Some data on life in a Red State

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
Some of us have become tired of being lectured by the Red Team. How is life different in a "Red State?"

Let us look at the data.

1. On the need to "protect" marriage and the "sanctity" of the institution of marriage.
Which states have the highest divorce rates?
The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Every one a Red State.
And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every one a Blue State. Massachusetts – the only state to sanction gay marriage – has the lowest rate of divorce per capita.
Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry.
Maybe this shouldn't come as a surprise when you consider the example of the pundits and leaders that are so beloved in the Red states: Ronald Reagan (divorced), Bob Dole (divorced), Newt Gingrich (divorced his wife while she was in the hospital dying of cancer), George Will (divorced), Rush Limbaugh (divorced three times!), and John McCain (divorced). To be fair, John Kerry and many other Democrats have gotten divorced, too, but they never used "sanctity of marriage" as a political wedge issue. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the “Defense of Marriage Act,” has had three wives so far.

2. Welfare, taxes, you can hear the complaining from the Red Team for miles. Oh the taxes they pay. "None of the money sent to Washington ever gets spent in my state."
Which states get the biggest return from Federal spending? Who are the states that are the Welfare Queens sucking on the public teet and living on the Dole?
For every dollar paid in taxes, Red state North Dakota gets $2.03 back from the government. The rest of the Top Ten Federal Welfare Queens are all Red States! New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, Arkansas, and Virginia, all receiving between $1.89 to $1.47 back for every dollar of taxes paid. (And this was before the team of Hastert, Lott, Abramoff and Frist perfected the practice of "earmarks" sending money home to their own Red States with a proficiency that Gingrich and Wright could have never imagined.)
Needless to say, it is the Blue States that subsidize the Red States on the Dole. Eight of the Top Ten Federal Sugar Daddies (states that get less back in federal money than taxes paid) are Blue States. New Jersey only gets 62¢ back on its one dollar investment. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, California, and New York all receive 64¢ to 81¢ back for each dollar taxed.

3. Abortion, Abstinence, "Parental Notification" are big issues for Team Red.

What are the facts?

9 of the 10 states with the highest teen pregnancy rates are Red States.

4. Crime, the Death Penalty and public safety have been big for the Red Team. Perhaps not surprising in light of the facts....

9 of the 10 ten states by murder rate are Red States and all of them have the Death Penalty

12 states, almost all of them "Blue" have no death penalty and 10 of those 12 have below average murder rates.


5. Health Care:

Team Red equates any sort of National Health Insurance or universal health care as a threat to our way of life, if not plain old fashioned Socialism. How healthy are the Red States? The lowest 15 states by life span, premature death, infant morality on a broad health index are all Red States. Texas did not quite make it into the bottom 15, coming in 35th nationally.

11 of the 15 healthy states, including the top 3, are all Blue States. The healthiest state in the nation is Hawaii. Perhaps because Hawaii is unique in having almost universal availability of health insurance.


6. Does the Red Team read the newspaper?

Nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters in the last election believed the U.S. has come up with ''clear evidence'' that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. (The Bush Administration. UN inspectors, 9-11 commission all publicly admitted this was not the case.) And more than a third believed that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S. led invasion. (The Coalition of the willing?)
"Among the 57 percent of respondents who said they believed Iraq was ''directly involved'' in carrying out the 9/11 attacks 57 percent said they intended to vote for Bush."


7. Social Security and Medicare are just more Socialism. Rush Limbaugh considers Social Security part of the "Welfare State" and Bob Dole, among other Red Team players called for the elimination of Medicare. But then, it was Team Red that tried to make the ketchup on burgers as "vegetable." When a survey of senior citizens found many of them eating cat food in place of canned tuna it exposed a brutal truth that we care poorly for many of our seniors.

When you check the statistics of elderly persons living below the poverty level, it is not so good to be a senior citizen in a Red state. The Top Ten states for senior poverty are all Red.


8. You can do everything you need to do in this world with a high school edumacation.
Everyone knows that the only thing college will do for our youth is indoctrinate them into wicked liberal philosophy and immoral behavior. That's why the Red States feel it is so important to keep their kids out of these bastions of depravity. The Top Ten We Don't Need No Education states are all Red, led by West Virginia, where only a little less than 16% of people age 25 or older have a Bachelor's Degree or more.
By contrast, 9 of the top 10 states in which residents have a college degree are Blue, starting with Maryland at over 37%.

9. The so-called "energy crisis" is just a myth made up by a vast left-wing conspiracy.
Don't let anyone fool you with talk of conservation of finite precious natural resources or the pending ecological disaster of global warming. God gave us everything on earth to use up just as fast as we possibly can. Of the Top Ten I Got Yer Greenhouse Gases Right Here, Pal states, nine of them are Red based on BTU use per capita.
On the opposite end, eight of the Top Ten Look I'm a Tree-Hugging Enviro-Fairy states are Blue.

10. Are you ready for God's Vengeance? When a number of Christian Fundamentalists indicated that hurricanes were God's payback for our toleration of homosexuality one could only wonder which states have the highest population of SSCs (Same Sex Couples) and which states are living in mobile homes, basically daring God to send a hurricane.
Perhaps surprisingly, 8 of the 10 ten states in percentage of the population composed of Same Sex Couples are Red. To be fair, Vermont, a Blue State, does lead the nation in SSCs. So here are the Red States, tolerating homosexuality and flaunting their lack of morality, begging to be nuked by a hurricane.
And, essentially daring God to hit them, Red Staters are far more likely to call a tin can on wheels home. Real freedom means living in a trailer house. The Top Ten Houses Likely To Be Wiped Out By God's Wrath During Tornado Season states are all Red.

So here we are. Living in a nation in which the leadership was elected by voters who flaunt God’s vengeance by living in trailers, with high school educations, who die early from poor lifestyle choices, are likely to be divorced and have pregnant teenagers. They burn energy like there is no tomorrow and think newspapers are good for window curtains, certainly not to be read. How else can one explain the belief that Iraq was responsible for 9-11? They live in states propped up by Federal largesse in which their college educated countrymen in the Blue States pay a disproportionate share of taxes to Washington so that it can be doled back out to the Red States.
 



Rancho Loco

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
5,546
Reaction score
0
Dude, you're just trolling for pegged blood pressure responses...

This is all good information for discussions, but to mash a huge pile of it in folk's faces is a bit much.

I respect your views and passion, but ain't nothing good gonna come from this.
 

ETC2NA

Forever Hunting
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
3
I'll bite. Where'd the data come from? Don't worry Foo, I'm formulating my rebuttal, I'm just trying to decide if its worth the argument or not.
 

Atwater

Purt near but not plumb
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
30
Have you ever considered sydicating the "IBAfoo Show"? People should really have to pay for this kind of entertainment. By the way, you forgot bestiality and incest. I'll bet those red devels lead the pack in those areas as well. Keep up the good work foo!

It used to be "Better Red then Dead"
Now its "Better Blue then True"
 

Atwater

Purt near but not plumb
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
30
Hey foo, aren't you supposed to be a debate coach? And, as such, do you not coach folks on how to argue both sides of an argument? I would challenge you to prove your salt. Argue the other side. Show us how it's done. Take your own post, point by point, and win this debate for "the red team".

I'm challenging you foo, in good nature and without malicious intent. You did say "toungue in cheek". You're disclaimer is documented. How brave, or more to the point, how good are you? After you claimed to have done some farming, then admitted that you'd ridden a "horse drawn combine in a parade", I have to wonder. Hell, I once rode a camel at a travelling circus, but that doesn't make me a nomadic arab.

I've watched you challenge people here on a regular basis. Your turn. Care to cowboy up? (That means accept the challenge)



foo, no anger here...you're like a liberal hammer, and you know where the nail is. I can respect that, even if I don't agree. But I would ask, respectfully, that if you're not willing (or able) to accept this challenge in the spirit it was intended, then please don't accept it at all. I'll give you that pass. Call it "red team charity".


Edit: It just hit me that foo never claimed to have "done some farming". Did not mean to misquote.
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (IBAfoo @ Aug 6 2006, 09:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Newt Gingrich (divorced his wife while she was in the hospital dying of cancer),[/b]
GW - Here is a fine example of your upstanding Republican.


Oh wait, IBAfoo also mentioned, Abramoff. The same guy who pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and bribing public official. Isn't he Tom Delay's, another upstanding and high-ranking Republican I suppose, best friend?
 

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
Well Atwater,

In sequence I suppose. Your last post asked if I had (essentially) called you a liar. My memory is that the issue was whether or not the guy in Sonoma had lost his farm. I don't know your record for personal honesty and I certainly don't know whether Mr. McCorvey lost a farm or not. I do know that he is a very successful farmer now. But I'm not even sure is that was the basis of your concern that I had implied you were dishonest.

As for the original post, it is not a debate brief for one side of an issue. It's a set of data that distinguishes between states that tend to vote red, and those that vote blue. As such, it is not really an argument or a debate brief.

I could certainly make a case for staying in Iraq, or for cutting progressive taxes like the estate tax. That sort of thing is easy. Writing an argument against a proposition of value, or belief, is easy. Writing a brief against a set of data is not so easy. You have to have conflicting data and the original post is census data, I don't think one could find data that says that people in Red States are healthier or more educated that Blue States because I don't think that data exists.

The census data about lifespan, education, etc. is not really "debatable." What you are asking me do to is to argue, by analogy, that water flows uphill. Red and Blue America are different. The data is real. The data on tax collection and government expenditures is true, and has been reported many times. It's kind of hard to argue the "other side" of something like.

You can argue that taxes are good or bad, that they hurt this group, or that group, but what I posted is data. I mean, divorce rates are divorce rates.

I could certainly argue that there is no correlation, or causal relationship between the data and being Red or Blue. In essence, my original post is very weak in causal links. For example, there is no evidence why Red states have worse health outcomes, so there is no real evidence that poor health is inherent in being Red.





The big issue, playing out as I post, is the Lieberman election, which is now trending back toward Lamont. I could argue that a Lieberman loss will be good for the Blue Team or bad for the Blue Team. But I would be arguing out my ___ because the truth is, predicting the future of a complex political event like that tends to make one eat one's words. I'm disinclined to try to make either side of that argument, but my instinct is that the victory of Lamont is good for the Red Team. I would guess that the liberal net blogging progressive types are probably torpedoing the Nov. election for Team Blue.




For the record, I predicted that Bush would win both the last two elections, 2000 and 2004. I predicted that Arnold would win the Gubenatorial recall and I predicted he would win re election the very night all his propositions went down last november. I'm on the record saying that the Red Team will hold both houses of Congress in November. (and I'm starting to worry I might eat the House at this point, but it August.)

I'll poke around and see if I can find some data which indicts life in a blue state. I thought the best thing I would have would be that blue states are hotbeds of SSCs. Same Sex Couples. I was shocked to find that by percentage, most of the states with high SSCS percentages were Red. And I was stunned to see that CA did not make the top 10.
 

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
Here you go. This is kind of fun.

http://www.slate.com/id/2103764/

You have to scroll down and find the sort of hidden click link to take the quiz.

I scored slightly red. I think knowing some of the music and geography, as well as having fired a gun pulled me back towards blue.
 

Common Sense

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
10,583
Reaction score
158
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (IBAfoo @ Aug 8 2006, 07:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I thought the best thing I would have would be that blue states are hotbeds of SSCs. Same Sex Couples. I was shocked to find that by percentage, most of the states with high SSCS percentages were Red. And I was stunned to see that CA did not make the top 10.[/b]

 

Atwater

Purt near but not plumb
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
30
Your post is full of statistics for states, not people. Red team, and blue team inhabit all states, but your stats don't seperate the two. Yet you imply that these stats show underlying truths about the red teamers. In fact, they only show underlying truths about largely poorer populations, regardless of their political party. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't impoverished Americans who vote, generally vote Democrat? Isn't the Republican party the party of the rich, and Democrat for the common man?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
So here we are. Living in a nation in which the leadership was elected by voters who flaunt God’s vengeance by living in trailers, with high school educations, who die early from poor lifestyle choices, are likely to be divorced and have pregnant teenagers. They burn energy like there is no tomorrow and think newspapers are good for window curtains, certainly not to be read. How else can one explain the belief that Iraq was responsible for 9-11? They live in states propped up by Federal largesse in which their college educated countrymen in the Blue States pay a disproportionate share of taxes to Washington so that it can be doled back out to the Red States.[/b]
Sounds like you have a genuine disdain for poor people. Hey mister liberal, you're elitism is showing.
 

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
Well Atwater, I would invite you to reread this part of my prior post. I think you make the same point, which I would easily concede, that the data don't even prove that there is some inherent causal relationship between have a population with more education and voting with a particular party.



"I could certainly argue that there is no correlation, or causal relationship between the data and being Red or Blue. In essence, my original post is very weak in causal links. For example, there is no evidence why Red states have worse health outcomes, so there is no real evidence that poor health is inherent in being Red."


You are right, I did imply it, overtly, and labelled it tongue in cheek.
The paragraph you pull out is tongue in cheek.

I could have just as easily written.

'So here are the blue states, over educated, with meaningless long lives, drinking lattes, driving Volvos, staying married to the same person their whole lives, paying too much in taxes, getting nothing back, and not even being aware of it, or maybe not caring. They ride their bikes past the trailer park while living in big houses with central heat. (You would not want to burn a tree in the fireplace.)"


If I were an elitist why would I favor keeping the Estate Tax? The Estate Tax was passed originally in the late 1700's to prevent an American aristocracy.

As for party affiliation, the number one determinant of party affliation is not what you might expect. The single biggest factor in party affiliation is one's parents. In short, if Dad was a Republican, you will be a Republican. And the latest research indicates, what I all the "team sport" aspect of politics.

The latest research shows that once you are affiliated with a party, your views modify to fit the party position on most issues, particulalary value issues. And, then, this was especially interesting, if your party changes their view on an issue, you do as well.

Of course, by "you" I don't mean a particular person, just the hypothetical "you" who is a Republican because your Daddy was a Republican. Then, when the Republicans changed their position on the national debt "you" viewed it differently as well.

This is true of both parties. It is like, if you are a Giant fan, Jeff Kent is an MVP, until he plays for the Dodgers, at which point he becomes a minion of the antichrist in Dodger Blue.
 

Atwater

Purt near but not plumb
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
30
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The Estate Tax was passed originally in the late 1700's to prevent an American aristocracy.[/b]
The first estate tax, the Stamp Act of 1797, was passed in order to provide funds to improve our navy due to a French blockade which threatened trans atlantic trade. It had nothing to do with preventing an American aristocracy, and was repealed in 1802 after the situation had been resolved. It required citizens to buy federal stamps on wills and estate.

Again during the Civil War, repealed 5 years after the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox.

Again during the Spanish American war, the War Revenue Act of 1898, repealed in 1902.

Again in pre WWI, the Revenue Act of 1916, lowered, but not repealed after the war.

Again during WWII, but this time for good.



Prevention of an American aristocracy foo? Sounds like you hung pages from your history books on the windows for curtains....they certainly weren't for reading. (toungue in cheek)
 

ETC2NA

Forever Hunting
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
3
For the record, I withdraw my pending rebuttal. Nice arguement, I'm just not interested enough to get involved. You and Atwater are plenty entertaining, I think I'll just watch this one.
 

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
Looks like someone uses Wikepedia! Impressive.

Perhaps you could read up on the original motive for the tax:

Yale University:

"In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, the Estate Tax has preserved American democracy by preventing the rise of a wealthy "landed aristocracy." While we want to reward hard work, as Americans, we understand that a concentration of too much wealth in too few hands makes equality among citizens almost impossible."

Don't like Yale? Think its a bunch of lefties? Ok, how about Business Week?

"Citing the Responsible Wealth letter, Business Week even editorialized against repeal, declaring that: "The founding fathers were right to worry about an aristocracy of wealth."


Whatever one might think of the history of the Estate Tax, the original charge was that I am an "elitist."

Favoring an estate tax means one does not favor elites.





Oops, I was wrong, that stuff did not come from Wikipedia, it came from The National Center for Policy Analysis..... here is Atwater's source:

The first estate tax -- enacted July 6, 1797, to help pay for naval rearmament -- required only the purchase of federal stamps for wills and estates, but was terminated four years later because the need for the revenue passed.

A direct tax on inheritances imposed in 1862 during the Civil War ranged from 0.75 percent to 5 percent.

The top rate was raised to 6 percent in 1864; but the tax was then abolished July 14, 1870.

In 1898, an estate tax with a top rate of 15 percent on estates over $1 million was imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War -- then repealed on April 12, 1902.

Who is Atwaters source for this "history?" Well, it might not have been the NCPA directly, but the "fellows" churn this stuff out and it gets requoted by other publications. It's very common when you do this sort of research that the original grist will get ground out by a think tank, and then it flies off into the wind and others, too lazy to look things up for themselves, quote the think tank and the idea then enters the national dialogue. That's why the rich fund think tanks on these issues, to create "facts" in the national discourse.

These "facts" Atwater cites have spread through a variety of publications, but the NCPA is clearly the original "source" of these "facts" on motive.

That National Center for Policy Analysis. A Right Wing Think Tank funded by oil companies to churn out political propaganda is hardly a historically valid source.

Who runs the NCPA?

Wayne Calloway, President and CEO of Frito-Lay
Jere Thompson, President and CEO of the Southland Corporation
Robert Dedman, President and CEO of ClubCorp
Russell Perry, President and CEO of Republic Financial Services
Sir Antony Fisher, President and CEO of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation

Who funds the NCPA?

Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
Lilly Endowment Inc.
Procter & Gamble Fund


See any historians in there? You want to buy your history from Dailer, Exxon and Eli Lilly knock yourself out. Or, you could read history from someone who studies history for the art and science of it and wasn't making undocumented historial assertions to back up a policy position.

The Koch family alone has invested 12 million dollars in this sort of historical "research" so that they can save 8 billion in estate taxes. Yeah, that's who I want to "buy" my historical facts from.

Personally, I like original sources, not right wing think tanks.

Which President said this?

"Therefore, in spite of the great importance in our national life of the efforts and ingenuity of unusual individuals, the people in the mass have inevitably helped to make large fortunes possible. Without mass cooperation great accumulations of wealth would 'be 'impossible save by unhealthy speculation. "Where wealth accrues honorably, the people are · always silent partners." Whether it be wealth achieved through the cooperation of the entire community or riches gained by speculation—in either case the ownership of such wealth or riches represents a great public interest and a great ability to pay."

Which President said this?

"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like tax would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood."

A tax upon inherited economic power is a tax upon static wealth, not upon that dynamic wealth which makes for the healthy diffusion of economic good.

I recommend, therefore, that in addition to the present estate taxes, there should be levied an inheritance, succession, and legacy tax in respect to all very large amounts received by any one legatee or beneficiary.

Because of the basis on which this proposed tax is to be levied and also because of the very sound public policy of encouraging a wider distribution of wealth, by so doing, we shall progressively lighten the tax burden of the average taxpayer, and, incidentally, assist in our approach to a balanced budget."


Hint, if you go to Washington D.C. you will find memorials to both presidents previously cited. Most Americans, then and now, thought the two presidents who I quote as authority on the motive for the tax to have been pretty significant in our history.

Yeah, you could believe history from a right wing think tank who will tell you what the motives for the tax were, or you could read that original statements on the motivations for the tax.

Personally, I choose to believe direct quotes from the people who passed the tax at the time than paid "historians" who are not historians seeking to create a revisionist reality so that the Koch and Mars families can save billions.

Common Sense will like this quote from, wait for it.......

Thomas Paine

"Later in life, Paine extended his critique of inherited political power to a critique of inherited economic power. In two works, The Rights of Man and Agrarian Justice, Paine argued for the adoption of an inheritance tax to balance out the unfair distribution of “landed property.” For Paine, it was common sense that God gave “the Earth as an inheritance” to all of God’s children."



Gee, who are you going to trust on the motives of the founding fathers? Exxon or Thomas Paine?
 

Atwater

Purt near but not plumb
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
30
Foo, you do much better when you go away for a couple of days before replying. Here's a link to my source.

New America
 

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
Now that is funny. And I am not mocking you, I am laughing at what passes for "research..."

The NCPA put their stuff out in 2000, your guy essentially plagarized it in 2001. That is exactly the process these "facts" usually are at core. My suspicion is that if you back source Daniel Gross, he got that from someone else. You will probably also find it, post 2000/2001 all over the place masquerading as "research." It's probably all over the briefs on Capitol Hill...... funny.

That is why, when you look to motive, you should always use the original source if you can get it. You know, like the presidents previously cited, or Tom Paine on the issue of motive.

Daniel Gross is a liberal and the article you cited, and this is really choice, advocates KEEPING THE ESTATE TAX!!!!

Although, to be fair, his argument, which is in my original post on the estate tax, is one based on loss of revenue, not income redistribution....

"Given this history, and the imperatives of what will likely be a years-long war on terrorism, repealing the estate tax seems remarkably wrongheaded -- especially now that we're strapped for cash to fund our new national defense priorities."

So, you have cited an authority which advocates the opposite of your own advocacy and which is neutral on the motives of the founding fathers on the tax.

So, lets review, if you read the original quotes from the original people who advocated the tax, their motives, with respect to income redistribution are quite obvious.

None of this has very much to do with the original post.

Have you taken your Red/State Blue state quiz yet?
 

IK13

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Messages
311
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (IBAfoo @ Aug 8 2006, 07:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Here you go. This is kind of fun.

http://www.slate.com/id/2103764/

You have to scroll down and find the sort of hidden click link to take the quiz.

I scored slightly red. I think knowing some of the music and geography, as well as having fired a gun pulled me back towards blue.[/b]
Got dead on in the middle
 

Atwater

Purt near but not plumb
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
30
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The NCPA put their stuff out in 2000, your guy essentially plagarized it in 2001.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
That National Center for Policy Analysis. A Right Wing Think Tank funded by oil companies to churn out political propaganda is hardly a historically valid source.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
See any historians in there? You want to buy your history from Dailer, Exxon and Eli Lilly knock yourself out. Or, you could read history from someone who studies history for the art and science of it[/b]

Daniel Gross was educated at Cornell University and holds a master's degree in American history from Harvard University. A freelance journalist, he has written about business, politics, and American history for many publications, including the Washington Post, New York Magazine, the New York Observer, the Boston Globe, Audacity, the New York Times, and the New Republic, and has had several books published.

Plagarism is a serious charge which shouldn't be tossed about lightly in a public forum to satisfy the ego of an intellectual elitest who can't admit when he's wrong. (remember foo, toungue in cheek)
 

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
Neither of them sourced anything. I think it's hard to look at the two articles and conclude that one did not influence the other, and Gross cited nothing.......

I used the modifier "essentially" intentionally. I don't know where this came from originally, but for the 2nd or 3rd time I will indicate that when you drill these things down you almost always find one article, that everyone uses, and then the reuse is used again and pretty soon one article has become 100 citations with the same numbers, when, it was originally one article.

Again, you don't respond to the analysis that favored an estate tax is not "elitist" advocacy, and you have now dropped the fact that the evidence on what the original intent was is pretty clear when you look at the original sources. It's pretty hard to argue that the intent of the estate tax was not income redistribution when you look at the original sources.


Here is the evidence..... IBM presents You Make the Call!


*********************************
Gross, in 2001


In 1797, when a blockade by the French navy threatened to snuff out trans-Atlantic trade, Congress passed the Stamp Act of 1797, which required citizens to purchase federal stamps on wills and estate. This first estate tax -- nobody called it a death tax back then -- raised funds to improve our navy. Once the French threat subsided, the tax was repealed in 1802.

Congress enacted the first direct tax on inheritances during the Civil War. Starting in 1862, blood relatives -- other than spouses -- receiving bequests of greater than $1,000 had to pay a .75 percent tax. The levy rose to 5 percent on bequests to distant relatives or strangers. In 1864, the top rate was raised to 6 percent. Five years after Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the entire tax was repealed.

A generation later, the U.S. sprung into a war after a symbol of its might -- the Maine -- was destroyed. To fund the Spanish-American War, Congress passed the War Revenue Act of 1898, which imposed taxes on estates and gifts. After a $10,000 exemption, recipients paid rates rising from .74 percent up to 15 percent on estates over $1 million. The tax was repealed in 1902.


************************************************
NCPA in 2000

The first estate tax -- enacted July 6, 1797, to help pay for naval rearmament -- required only the purchase of federal stamps for wills and estates, but was terminated four years later because the need for the revenue passed.

A direct tax on inheritances imposed in 1862 during the Civil War ranged from 0.75 percent to 5 percent.

The top rate was raised to 6 percent in 1864; but the tax was then abolished July 14, 1870.

In 1898, an estate tax with a top rate of 15 percent on estates over $1 million was imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War -- then repealed on April 12, 1902.
***************************************************

And the stuff about lack of historians was in reference to the staff so the NCPA, of which Gross is a member. If Gross is a historian, he does not take a position on the intent of the founding fathers, which was the issue at that pointl.



I'm done with this thread, it was a thread about some data on Red States.... We are no longer topical....
 


Top Bottom