Making Baby Jesus Cry

[dtb]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
With rp on my, and many others, ignore list, I would requiest that you not quote her unless it if for a very good reason.

Will you PLEASE cut this out? You're better than that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda


These are examples. Each individually does not seem to add much, but they illustrate my point - they do not, and are not intended to, comprise the total of it.

I understand the point, but I suspect you could find a host of things that S.D'ans have to deal with that Cal. doesn't (e.g., schooling in less dense areas is more expensive, from the much longer bus routes to the less than efficient scale schools). And in some cases, SD may have decided not to pay for them through gov't.

I haven't fly-specked the Cal. budget, but I would hazard the guess that a large part of its greater spending/taxing results purely from a decision to be more a welfare state than many smaller states.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


The problem was that, as often happens, you and Ty spent a long time beating on each other using slightly different points. You are correct about the psychology. Ty is correct about the hypocrisy and self-interest. The rest is just detail.

S_A_M

This is not true. I made the point that the people in the Red States are more skeptical of large governments. They have stronger instincts against the growth of government. That was the original point. SHP said this is not true because they take in more federal dollars than they give out. Ty agreed with that, and added the fact that they have increased government spending shows that this is not true.

I know that it is hypocritical for some politicians from the small states to say they are for big government and then bring the pork home. But this is not Ty's point. His point went beyond that. He said that because of these votes it shows that the people in the small states are not really inclined towards smaller government.

Again, I made statement that was obvious, Ty disputed it, and now you are trying to pretend that he did not because you realize that such a disputation would be absurd.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why are californians so less capable of taking care of themselves than South Dakotans?

Because we are so busy delivering boatloads of our federal tax dollars to South Dakota.

People in the red states loooove big government, provided it's paid for by someone else.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Whatever. I have lived in the biggest state and the smallest state, and some in between, and know rather more about their respective governments than you seem to think. I was making a rather different point, about the hypocrisy of the modern Republican party, who prattle about the virtue of small government while spending more and more federal money, esp. on pork.

No you weren't now you are changing your tune now that realize how absurd your position was:


Street Fighting Man Post #3155


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
My point was that they mistrust government, and therefore have smaller state governments. You were questioning the validity of that statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your response to my statement.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And still do, since the people whom you say "mistrust" government have expanded it, and are using it to redistribute money from their neighbors in other states.

I was talking about the average people in these states. Remember. Just because some of their federal politicians have recently voted for bills increasing the amount of federal spending does not mean that these people have changed their minds. In addition, their state governments are still proportionally smaller than large state governments. In addition, they still only allow their legislators to be part time. All this shows is that maybe a few of the recently elected federal politicians may be hypocritical.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As I think your answer implicitly suggests, we essentially have had Gray Davis budgets under Arnold, without the cuts in spending that would restore the state's budget to balance. Instead, we get the same sort of tricks -- e.g., deals with Indian casinos, which revenue gets counted all in the first year instead of as it comes in -- to paper over the imbalance.

He has tried to make cuts but has been stymied by the legislature.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please show me where I said that.

Just one of many places:

Street Fighting Man Post #3155


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
My point was that they mistrust government, and therefore have smaller state governments. You were questioning the validity of that statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your response to the above statement:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And still do, since the people whom you say "mistrust" government have expanded it, and are using it to redistribute money from their neighbors in other states.

[Spanky]

Street Fighting Man Post #3172


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
You are getting into other issues. I was making the point, that in the more rural areas of America people have a stronger inclination towards limited government. And this is reflected in their size of their state governments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




All those so-called anti-government types learned a little bit about what that really means when Newt shut the government down. It became apparent that their anti-government rhetoric was complete and utter bullshit.



Sidd - are you just making a point or are you diputing the validity of the statement up above?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I think it's a little unfair to compare the situation in California to pretty much any small state. It's a lot harder to govern California than to govern SD. We have a population much more diverse by any metric you can name - ethnically, by religion, by sexuality, etc.; much greater diversity in occupations (what can you do in SD? Beyond work at the base, farm or greet customers at WalMart); greater disparity in incomes among the populations, etc. than in the red states, which in general tend to be more homogeneous. I'm not saying that corruption and waste are equivalent, but the greater challenges in governing this state have contributed to a larger, more complicated - and yes, probably more wasteful - government. Put another way, waste aside and assuming perfect efficiency, do you think California could provide the same type, level and quality of services to its citizens that SD does, at the same per capita cost? How many Hmong interpreters do the SD courts employ?

Just to be clear. Are you just making a statement or are you trying to dispute the validity of this statement:

Street Fighting Man Post #3172


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
You are getting into other issues. I was making the point, that in the more rural areas of America people have a stronger inclination towards limited government. And this is reflected in their size of their state governments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Just to be clear. Are you just making a statement or are you trying to dispute the validity of this statement:

I'm saying there may be more involved in why a state government is the size that it is, than just inclination toward/away from government.

Note that inclination and necessity are not mutually exclusive.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda

Note that inclination and necessity are not mutually exclusive.

I am not saying that they are. Although Texas has kept is state government pretty small regardless of its size. They also have a part time legislature.

But again, I am just saying that these people have stronger instincts against the size of government and this is reflected in their state governments. I think the truth of that statement is pretty obvious.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky

But again, I am just saying that these people have stronger instincts against the size of government and this is reflected in their state governments. I think the truth of that statement is pretty obvious.

Let me try these analogies:

1) You may watch your weight, but still overeat when there's a buffet.

2) You might like to keep your restaurant spending low, but order more when you're splitting the bill equally with a group of friends.

Originally posted by Penske_Account

WHere did you get that pic of RP and why is she so distraught? The resemblance is uncanny.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is not true. I made the point that the people in the Red States are more skeptical of large governments. They have stronger instincts against the growth of government. That was the original point. SHP said this is not true because they take in more federal dollars than they give out. Ty agreed with that, and added the fact that they have increased government spending shows that this is not true.

I know that it is hypocritical for some politicians from the small states to say they are for big government and then bring the pork home. But this is not Ty's point. His point went beyond that. He said that because of these votes it shows that the people in the small states are not really inclined towards smaller government.

Again, I made statement that was obvious, Ty disputed it, and now you are trying to pretend that he did not because you realize that such a disputation would be absurd.

Your point, such as it is, only makes sense as a platitude, ignoring subtleties like the differences between local, state and federal governments. Many small states have smaller local and state governments, we agree. Like Burger, I think this is largely a matter of choice, but like Panda, I think there are also governmental functions that inhere in running a state with urban areas the size of LA, San Diego and San Jose, as opposed to a state with urban areas the size of Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and Mitchell (home of the Corn Palace).

Be that as it may, these states have a complicated relationship with the federal government, and have long depended on federal largesse, often as subsidies from larger states, in a way that larger states do not. The very creation of these states was tied up with federal defense spending (to subdue the Indians) and railroad land grants, and the federal government still owns much more of Western states like South Dakota and Utah than most other states. Today the Bureau of Reclamation is more significant, but the song remains the same. As Burger noted, the fact that even the puniest state gets as many senators as the (415) area code helps these states get more than their share.

The groovy trick mastered by Republicans from these states is to rhapsodize about small government while tirelessly working to divert federal money to their states. Without Democrats around as a check, Republicans are spending more and more money, and yet they see not need to raise taxes to pay for it. This was the essence of the Reagan economic miracle, and it works nicely until a responsible adult like George H.W. Bush points out that it's time to pay the piper. Now, the Democrats are in a minority, and there are no responsible Republicans anywhere near the reins of power. Some people have suggested that this is because the power in the GOP has shifted to the sorts of states you're talking about -- the South and the West -- and away from the Northeast, whose Rockefeller Republicans were more concerned with balancing the budget. This makes sense to me.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Street Fighting Man Post #3172


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
You are getting into other issues. I was making the point, that in the more rural areas of America people have a stronger inclination towards limited government. And this is reflected in their size of their state governments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




All those so-called anti-government types learned a little bit about what that really means when Newt shut the government down. It became apparent that their anti-government rhetoric was complete and utter bullshit.



Sidd - are you just making a point or are you diputing the validity of the statement up above?

I am saying that you should judge people by their actions as well as their words, and that the red states tend to be pro-big-government when they don't have to pay for it, when it benefits them, when they realize how necessary it is, or when they need a handout for farm subsidies.

Originally posted by dtb
Will you PLEASE cut this out? You're better than that.

'

whiff. I was parroting Hank parroting me. She is a beloved poster. and mutuial empathy and respect flows between her and the other posters. I am the only one who has her on ignore, surely.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
, I think there are also governmental functions that inhere in running a state with urban areas the size of LA, San Diego and San Jose, as opposed to a state with urban areas the size of Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and Mitchell (home of the Corn Palace).

Be that as it may, but South Dakota has more hells angels' per capita than anywhere else, altamont included, for a not insignificant chunk of time. Martial law, indeed.