Once again, it's time for my quarterly challenge to "progressives" on the Two America's John Edwards so rightly pointed out between his trips between the sheets....
The map to the side, points out the red/blue 2000 election results (by county). Note that most of the country is red except for our urban centers.
Now, consider all the things you would include if you were measuring a quality of life for a particular area...
Unemployment
Crime
Schools
Growth
Road maintenance
Cost of living
Homelessness
Taxes
Amenities such as shopping and restaurants
By any of these measures, the red areas will always be superior to the blue areas. And what is the other common denominator of these areas? The red areas are run by republicans and the blue areas are run by democrats.
I've been doing this blog for two years now and I'm still waiting for some "progressive" to challenge me on these assumptions or to tell me exactly why the blue areas they run are vastly superior to the red areas.
The bottom line? Is it that they can't or they won't?
3 comments:
Yes that's a good point. The red ones do have a better quality because they are the ones who spend more money than they can sustain. They are spending money that the blue districts make, and they are spending debt money that will burden the children.
You couldn't be more wrong.
City governments spend much more money than suburban areas than in both absolute dollars and per capita spending.
In addition, the cities get lots more in federal and state subsidies than suburban areas to fund all kinds of programs.
Put all that in a hat and guess what, you have many a city on the brink of bankruptcy.
Plus look at the state governments run by democrats and you'll find many of those states on the brink of financial insolvency.
Try again.
Harry you couldn't be more wrong. Also the red areas provide the food and energy the blue areas need to survive.
Post a Comment