Dr. Seuss don’t have to put up with this shit. He knows if people had a real choice, they’d choose the Who State, every damn time.
William Voegli, National Eyebonger:
Red, State, Blue State
Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):
- Okay, maybe so-called studies have shown that people living in blue states live longer, live healthier, have more money and new industries, are happier, and generally better looking than our conservative paradise red states, but… Um, er, we’re still outbreeding you suckers. Also racist old people retire with us, so fuck science, conservative policies FOREVAH!
Yeah, it’s one of these ones.
Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic argues that it’s getting easier, but more alarming, to differentiate Blue from Red America.
Fuck, first line and we already have an “even the liberal New Republic”. Somehow I don’t think we’re going to be accidentally trodding on originality this post.
The one “looks more and more like Scandinavia
Wish it was the case. Oh dear Bob in Himmel, do I wish it was the case. But sadly here in boring old regular reality, we’re having a good day if one of our blue states actually makes a brief halting step towards catching up with the rest of the world. It’d take so many decades upon decades of hippies winning to even approach where the Scandanavian countries are currently that we might as well give up now if that’s our goal. Settle for something we might yet reach, like the Balkin countries. C’mon, I think our most liberal states might yet catch up to Serbia if we all try hard!
, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.”
Isn’t that a compliment?
Are you saying Christopher Chantrill lied to me?
In TNR’s current issue, Cohn examines, with the help of some academic researchers, the strength of the safety nets in blue and red states.
Well, that’s a deft transfer of ownership right there.
Almost like you were pants-shittingly terrified of actual countering the legitimate research and having to deal with all those messy facts and decided some blogger for The New Republic was more manageable.
But hey, we can’t say it’s false. In the same way no one can dispute that I built the Empire State Building (with the help of the architects, construction workers, and city planners who planned and constructed it) and that I won several Olympic Gold Medals (with the help of the athletes who actually won said medals).
The former he defines as those states carried by the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the past three elections. (That roster comprises California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.) Red states are those that voted for the Republican nominee in those same three elections (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia). Cohn’s analysis leaves out purple states, which favored one party, then the other, over the past decade’s presidential contests; as well as Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming, whose economic idiosyncrasies would have distorted the picture.
“By nearly every measure,” Cohn concludes, “people who live in the blue states are healthier, wealthier, and generally better off than people in the red states.” Why?
Well, perhaps if instead of sprinting off to write a page’s worth of “nuh uh, YOU’RE the poopyheads” drivel, you could have hung around and read the studies cited showing the math on how blue states rate better than red states. Perhaps you could have even gone on to see the correlations in Europe that further back up the sobering reality that yes, it turns out that liberal economic and social policy really do create stronger economies and happier people.
Almost as if people are less likely to be stressed out balls of violent desperation when people aren’t willing to collapse society just to “get at them” and where tightly-wound right-wing psychotics can see that the gay isn’t really the existential threat they pretend it is to make the truck stop visits more exciting. Where people can just be people.
And as if the economy was healthier in areas where racing to the bottom wasn’t the only game in town and people have a social safety net to fall back on if things get hard. Because it turns out that founding new industries and businesses and retraining workforces to new industries is easier when people aren’t freaking out about starving if things go wrong. Besides-
He allows that causation is difficult to prove, but believes the strong correlation between the level of government spending on social welfare and indices of well-being “is hard to dismiss.”
Yes, that would be the shorter way to put it.
What? I said Jonathan Cohn writes for a shit paper and has a naive view of what “Scandanavia-like” is. I never said he was complete balls.
This is what complete balls looks like:
Here’s an odd thing, though: If people in the blue states are healthier, wealthier, wiser, prettier, funnier, and generally better off than people in the red states, why is Blue America growing so much more slowly than Red America?
Okay, yes, wingnuts, I get that the freakout about “relative population growth” is all a racist sexist freakout hoping that if you go oogedy boogedy about brown third world nations, white women will agree to give up their rights and become brood mares to “balance” things.
But still, let me make one point perfectly clear:
WE DON’T NEED ANY MORE POPULATION GROWTH.
We really fucking don’t. In fact, we could do with a hell of a lot of relative population shrinkage while we can still afford to do that without having to resort to costly and bloody wars over basic resources.
Sorry if this is a bit blunt, but we don’t even really have the food resources for the population we have now and we’re running out of the natural resources we need to prop up the current system. We don’t need any more fucking babies. I don’t care how scared you are of the third-world horde outbreeding you.
But hey, you know what might work better than trying to out-fuck them? How about stop exploiting the shit out of them and help give them a hand forming a legitimate first-world economy and help fight for global women’s rights and universal education. Then they’ll stop underbidding your workers and as a bonus, they’ll also stop out-breeding you as first-world nations with high education and strong rights for women tend to breed less overall.
On that note…
According to the Census Bureau, the overall population of the 18 blue states grew by 5.9 percent between 2000 and 2010. The 20 red states, by contrast, saw their total population increase by 13.6 percent. (The rest of the country grew by 12.6 percent.) We see the same thing if we look at changes over 20 years. The blue states’ total population increased by 15.9 percent between 1990 and 2010, half as fast as the 32.9 percent of the red states. (The rest of the country increased by 31.4 percent.) As a result of these different rates of growth, blue states accounted for 46.2 percent of the U.S. population in 2010, compared to 49.5 percent in 1990, while the red states’ proportion grew from 28.7 percent to 30.7 percent over the same two decades.
Cohn praises Massachusetts, the “quintessential blue state,” where “residents get a lot more help from their state government than people who live elsewhere in the United States,” including health care “available to almost everybody” and welfare benefits “among the most generous in the country.” Even by blue-state standards, however, the Massachusetts population is growing slowly — just 3.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, and 8.8 percent between 1990 and 2010. Both figures are about one-third the growth rate for the other 49 states plus Washington, D.C.
Social Darwinist Texas, on the other hand, “doesn’t even try to provide the kind of protection for its vulnerable residents that Massachusetts does,” with “more uninsured residents than any other state” and a welfare program “among the nation’s stingiest.” As a result, people are departing this quintessential red state in droves. Oh, wait. Texas grew by 20.6 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly seven times as fast as Massachusetts, and 48 percent between 1990 and 2010, five and a half times as fast as the Bay State.
Of the ten states that grew most slowly between 2000 and 2010, seven — Michigan, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Pennsylvania — are blue. (The others are purple Ohio and red West Virginia and Louisiana, which lost population after Hurricane Katrina.)
Really? This is your big counter to Blue States being healthier, wealthier, and happier? That you can outfuck them?
This is your counterargument to the charge that Republican policies have taken sections of the richest country of the world and have successfully given them third world economies? You have third world sex education and breeding patterns too?
Yeah, that’ll show those mean old blue staters whose the real victim to their governments ill-fated economic and social policies!
Six of the ten states that grew most rapidly were red ones: Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina. (The others were purple Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, and Colorado.)
Yes, let’s see at all this impressive growth.
Well, we’ve got:
A) popular retirement areas for old northeastern geezers tired of the cold (Arizona, Florida, Nevada)
B) areas dominated by creepy breeding cults (Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado)
C) areas that grew because of consequences of abject poverty, usually targeted at a minority racial group whose growth is usually categorized a bad thing by wingnuts (Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Florida)
D) areas that have been growing larger and thus more urban, which is making the states less red and more blue (North Carolina, Texas)
Not a single one of them seems to have grown because of “totally kickass awesomeness that makes studies into the consequences of political outlooks completely meaningless and therefore easily dismissed lies”.
Also, yeah, note that we’re only talking about relative increase, not total increase (thus cutting off inconvenient states like California) and totally ignoring that many of these gains come from racial minorities who are berated for “having too many kids they can’t feed” by wingnuts the other 364 days of the year.
One way a state’s population will grow is as a result of “natural increase” — the number of births minus the number of deaths. People have no choice about where they’re born and limited control over where they die, but more of a say about where they reside and work during the years in between.
Yeah, except for Quiverfull, Mormon, and Catholic families that see large family size as a commandment by God. Also all those snowbirds who migrate South in their old age so they can die in the warmth of a Southern State in a nice retirement community where everyone hates minorities as much as they do. And let’s not forget the massive effect social class, education level, sex education resources, cultural and religious attitudes, and women’s rights have on birth rates.
But besides all that, yeah, it’s all about choosing where you want to live and work…
Except who really has that freedom?
I mean, how many of us live where we do because we really really want to live there? Or have the job we do because it’s our dream job? Sure, some of us. And some of us may at least be within spitting distance to where we’d ideally live and ideally work.
But for the vast majority of us, we tend to go where the tropical storm winds blow us. Following lovers, job leads, less expensive housing, social support networks from family or friends, or wherever we lucked into getting a job that can at least make sure rent is paid.
Fuck, for many of us, we have more of a say in where we were born than where we’ll end up in the course of a lifetime.
The only people who really “choose” where they want to go tend to be rich middle-aged people and rich old people. And yeah, I bet they are more likely to see red states as the “promised land” largely because they are more than willing to sacrifice the poor saps living there to help aid the cognitive dissonance of rich white assholes.
Net migration” is the Census Bureau statistic assessing that phenomenon, which it breaks down into international and domestic (intranational) migration. The Bureau shows the U.S. population increasing by 8,944,170 between 2000 and 2009 from net international migration; California, Florida, New York, and Texas accounted for nearly half that total. By definition, however, net domestic migration leaves total national population unchanged while people redistribute themselves among the states. They did so between 2000 and 2009 by, overall, moving out of blue states and into red ones. Of the ten states that had, by absolute numbers, the highest population losses due to domestic out-migration, eight were blue: New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maryland. (Purple Ohio and red Louisiana were the others.) Of the states that had the biggest increases as a result of domestic in-migration, five (Texas, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee) were red; four (Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado) were purple; and one (Washington) was blue.
Cause older and richer Northeastern folks retiring after a career near the cities to a place in the sticks where they can have a lot of space and warm weather in the same way as they have done for centuries somehow means that’s where all the best paying jobs are from.
That’s why red states are giving more in tax money than they receive in benefits (oh wait, never mind).
It is “difficult,” writes Cohn, “to find any indicator of well-being in which red states consistently do better than blue states.”
And it is apparently still difficult, seeing as how good old Willy has found bupkis and shiza to defend them.
Because his article doesn’t mention the demographically stagnating
If you know what I mean and I think you do WINK WINK.
What officer? What whistle? Oh this giant ass whistle in my hand? No, you misunderstand, it’s just an ordinary walking stick… that can also summon dogs. Did I mention that I was white?
blue states and burgeoning red ones, he ventures no hypotheses about why so many people are fleeing havens that have flourished by taking The New Republic seriously
Even the liberal New Republic round two. And here I thought the days of wingnuts quoting the New Republic as if it was the hivemind of liberal discourse were over.
and flocking to states rendered ghastly dystopias by ignoring it.
The myth of free movement in this country is just that? The realities of housing prices, available space, moving and apartment rental (or house buying for the richie richs), and economic forces outside our command often painfully limit our ability to choose where we live, where we can work, and what we can buy and do in utter contrast to what deluded libertarians pretend to believe about how things work.*
Possibilities worth considering include:
Or we could enjoy some freshly buttchugged conjectures instead. That’s cool too.
(1) Blue-state governments are better at doing things than accomplishing things. Blue states’ highly unionized government workers may, for example, deliver public services more noteworthy for their cost than their efficacy.
The fug? Um, if they were just really expensive and didn’t do anything, how would that create all those misleading “facts” about how much heathier, happier, and wealthier the blue states were? Wouldn’t they have even more signs of an impoverished area than even the South as the job-killing power of deluded liberal Keynesian policies did their nasty work?
Do you even know what you are arguing with?
Do you even care?
(2) The taxes necessitated by the blue states’ safety nets are too damn high, a problem especially likely to cause population outflow if people feel they’re paying for crappy but expensive government programs.
I know, I know. Dumb question. And again, how the fuck would this even remotely explain the data we’re seeing? Do you have an answer that isn’t dog-whistle on 11 levels of IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION?
(3) “If you are poor,” one of Cohn’s experts concludes, “you want to live in a blue state.” But perhaps that depends on whether you envision being poor for as long or as short a time as possible. If it’s the former, a Scandinavian safety net has obvious advantages. If the latter, however, the chief consideration will be opportunities for jobs, new enterprises, and affordable housing. If red states, lightly taxed and regulated, provide more of these opportunities than blue ones, they will attract more people seeking to get out and stay out of poverty.
But hey, it can be hard understanding the real world when you spend all your days doing the hard work of keeping the world running with your pack of totally deserving 1%ers who never ever just inherited their wealth and prestige by virtue of their parents.
Cause, hey, lots of poor people can just up and leave the state because they are concerned that the loopholes for tax evasion if they ever hit it big will be bigger in another state.
And also again, this would be reflected in more new industries, enterprises, etc… in the red states rather than what we’re seeing now: a modest growth in new businesses by successfully abusing workers to the point that they are competitive with child labor from China.
But hey, why would you need facts in a right-wing journal? Objective reality is for fags and hippies. That’s why anyone who understands numbers must be a secret liberal apostate and destroyed immediately. Only this way will the Volcano God be appeased!
Though he offers no diagnosis of the blue-state exodus, Cohn has a can’t-miss remedy: Keep Americans from voting against his policy agenda with their feet by making sure they have no way to escape it.
That’s one of the dumbest attempts to pull a “no, you see, it’s liberals and people trying to help people who are the real freedom killing monsters” I’ve seen in a long time.
And that’s saying a metric fuck-ton.
You do realize that the spewing bullshit to disguise your agenda trick is supposed to make your position seem less like the deranged rantings of a desperately lying hobo, right?
One of his experts laments that America has not one safety net, but 50. Following the argument to its conclusion, that’s not just too many, but is exactly 49 too many.
Or that the piecemeal system we have in place means that whether you live in a barely first-world nation or a wannabe second or third world nation depending entirely on an accident of birth and circumstances, is a crying shame that fucks over too many people. And maybe we should have an actual fucking safety net in this country.
Giving “states a lot more control over the size and shape of the social welfare state” would mean giving them “the liberty to let a whole class of citizens suffer.” That mustn’t happen. “This country has room for different approaches to policy,” Cohn writes. “It doesn’t have room for different standards of human decency.” There should be room for just one standard, the New Republic standard, codifying the moral advances made over the past century, “from the Progressive era through the New Deal and Great Society.” Cohn does not spell out how much room he would leave for different approaches to policy, or how different those approaches could really be after the one true standard of decency has been honored.
What? Letting people die for no good reason other than they are poor or live in a city or state where they are the collateral damage or intended target of our attempt to destroy an oppressed minority group is the VERY DEFINITION OF STATE’S RIGHTS! And we will fight a second civil war to protect that right against some egghead Northerner being allowed to “help people”.
If we want to drown in the consequences of our hatreds, you have no right to try and save us.
P.S. Please do not interpret this as a call to cut off the federal funding you keep sending us to keep us afloat. That’s totally in the State’s Rights Constitution.
Also, Willy boy? For such a staunch believer in the Tenth Amendment, maybe you should take a gander directly above it sometime at that pesky Ninth one.
People who find that prospect disquieting can take comfort from the knowledge that they’ll be able to relocate anywhere in the country — and take their minds off the national safety net’s ill effects by enjoying a change of scenery or some distinctive regional cuisine. If that doesn’t work, there’s always the option of leaving the country altogether and relocating to a land that has prospered by repudiating Massachusetts’s blue-state model. Spain, perhaps, or Greece.
Because everyone enjoys that right, yeah? All those so-called poor people have a couple of thou just lying around to move and settle cross-country or between countries, right?
Also, can you really end on a smug, modern “why don’t you move to Russia” note when your entire post is a pleading begging bullshit-throwing contest about how the South is so too a juggernaut that could still compete against the North?
How the hell aren’t you being reduced to a laughing stock for such a transparently obvious attempt at shifting the goalposts and declaring yourself the winner?
Well, carry on then.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. Yeah, the dipshit was educated for wingnut welfare in Chicago and now works for a diploma mill in Orange County basically vanity “publishing” his essays and book. Truly a pure demonstration on how the red state’s ability to fuck has made it so very appealing to live in and work. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
*I say pretend to believe, because for most libertarians, the restriction on free movement and free economic choice is the whole goddamn point, because otherwise they’d have to admit that a pure free market system is the worst one to deliver that and people would be better off with a mixed economy like the Scandanavian countries have.