how much do facts really matter? It's almost like a religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Recalculate factoring in the State's GDP, then get back to us.
Not relevant.
"Does seem to be some truth?"
Uh, it is an undisputed fact.
You're supposed to have 2.8 to 3.0 workers for every Social Security beneficiary. And you're supposed to maintain that ratio through about 2022 and which time it should dwindle down to 2.0 workers per Social Security beneficiary in 2035.
You have only 2.1 workers per Social Security beneficiary. And you've had that ratio for some time, and unless you get it back to 2.8 STAT, not only will you be unable to fund Social Security, you will be unable to fund Medicare and Obamacare, and those programs are going to crash and burn reall soon.
It depends on how you define employment and unemployment.
Your data is wrong.
US Employment to Population ratio is presently 58.8%. It reached a peak at 64.7% in June 1999.
As of 2010....
Euro area E-Pop: 51.2% --- lower than the US
European Union E-Pop: 52.0% -- lower than the US
High Income OECD Countries: 55.1% -- lower thn the US
All OECD Countries: 54.9% -- lower than the US
Austria: 57.9% -- lower than the US
Belgium: 49.9% -- lower than the US
Denmark: 58.9%
Finland: 55.2% -- lower than the US
France: 51.2% -- lower than the US
Germany: 55.4% -- lower than the US
Greece: 47.7% -- way lower than the US
Iceland: 68.8%
Ireland: 52.2% -- lower than the US
Italy: 44.3% -- way lower than the US
Luxembourg: 54.6% -- lower than the US
Netherlands: 61.9%
Norway: 63.5%
Poland: 50.5% -- lower than the US
Portugal: 55.3% -- lower than the US
Romania: 51.9% -- lower than the US
Russia: 58%
Slovakia: 50.9% -- lower than the US
Slovenia: 54.9% -- lower than the US
Spain: 47.4% -- way lower than the US
Sweden: 58.4%
Switzerland: 64.9%
United Kingdom: 57.1% -- lower than the US
I think you were saying something about Republican Political Propaganda. You might want to find another source for data instead of using your Liberal Talking Points Bulletin.
Economically...
Mircea
An excellent job debunking Clint's garbage stats Micrea!
I would only add that the tax revenue received from red vs. blue states is further skewed by higher marriage rates and higher birth rates in red states. From this red-state tendency to marry young and have more children, liberals glean all sorts of cherry-picked data to include higher divorce rates, higher teen birth rates and shorter life spans.
You can't get divorced if you never get married in the first place.
Teen mothers in red states include married women 18-19 yrs of age.
The deaths of children (mostly from auto accidents) drives down life expectancy.
Blue-state two-income households (often unmarried and childless) tend to have higher tax rates than single-income households in red states where people marry at a younger age, have more children and one parent is very likely to stay home to raise children or only work part-time.
FTR, the large number of children presently being raised in red states will inherit our $16 trillion debt and finance Medicare and Social Security in the decades to come.
Mixed up a bit i see. Was not Romeny and his administration who told many many many many lies following the deaths of an American Ambassador. Who since the 1970's has never been killed.
Along with 3 others, who died senselessly.
If you have not heard, all the new, THE SOB'S ALL KNEW and that same night, and days earlier about the trouble in the region. Infact the first request for security was in June of 0/12 each time turned down.
These people with the anniversary of 9/11 approaching, should have gotten more security. Only a moron, who for some odd reason, wanted people to think that the region was safe, would not have.
Save your bologna, and the bull. This administration was caught red handed in a lie, a doozie of a lie, and now cannot get out of this huge lie.
Tell one lie, tell another, to cover the first lie, and on and on it goes. Clinton, Rice, Carney, Obama, don't work under Romeny have you not gotten this memo.
An excellent job debunking Clint's garbage stats Micrea!
I would only add that the tax revenue received from red vs. blue states is further skewed by higher marriage rates and higher birth rates in red states. From this red-state tendency to marry young and have more children, liberals glean all sorts of cherry-picked data to include higher divorce rates, higher teen birth rates and shorter life spans.
You can't get divorced if you never get married in the first place.
Teen mothers in red states include married women 18-19 yrs of age.
The deaths of children (mostly from auto accidents) drives down life expectancy.
Blue-state two-income households (often unmarried and childless) tend to have higher tax rates than single-income households in red states where people marry at a younger age, have more children and one parent is very likely to stay home to raise children or only work part-time.
FTR, the large number of children presently being raised in red states will inherit our $16 trillion debt and finance Medicare and Social Security in the decades to come.
I don't know where you are getting your statistics.
88 % of teen mothers are unmarried. The highest rates of teenage pregnancy are found in the traditional bible belt region of the country: teen birthrates are highest in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas, and New Mexico.
Teenage pregnancy has a high correlation with degree of religiosity, conservatism, and low education.
The blue-collar women supporting Romney/Ryan are the very ones who are most likely to be receiving support and entitlements from the government. Yet if elected Romney/Ryan plan to make much of their federal budget cuts in the areas of family support and entitlements. It makes no sense to me why conservative blue-collar women support the Republican ticket.
I don't know where you are getting your statistics.
88 % of teen mothers are unmarried. The highest rates of teenage pregnancy are found in the traditional bible belt region of the country: teen birthrates are highest in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas, and New Mexico.
Teenage pregnancy has a high correlation with degree of religiosity, conservatism, and low education.
The blue-collar women supporting Romney/Ryan are the very ones who are most likely to be receiving support and entitlements from the government. Yet if elected Romney/Ryan plan to make much of their federal budget cuts in the areas of family support and entitlements. It makes no sense to me why conservative blue-collar women support the Republican ticket.
you obviously are comparing apples and oranges by even suggesting high birth rates and teen pregnancy is related in anyway to religion. You are right about the Bible Belt except NM, but the reason for the high teen pregnancy has more to do with rural living, very early marriages, and lack of education, not religion. I have lived in 3 or the states you mention...Each has its own reason for the higher birth rate, but religion plays a very small part, with the exception of NM because of the high rate of Hispanics that are nomally catholics as well, so abortion is not an option...Has it dawned on you and a few others the rate of teen births in some states does have a lot to do with the rate of abortions...
You mention low education: this is a fact and one we all would like to address more closely and solve, but again it is related to rural living...
An excellent job debunking Clint's garbage stats Micrea!
If you call that a debunking I have a bridge to sell you. He had a vague question about GDP calculations that I showed had no bearing on the conclusion. He totally ignored the information about the repeated and steep cuts in personal income tax rates during the last 50 years. He offered no alternative explanations; he only pointed out that select European countries, depending on which ones in question, have higher or lower employment to population ratios than the U.S. as a whole, which wasn't even in conflict with what I stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
I would only add that the tax revenue received from red vs. blue states is further skewed by higher marriage rates and higher birth rates in red states. From this red-state tendency to marry young and have more children, liberals glean all sorts of cherry-picked data to include higher divorce rates, higher teen birth rates and shorter life spans.
Unlikely. A more plausible explanation is that, with few exceptions, the red states are almost exclusively former slave states. It is only recently that they have started to expand their economic activity after lagging northern developed areas for most of the country's history.
Plus, the popular conception that social welfare programs primarily benefit Blacks is a prime motivator for historical resistance to them (or anything that can be associated with supporting them) from the former slave states; resistance has always been couched in language about "states' rights". It may not be so explicit today, but is a cultural legacy that has not disappeared. We are seeing some waning of it in certain Southern states that have experienced strong influxes of educated northerners, however, such as Virginia.
Maybe if we had more than two viable political parties there could be more broad agreement on core issues and politicians wouldn't be forced to resist broadly popular positions to please small constituencies.
Any one person who literally feels, one party is superior to the other, is plain nuts. Any one person who feels one party is a propaganda machine and not the other, is not living in the real world.
And hopefully if we have a brain, we each know it.
One is not more guilty then the next, or better at telling the truth, or lying. They each have problems, because as far as i know, people will neve ever be perfect, and if that is what we are looking for. We have a long ways to go.
They each have different ideals and opinions, and how we need to get where it is we are going, but the rest they are pretty even on.
Don't sit here and act, like one party is superior to the other, when we can sit here if we so desire, and start siting a awful lot of things we do remember. At least i can, what is the point.
you obviously are comparing apples and oranges by even suggesting high birth rates and teen pregnancy is related in anyway to religion. You are right about the Bible Belt except NM, but the reason for the high teen pregnancy has more to do with rural living, very early marriages, and lack of education, not religion. I have lived in 3 or the states you mention...Each has its own reason for the higher birth rate, but religion plays a very small part, with the exception of NM because of the high rate of Hispanics that are nomally catholics as well, so abortion is not an option...Has it dawned on you and a few others the rate of teen births in some states does have a lot to do with the rate of abortions...
You mention low education: this is a fact and one we all would like to address more closely and solve, but again it is related to rural living...
These factors could definitely play a role. But the study I am referring to found a strong correlation between statewide teenage birthrates and the percentage of adults who say they are "very religious" even when they accounted for income and abortion rates. The higher the religiosity, the higher was the teen birth rate on average (e.g. Mississippi).
States in New England scored low in religiosity but high in religious participation, and had very low teen birth rates; the authors suggest that it is the more conservative, more fundamentalist type religion that correlates with teen pregnancy.
They state that "religious communities in the U.S. may discourage the use of contraception among their teenagers" because they advocate for abstinence, so that when teenagers do have sex they do not have appropriate birth control at hand.
It's true that in the south there is a higher rate of teen marriage, which could also contribute to the higher rate of teen pregnancies, but it makes me wonder how many of those marriages are shotgun weddings that occur because of a pregnancy.
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.
Clinton, Rice, Carney, Obama, don't work under Romeny have you not gotten this memo.
