the flame war with my Republican dad has officially begun

[arcane1]

I sent him the story about Kean's 9/11 commission, which he said was liberal crap "opinion" that I shouldn't trust. I fired off a pretty healthy response, and so he sent me this in return:

-----------------------------------------
Interesting Theory (and a more than a little scary)

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution

1787, Alexander Tyler - a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough - had this to say about "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:
THE FALL OF THE ATHENIAN REPUBLIC... "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
>From courage to liberty;
>From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependence,
From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent American Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore 127 million Bush 143 million

Square miles of land won by: Gore 580,000 Bush 2,427,000

States won by: Gore 19 Bush 29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore 13.2 Bush 2.1

Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and the "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
------------------------------------------------------
:eyes:

my response:

heyyy, this is just opinion :

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

gee, you don't think he has an axe to grind, do ya? :-)

don't Virginia and Texas still lead the country in murder rates? Don't they have "government-owned tenements" too?

hmm, let's see. We had a surplus of 1 trillion dollars in 2000, now we are back (again) in deficit, the highest EVER in US history, and billions going to corporations and millionaires in the form of tax credits, government subsidies, and corporate welfare. I'd rather give it to the poor :-)

"government welfare" ain't just for brown people. Pasty white millionaires are getting much more of your money than poor people are. And there are alot more poor people now than 3 years ago. (3 million people lost their jobs, so far. But I guess they don't deserve unemployment benefits?)

think about this quote from the article:

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy"

Well, if you recall, Bush was promising a check of at least $300 to every person (much much more if you're rich), in exchange for a vote. In other words, a government handout. Didn't he even say that due to the huge surplus we should all get some money back? So he was the one promising "the most benefits from the public treasury" (I wonder how many votes that got him). Now, the treasury is back in deficit, the dollar is losing its solvency worldwide, and the euro is kicking our ass in the exchange rates. Ah, but if you are a millionaire and buy bonds, you are making a pretty good haul via the tax-free interest on those bonds as we use them to cover the deficit.

I call this a "loose fiscal policy". I liked it better when we had a surplus.

So there is plenty of "government dependency" to go around. I don't know where he gets the 40% figure, though. He apparently is counting the Ken Lays of the world, who have a negative tax rate and yet still get refunds...

[SlavesandBulldozers]

1. it's interesting

It's interesting how your dad calls the commission "liberal crap" seeing as how it's produced by a Republican. Ask your pops if Republicans are now spouting Liberal crap.

And another thing, your dad said the first step in a democracy is from "bondage to spiritual faith." Ask him about the 100 some odd years between the time this country was founded to the emancipation proclamation.

[Wetzelbill]

4. Zing!!

[ArkDem]

2. Why spend your time with family arguing.

You aren't going to change his mind. Just let it go unless you enjoy it.

[Droopy]

9. You never know

My mom voted for Bush, but next time she's voting Dem. You never know what can come out of these kinds of conversations.

[maxsolomon]

3. i stay out of it with my dad

its pointless. his mind is lost to the rantings of WLW. he thinks hillary clinton is going to run against bush. so does my mom. and they voted mcgovern!

i'll admit, i'd have a hard time not firing back at that. considering that the largess of the liberal cities's tax dollars is what subsidizes the hinterland's "rugged individualism".

thank zeus my dad doesn't have email.

[trotsky]

5. I wish I had the link for you...

but at one time I saw a map comparing the federal money flow to states (for every $1 in taxes sent to the federal government, how much did the state get back) to the 2000 election results. Far and away, Gore's "blue" states got less back from the government than they gave. Bush's "red" states were suckling at the government's teats.

I'll poke around a bit and see if I can find it. Otherwise maybe another DUer has the link handy.

[arcane1]

6. that would be cool

I NEVER get into things with my dad like this, but today he crossed the line in his reply to me.

Silence is over.

I'd like that link if you can find it. I still haven't actually sent off the reply yet :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

10. Found something!

This is a link to a blog, but he has a map. Texas is the most notable exception, getting $.92 back for every $1 it sends to Washington. But that's likely due to oil revenues.

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002155.html

[arcane1]

11. thanks!!

that was the kicker, I'm sending this damned thing out now

[fob]

12. BOOOMMM!!!

Excellent work Trotsky! I had to sign on after reading the first few oposts to bring up this very topic and was happy to see it fully covered when I read the remaining posts!

bush* country = welfare states(for the most part)

Gore Country = Donor states which give for the greater good of all, even his "lesser" repuke bretheren!

Poppa arcane1 should be asked if he would support a constitutional amendment whereby no state get's more back than it contributes. No more subsidized state-fare!

[Droopy]

7. Good counter argument

I hope you and your dad get along ok. Doesn't sound like you'll be converting him to our side any time soon though.

If one of the fiscal conservatives get the nomination you could always remind your dad of this and show how irresponsible Bush has been fiscally. It looks like you did a little bit of that in the e-mail, but you should really hammer on this.

[prolesunited]

8. Game on!

At least you're not going home for the holidays. Not that I'm partial or anything, but I would give this round to you. :D

You make some really good points. It will be interesting to see how your dad responds.

:hi:

[arcane1]

13. he will respond with either:

1) silence

2) a NewsMax editorial


that's my guess

[NewJeffCT]

14. You might want to mention

That the states in the Northeast (New England, NY, NJ... not sure of PA) that were all Gore states save New Hampshire, and the West Coast contribute a far greater share of money to the federal gov't than they get in return, while Bush states in the 'heartland' are just the opposite - they pay less in to the government, but get more $ back in return.

Not sure where I read it, but I believe I saw it here a month or two ago (I've only been coming here two months...)

[arcane1]

15. I did...

it's in an above post, complete with a map! :-)

[NewJeffCT]

17. Thanks

I bookmarked the link...

[arcane1]

16. here is the original

after I sent everyone the story of the 9/11 commision yesterday:



This statement is the opinion of the correspondent. Even if they did know you couldn't prevent it unless you shut down all airlines permanently.

"For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston"

If this information was know as early as 1991 why didn't Clinton do something about it. You have got to stop believing all this left wing liberal crap. If Clinton testifies you know he will tell the truth.
--------------------------------

my reply:

I'm confused, which part was opinion? Which part was liberal crap? The congressman in the article is a Republican, appointed by Bush himself...

I want to know what Clinton did or didn't do from 1991 to 2001, and what Bush did or didn't do in 2001. There is no place for party loyalty in a subject like this, if you ask me. Hang the guilty and absolve the innocent, no matter what party they belong to. Hell I didn't vote for Bush OR Clinton so I have no reason to want to protect either of them. Nor do I have any reason whatsoever to trust either of them. Clinton bagged a few terrorists in his time, and I've heard him talk alot about Osama, yet by the time he left office Osama was still out there. Why? I'd like to know. Also, when Bush took office, I don't recall hearing a word about Osama, or reading about anything being done about him. Why? I'd like to know that too.

I also want to know why the Hart-Rudman report was never followed-up. Why did Payne Stewart get 2 fighter escorts when his plane went off-course, but NORAD was nowhere to be found on 9/11? These are among the questions nobody is asking.

When Bush took office he didn't fire the entire federal gov't. There are tons of people working in the CIA, Pentagon, etc, who worked under both presidents (George Tenent comes to mind). I think there is plenty of blame to go around. This is bigger than mere party politics.

I would think that ALL Americans would like to get to the bottom of this, and do what must be done to prevent it. It's not a left/right issue.

[Terwilliger]

18. good luck!

let's hope you can convince him...even chipping away a little helps! :hi:

[Capn Sunshine]

19. good line From a Nader (?) speech

I think it was him, but it was anti-corporatist nonetheless

"show me a gross polluter and I'll show you a government subsidy"

The point was without tax breaks and Federal subsidies, these guys would have to play inthe REAL open market, where the cost of pollution would be too great.

[w4rma]

20. Elitist Thinking in Blue States

The mentally (or at least factually) challenged Peter Bruin Hays III writes a charming letter to the New York Times in which he calls Tom Friedman´s equation of tax cuts with service cuts as Blue State "elitist thinking."

Mr. Hays III does live in one of those rarities - a "red state" which is a net contributor to the rest of the country - but as this table makes clear most Bush voting states are sucking at the federal government teat.
10:25 AM