Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eugenitor]

what it should be

So people deserve nothing but to clamber over each other, desperately seeking the bare minimum needed to pay next month's rent, and when they just can't balance their budget anymore and can't afford what they need to live- food, housing, medical care- you just say that it was their own damn fault and that they should have taken some personal responsibility for their finances.

That is some brilliant fucking shit right there. I can't even treat my slaves like this- not the ones I want to keep, anyway. But to you, this situation is the way things should be.

And then- and then- you pretend not to grasp why people would want a different system, as if you honestly have no idea why they'd not want to live this way, forever-indebted to people who will always have more than they do, forever told the lie that they could just be better off if they worked a little harder and their man-hours were worth more.

I've always had the conceit that I couldn't be out-eviled if I really tried. Whenever a threat came on the horizon I just turned it up to over 9000 and all challengers were driven before me like ants in an earthquake. But holy hot shit, after this I'm gonna need to go train on an asteroid somewhere (one in which the children need to work for their precious air- stuff's not free) and see if I can become a Super Evil-Jin.

Kindly stand there posturing while I charge up, 'k?

[mainiac]

How about we just go with "things works so long as there's someone to pay for it"

Well, social democracy seems to work pretty well in France and Germany without anybody else paying for it.  Or compare the Norwegian welfare state to Texas sometime.  Norway and it's nearly highest standard of living in the world is what you can afford when the socialists get their hands on oil money (and they have a hefty sovereign wealth fund saved up to boot!)  Texas and it's 25% uninsurance rate is what you can afford when the libertarians get their hands on oil money.  Or look at Sweden, they don't have the oil money but they've got the socialism and they can afford a fantastic welfare state.

[Shades]

I think you'll find someone is still paying for it

[Pnx]

Dwarf fortress has taught us that communist principles work extremely well compared capitalistic ones when governing a society.

Either that or dwarves haven't got a head for all that economics stuff.

I've personally always had the stance that everyone should get a fair shot, that we should try to make everyone as equal as possible at birth... but people tend to get antsy about that kind of stuff. They want the ability to make the lives of their children and their children specifically better. It just seems to be an inevitable part of humanity's nature to screw itself over. So those born to rich families will have better educations and start with fiscal backing in life, those born to poor families don't in fact where property values are extreme it's no unheard of for there to be a generational mortgage, where where the debt is expected to be paid off over the lifetime of the parents and the children.

[mainiac]

I think you'll find someone is still paying for it

So... when faced with a working, factual example, you reply with cynicism unbacked by evidence.

[RedKing]

I think the best explanation for the state budgets is population/demographics rather than ideology. Let's look at the top five budget deficits vs. their population rank:

California: Deficit Rank (1) / Population Rank (1)
New York: Deficit Rank (2) / Population Rank (3)
Illinois: Deficit Rank (3) / Population Rank (5)
New Jersey: Deficit Rank (4) / Population Rank (11)
Florida: Deficit Rank (5) / Population Rank (4)

Common denominators: High populations, large amounts of infrastructure to maintain, high urbanization rates, high land values (so they took a beating when the real estate bubble popped and property taxes plummeted), high average wages (thus higher expenditures on unemployment benefits)

Now the bottom five:

Wyoming: Deficit Rank (50) / Population Rank (50)
North Dakota: Deficit Rank(49) / Population Rank (48)
Montana: Deficit Rank (48) / Population Rank (44)
Alaska: Deficit Rank (47) / Population Rank (47)
South Carolina: Deficit Rank (46) / Population Rank (24)

The top four there actually have small budget surpluses for 2010. The common denominators? Low population, low urbanization, low land value (hence less damage from the real estate bubble), low cost of living, low average wages (thus lower expenditures on unemployment benefits) and high Federal rents for mineral rights and military bases. Oh, and with the exception of Montana they're places that you couldn't pay most people to live in.

It's not exactly a shock that a mass downturn in manufacturing, real estate and financial services doesn't really affect Wyoming. People weren't exactly flipping condos in Casper. And their outlay for transportation alone, well....let's look at the numbers:

Wyoming (2009): $652 million
California (2009): $25,819 million

The loss in California's property tax revenue alone is almost certainly larger than Wyoming's entire budget. When you add in the Federal grants that states get, which tend to disproportionately help the smaller, more rural states, it's no surprise that the empty red states have a better balance sheet.

[Il Palazzo]

I think you'll find someone is still paying for it

So... when faced with a working, factual example, you reply with cynicism unbacked by evidence.

Saying that socialism works in Sweden, is like me saying that capitalism works in USA. I don't live there, I don't know what the actual realities are, how much really of a socialist/capitalist country either of them is, if there are other factors at work etc.

It's only fair to reply with mild cynism, as neither of you can actually analyse the situation in Sweden and reach some sensible conclusions, other than noting that they can afford a high standard of living and social care.
[/defending Shades. I'm doing it only because it's you, mainiac.]

[mainiac]

Long truck routes that exist because maintaining our railways would have been socialism...

Also, curse you Palazzooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!  But seriously, there is an abundance of statistics on things like unemployment, cost of living, government budgets, etc.  You don't need to use blind cynicism.  You can inform your cynicism very well with only a little effort.

[Eugenitor]

We actually do have a functioning, well-used railroad system, but it's generally for extra-large hauls of agricultural products and scrap metal. No one's willing to lay track for consumer goods.

[RedKing]

low cost of living

You ain't fucking kidding. I pay $275 a month for an apartment New Yorkers would kill each other in the street for.

$275?!?? Where the hell do you live? One of my ex-girlfriends in White Plains, NY paid more than that for the parking space at her brownstone. (Yes, the parking space cost extra on top of the $1200/mo or so that she was paying for a ~400 sq.ft. studio.)

[RedKing]

Ahh. Hence my comment above about "places you couldn't pay most people to live". 

Not that the people aren't nice or anything, just that it's like North America's smaller version of Siberia. With less trees.

[mainiac]

...actual Christians.

I don't believe you.  Actual Christians were killed off in the American Jihad of 1994.

[RedKing]

Oh, I'm not knocking the Dakotas. I have a metric buttload of relatives in South Dakota and Montana. It's purely the "hellishly cold" thing.

And for the record, I couldn't live in New York either. Didn't mind visiting for a few days, but I don't handle huge cities well, and New York is too cold for me as well. North Carolina is my happy medium -- not too crowded, but not a barren waste; warm, but with occasional snow; cultured, but you can drive out to the country and have a pig-pickin'.

EDIT: Unfortunately, we're also in the top ten worst budget deficits, in part because we have a f**kton of roads to maintain, and we heavily subsidize public education.

[Aqizzar]

The loss in California's property tax revenue alone is almost certainly larger than Wyoming's entire budget. When you add in the Federal grants that states get, which tend to disproportionately help the smaller, more rural states, it's no surprise that the empty red states have a better balance sheet.

I feel this point needs reinforcing.  Let's look at the Census Bureau's numbers for Federal Aid to State Governments over some recent years, 2000-2007.  And those of you insisting that a little personal, moral, and fiscal responsibility in government would solve the spending question should pay close attention, and strain your brains to remember which people were in charge of federal spending at the time.  Compare these to state populations, specifically the biggest state (California, running at a whopping deficit) versus the smallest state (Wyoming, running a tiny surplus):

California - 36.9 million people, $46billion in aid in 2005 = $1250 per person.
Wyoming - 0.5 million people, $2billion in aid in 2005 = $4000 per person.

For more information, you can check out some work by Gary Richardson - the article is subscription only, but you can analyze his spreadsheet data yourself, the last tab lists out Federal Taxes and Federal Expenditures.  Low and behold, it's the populated, "socialist" states footing the bill for rural, "responsible" states, because those empty states love infrastructure as much as anybody but have fewer people and even lower taxes to pay for anything.  Might be related to Republicans clambering over each other for money from that stimulus package they all voted against and insist to this day had absolutely no positive effect on the economy or any state.  Might also be related to the 25 least populous states being home to a sixth of the population (the most rural, conservative sixth) being represented by half of the Senate, while the nine states home to half the population get 18 Senators to balance them.

[Nikov]

Might also be related to the 25 least populous states being home to a sixth of the population (the most rural, conservative sixth) being represented by half of the Senate, while the nine states home to half the population get 18 Senators to balance them.

Working as intended!