# If right-wing conservativism is so great, why do their states suck? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 3, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301 "2013-10-03T22:04:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/201 "2013-10-15T15:24:30Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > The thing that strikes an Englishman is how is it that Red Staters and Blue Staters hate and despise each other so deeply, as evidently you do. Aren’t you part of the same country, honouring the same flag, the same Constitution? Can any nation hold together which is so deeply divided? Or am I mistaking the opinions of extremists for that of Joe Public? We have very different ideas about what the flag, country and Constitution _mean_. That said, this is a fairly moderate period in American political discourse. It wasn’t so long ago that half the country was united in its anger against the other half for their treatment of black people. It wasn’t so long before that that one half was _at war_ with the other half over the same issue. The UK is a tiny place where time and tradition have forged consensus on a wide range of issues - and yet you’re probably old enough to remember a time when half the country was on fire and the other half was on strike. The US is a big place with more voices and we haven’t reached a consensus on quite as many things, but we generally move down the right path nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/202 "2013-10-15T16:01:04Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > The best sources for finding out What’s Wrong with Texas & What We Can Do About It are sites[run by Texas liberals](http://www.texasobserver.org/). Some people in “The Blue States” assume that 100% of us here are raving racist throwbacks. We aren’t. There are a lot of moderates in Texas as well; I think the last 5 or so gubernatorial elections have been a real lesser of two evils situation- neither party is particularly appealing- the Republicans are becoming progressively more crazy and hateful, and the Democrats have for a long time, firmly hitched their wagons to the inner city poor and illegal alien tractor. Neither approach appeals to moderates- policies that help inner city Houston poor black people are likely to cost me money and do nothing for me in return, but equally odious are the Republican policies of trying to curtail women’s rights and to disregard science and rationality in favor of clearly religiously based policies and political aims. I think we’ll see a shift in the next 10 years or so; people are getting awfully tired of the Perry/Dewhurst/Abbott/Cruz/DeLay shenanigans. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/203 "2013-10-15T22:03:52Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > They _are_ extremists. The Red State/Blue State dichotomy is only meaningful for the Electoral College. Page down [here](http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/a-movie-for-a-purple-america-how-lincoln-belongs-to-the-future-lpalm.php) to find a truer map. > > It’s a _fact_ that Republican policies have not been good for many of our states. Texas is number one in the percentage of people lacking medical coverage. Our education funding is abysmal, although some young Texans still get good public school educations. Our employment figures aren’t bad–but no thanks to Rick Perry. > > The best sources for finding out What’s Wrong with Texas & What We Can Do About It are sites[run by Texas liberals](http://www.texasobserver.org/). Some people in “The Blue States” assume that 100% of us here are raving racist throwbacks. We aren’t. I don’t know a lot of people in Texas, but of those I know, they are all liberals. I’m sure they cringe worse than anyone. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/204 "2013-10-15T23:33:21Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > If that is your question, then the answer is Germans give up virtually nothing. Most Germans have middle-class lives similar to the United States and billionaires have their billions, so modestly higher tax rates seem to have gotten them a robust safety net in exchange for more or less the same standard of living. Again, this is only you repeating the things you like about Germany. I asked what the condition of their infrastructure is, and also things like wait times for health care, what is “modestly” higher taxes, are those taxes spread out over the classes, what are they spending on military, what percentage of their population chooses not to work. Just looking at the parts that you want doesn’t even begin to show the whole picture, and frankly its a bit dishonest. All these things you want cannot happen in a vacuum - to get universal healthcare, somebody has to pay for it. Since there is only finite money available, that means something else isn’t going to get funded. Apparently Germany has decided to put their money into social services, but unless their taxes are thru the roof, there has to be places where things are not so good, or, things aren’t as great as you’d like to believe. > [@](#): > > In that case the situation is different from today. Do you know that or are you just guessing? Non-senior, non-disabled, non-parent adults cannot get Medicaid, and I’m almost positive that also applies to all other forms of welfare, tho it’s hard to check right now. > [@](#): > > In a country as wealthy at the United States, I believe everyone can be guaranteed at least a minimum standard of living so I say with full seriousness why not? Because it isn’t some faceless “country” that pays for it, it is the taxpayers and the biggest taxpayers are those who go forth and earn at least that minimum standard of living. Responsible people who got educations and jobs before having kids and/or buying big ticket things on credit. As I’ve said before, I just don’t get this attitude that since the US happens to have a bunch of billionaires living here, they should be forced to support a couple of million of people who don’t happen to have a lot of money. I certainly wouldn’t be directly affected by a raise in taxes on those making $250K or more, but I am sure that those folks will raise prices on whatever it is they produce/provide/sell in order to make up for it. So you have everyone paying more just because you have a sub-set of society that cannot be responsible with their money and/or cannot wait until they actually earn these things you want? > [@](#): > > Most people already had their bank accounts covered under FDIC. What about their car loans and mortgages? What about all of the employees. > [@](#): > > So what? The _effect_ is to benefit those with children the most. And if you want less foreign immigration, the best solution is to encourage the native birth-rate. Where on God’s green earth did you get that idea? People are going to come here no matter what our birth rate is. We should not be giving tax breaks to people who are making the most selfish decision possible - to have their own kids instead of adopting one already born, and most especially those who have more than one or two kids. > [@](#): > > That might be true for GDP (although a huge chunk of the Mexican population is middle-class), That you will need to provide a cite for. > [@](#): > > Yes, to the IRS. You are planning to overpay what you will owe? > [@](#): > > I was just giving an example of states that try to attract low-wage businesses. I don’t know anything about Mississippi - maybe they have a large pool of uneducated people that need jobs. There is no reason for them to want minimum wage employers otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/205 "2013-10-15T23:39:12Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > All these things you want cannot happen in a vacuum - to get universal healthcare, somebody has to pay for it. Since there is only finite money available, that means something else isn’t going to get funded. Apparently Germany has decided to put their money into social services, but unless their taxes are thru the roof, there has to be places where things are not so good, or, things aren’t as great as you’d like to believe. As I’ve explained elsewhere, we spend more as a nation per capita on healthcare administration than the best healthcare systems spend on administration and _care_. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/206 "2013-10-15T23:51:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > As I’ve explained elsewhere, we spend more as a nation per capita on healthcare administration than the best healthcare systems spend on administration and _care_. And as I must have responded elsewhere, stating things like that in a vacuum means nothing. Plus, we are still going to have those costs in 2014, plus what Obamacare will cost. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/207 "2013-10-16T02:17:04Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Again, this is only you repeating the things you like about Germany. I asked what the condition of their infrastructure is, and also things like wait times for health care, what is “modestly” higher taxes, are those taxes spread out over the classes, what are they spending on military, what percentage of their population chooses not to work. Just looking at the parts that you want doesn’t even begin to show the whole picture, and frankly its a bit dishonest. > > All these things you want cannot happen in a vacuum - to get universal healthcare, somebody has to pay for it. Since there is only finite money available, that means something else isn’t going to get funded. Apparently Germany has decided to put their money into social services, but unless their taxes are thru the roof, there has to be places where things are not so good, or, things aren’t as great as you’d like to believe. As others pointed out, Germany saves enormous amounts of cash that is spent here for administrative costs. And while Germany certainly isn’t perfect there are virtually no major areas inferior to the United States. > [@](#): > > Do you know that or are you just guessing? Non-senior, non-disabled, non-parent adults cannot get Medicaid, and I’m almost positive that also applies to all other forms of welfare, tho it’s hard to check right now. In California such person will be able to under Obamacare if they are under 133% of the poverty line. And looking this up it appears General Assistance has been > [@](#): > > Because it isn’t some faceless “country” that pays for it, it is the taxpayers and the biggest taxpayers are those who go forth and earn at least that minimum standard of living. Responsible people who got educations and jobs before having kids and/or buying big ticket things on credit. > > As I’ve said before, I just don’t get this attitude that since the US happens to have a bunch of billionaires living here, they should be forced to support a couple of million of people who don’t happen to have a lot of money. I certainly wouldn’t be directly affected by a raise in taxes on those making $250K or more, but I am sure that those folks will raise prices on whatever it is they produce/provide/sell in order to make up for it. So you have everyone paying more just because you have a sub-set of society that cannot be responsible with their money and/or cannot wait until they actually earn these things you want? This is partially why goods in Europe may be somewhat more expensive in the United States, but as it shows, the costs are not prohibitively expensive. Also could you stop with this insinuation that most poor people are irresponsible fools? Most of the poor are not poor due to their own fault but due to economic and social conditions. We aren’t talking about luxuries here, either, but basic necessities of life such as food, health care, and adequate shelter. > [@](#): > > What about their car loans and mortgages? What about all of the employees. Do you really think banks were bailed out for their sake? In which case what of the other companies that have gone under or those who had their homes foreclosed? > [@](#): > > Where on God’s green earth did you get that idea? People are going to come here no matter what our birth rate is. We should not be giving tax breaks to people who are making the most selfish decision possible - to have their own kids instead of adopting one already born, and most especially those who have more than one or two kids. How is it selfish to have children? I agree it > [@](#): > > That you will need to provide a cite for. [http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-17/world/35447681\_1\_middle-class-mexican-government-mexico-city](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-17/world/35447681_1_middle-class-mexican-government-mexico-city) > [@](#): > > You are planning to overpay what you will owe? What do you mean? > [@](#): > > I don’t know anything about Mississippi - maybe they have a large pool of uneducated people that need jobs. There is no reason for them to want minimum wage employers otherwise. Or they could just be short-sighted. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/208 "2013-10-16T05:54:59Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > As others pointed out, Germany saves enormous amounts of cash that is spent here for administrative costs. And while Germany certainly isn’t perfect there are virtually no major areas inferior to the United States. OK, if you want to keep looking at it with rose-colored glasses, you can do so without my interference. > [@](#): > > In California such person will be able to under Obamacare if they are under 133% of the poverty line. And looking this up it appears General Assistance has been Why do people keep bringing up what is supposed to happen next year? > [@](#): > > This is partially why goods in Europe may be somewhat more expensive in the United States, but as it shows, the costs are not prohibitively expensive. This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I said. > [@](#): > > Also could you stop with this insinuation that most poor people are irresponsible fools? Sorry, that has been my experience. > [@](#): > > Most of the poor are not poor due to their own fault but due to economic and social conditions. Uh, no. A long time ago, I challenged anyone here to come up with a real life scenario where a person would be stuck under the poverty level (which is a helluva lot higher than it was back in my day) past, say, age 25. The only way it happens is if that person had incredibly bad luck, and _that_ is what social programs were supposed to be for. Not for people who have kids right out of high school, or who buy houses they cannot afford, or who run up a ton of credit card debt. People make choices; they can make responsible ones or they can make irresponsible ones. Unfortunately, the irresponsible ones keep getting rewarded. > [@](#): > > We aren’t talking about luxuries here, either, but basic necessities of life such as food, health care, and adequate shelter. Which we already provide to the poor. Now we are going to provide health care to everyone. What else would you like us to pay for? > [@](#): > > Do you really think banks were bailed out for their sake? In which case what of the other companies that have gone under or those who had their homes foreclosed? I suggest you look into the whole bailout thing. If it hadn’t happened, it would have had far more effect than on some “rich people”. > [@](#): > > How is it selfish to have children? I agree it What is it with your posts that they get chopped up? Anyway, I already told you two of the main reasons - there are already a ton of kids that need homes, and we are overpopulated. Then you have the folks that think they have the right to have kids when they cannot afford to take care of them. Or the folks full of genetic health problems that have to have their own little DNA replicants running around. Or the folks that have them and then just basically turn them loose on society, like some people get a dog and then let it run the neighborhood messing on everyone’s lawn. Almost everything we do is for selfish reasons, but having children is the ultimate one because you are creating more people for everyone else to compete with. This is especially true if the parents are not able to give the kids the best start in life, for whatever reason. > [@](#): > > [http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-17/world/35447681\_1\_middle-class-mexican-government-mexico-city](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-17/world/35447681_1_middle-class-mexican-government-mexico-city) OK, if that is true that is encouraging, but you do need to note that this is apparently happening mostly or only in the greater Mexico City area, which hasn’t been a third world area since at least the mid 80’s, which is the first time I went there. It needs to spread up to the border & the Baja in order to do anything about the flow of immigration over our border. > [@](#): > > What do you mean? You said you were willing to pay taxes to support the illegals we have here. I missed that you said that you would need to send the money to the IRS - it would actually need to go to the State Revenue Board. Given your income, you aren’t paying to support the illegals thru state income tax, so if you want to do so you will need to overpay. > [@](#): > > Or they could just be short-sighted. Could be. I don’t know what Mississippi is doing. Governments are stupid - they should be taking care of our health care. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/209 "2013-10-16T06:24:18Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > OK, if you want to keep looking at it with rose-colored glasses, you can do so without my interference. Actually shouldn’t you be bringing up some evidence to assert your point that since Germany has more social welfare spending than us, it must mean that there’s some element in which they are horribly lacking? > [@](#): > > This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I said. I was responding to your point that business owners would raise prices if their taxes were higher. > [@](#): > > Sorry, that has been my experience. > > Uh, no. A long time ago, I challenged anyone here to come up with a real life scenario where a person would be stuck under the poverty level (which is a helluva lot higher than it was back in my day) past, say, age 25. The only way it happens is if that person had incredibly bad luck, and _that_ is what social programs were supposed to be for. Not for people who have kids right out of high school, or who buy houses they cannot afford, or who run up a ton of credit card debt. People make choices; they can make responsible ones or they can make irresponsible ones. Unfortunately, the irresponsible ones keep getting rewarded. Let us see here: 1. A working-class kid goes to college in order to take a step up in life and avoid the poverty that his parents faced. However he is forced to take out large amounts of money in student loans. When he graduates he is faced with a bad economy, leading him to have a crushing loads of debt as interest rates pile up. 2. A man who was worked in an automotive factory for twenty years sees that factory close and thus find himself out of job in middle age. At the same time his wife is fighting cancer leading to high medical bills. 3. A woman works full-time at McDonald’s but due to the high cost of living in the area finds herself unable to meet ends meet. Do you not find these scenarios plausible? > [@](#): > > Which we already provide to the poor. Now we are going to provide health care to everyone. What else would you like us to pay for? Basically the bare necessities of life as I’ve indicated. > [@](#): > > I suggest you look into the whole bailout thing. If it hadn’t happened, it would have had far more effect than on some “rich people”. And social welfare (especially universal healthcare) has more effects then just benefitting the “poor”. It reduces crime and contributes to social order while stimulating the economy by allowing more money to be spent by consumers and benefits the public health by detecting health problems early and controlling costs. > [@](#): > > What is it with your posts that they get chopped up? Anyway, I already told you two of the main reasons - there are already a ton of kids that need homes, and we are overpopulated. Then you have the folks that think they have the right to have kids when they cannot afford to take care of them. Or the folks full of genetic health problems that have to have their own little DNA replicants running around. Or the folks that have them and then just basically turn them loose on society, like some people get a dog and then let it run the neighborhood messing on everyone’s lawn. > > Almost everything we do is for selfish reasons, but having children is the ultimate one because you are creating more people for everyone else to compete with. This is especially true if the parents are not able to give the kids the best start in life, for whatever reason. Sorry I forgot to finish the response. I agree its preferable that the kids we have now get adopted, but many of these kids are older and thus may face troubles in adjusting to new households which some parents may not be prepared for. In addition, the United States is not an overpopulated country . > [@](#): > > OK, if that is true that is encouraging, but you do need to note that this is apparently happening mostly or only in the greater Mexico City area, which hasn’t been a third world area since at least the mid 80’s, which is the first time I went there. It needs to spread up to the border & the Baja in order to do anything about the flow of immigration over our border. Baja is one of the most developed regions of Mexico: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Mexican\_states\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_states_by_Human_Development_Index) > [@](#): > > You said you were willing to pay taxes to support the illegals we have here. I missed that you said that you would need to send the money to the IRS - it would actually need to go to the State Revenue Board. Given your income, you aren’t paying to support the illegals thru state income tax, so if you want to do so you will need to overpay. I meant I am willing to pay any legally obligated tax. > [@](#): > > Could be. I don’t know what Mississippi is doing. Governments are stupid - they should be taking care of our health care. Evidence indicates that government-supervised healthcare (even if not directly managed by them via single-payer) are far better at controlling costs. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/210 "2013-10-16T06:57:33Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Actually shouldn’t you be bringing up some evidence to assert your point that since Germany has more social welfare spending than us, it must mean that there’s some element in which they are horribly lacking? See, that’s the thing. You keep claiming that Germany is some kind of utopia and avoiding direct questions that might show that things aren’t perfect there. I personally have no evidence either way, I just asked you since you brought it up, and you just keep avoiding. > [@](#): > > I was responding to your point that business owners would raise prices if their taxes were higher. OK. You said “This is partially why goods in Europe may be somewhat more expensive in the United States, but as it shows, the costs are not prohibitively expensive.” What does that mean? Are you saying that goods in Europe or the US are more expensive? What is “not prohibitively expensive”? As what shows? > [@](#): > > Let us see here: > > 1. A working-class kid goes to college in order to take a step up in life and avoid the poverty that his parents faced. However he is forced to take out large amounts of money in student loans. When he graduates he is faced with a bad economy, leading him to have a crushing loads of debt as interest rates pile up. You are saying there are _no_ jobs out there for this kid? Student loans aren’t required to go to college, and college isn’t required to get a decent paying job. This is an example of someone who took on debt without really considering what it meant, and who apparently wanted that education _now_, instead of taking it slower by working to earn the money to go to college, or go to a trade school instead. > [@](#): > > 1. A man who was worked in an automotive factory for twenty years sees that factory close and thus find himself out of job in middle age. At the same time his wife is fighting cancer leading to high medical bills. In 20 years they didn’t save any money? They have no insurance thru this factory? COBRA goes for at least 18 months. Being out of a job in middle age means nothing - my husband was laid off at 57 just after our current economic downturn started, and got another job in nine months. > [@](#): > > 1. A woman works full-time at McDonald’s but due to the high cost of living in the area finds herself unable to meet ends meet. McDonald’s? Seriously? > [@](#): > > Do you not find these scenarios plausible? Not the way you think I should. > [@](#): > > Basically the bare necessities of life as I’ve indicated. Giving healthcare to people who are not poor is not the bare necessities. > [@](#): > > And social welfare (especially universal healthcare) has more effects then just benefitting the “poor”. It reduces crime and contributes to social order while stimulating the economy by allowing more money to be spent by consumers and benefits the public health by detecting health problems early and controlling costs. Oh sure. I bet it sprinkles fairy dust on everything too. > [@](#): > > Sorry I forgot to finish the response. I agree its preferable that the kids we have now get adopted, but many of these kids are older and thus may face troubles in adjusting to new households which some parents may not be prepared for. Gee, isn’t that too bad. Of course, if folks would adopt more, there would be fewer older kids in the system. I guess kids that don’t share your DNA are less deserving of a good home than those who don’t. > [@](#): > > In addition, the United States is not an overpopulated country . What makes you think that? > [@](#): > > Baja is one of the most developed regions of Mexico: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Mexican\_states\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_states_by_Human_Development_Index) If this is true, this is a _very_ recent development, or it’s because the areas south of the tourista border at full of rich people. > [@](#): > > I meant I am willing to pay any legally obligated tax. Ah. So, since you are not going to have to really pay any, you don’t have any problem with the fact that others are having to pay to support illegals. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > Evidence indicates that government-supervised healthcare (even if not directly managed by them via single-payer) are far better at controlling costs. What evidence? If you are talking overseas evidence, that has nothing to do with the mess that is Medicaid. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/211 "2013-10-16T12:55:17Z")
> [@bump](#): > > There are a lot of moderates in Texas as well; I think the last 5 or so gubernatorial elections have been a real lesser of two evils situation- neither party is particularly appealing- the Republicans are becoming progressively more crazy and hateful, and the Democrats have for a long time, firmly hitched their wagons to the inner city poor and illegal alien tractor. > > Neither approach appeals to moderates- policies that help inner city Houston poor black people are likely to cost me money and do nothing for me in return, but equally odious are the Republican policies of trying to curtail women’s rights and to disregard science and rationality in favor of clearly religiously based policies and political aims. > > I think we’ll see a shift in the next 10 years or so; people are getting awfully tired of the Perry/Dewhurst/Abbott/Cruz/DeLay shenanigans. I can understand not giving a fuck about the poor–but must you single out the black ones? Which Texas Democratic programs have raised your ire? Alas, some of those Texas Moderates still vote Republican. Remembering Kay Bailey Hutchison, who had a long career as The Relatively Sane Republican Senator from Texas. Flipping that lever to vote the straight party ticket puts Republicans on the State Board of Education–and they do tend to be[the Creationist dingbats](http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_sboe_index). But, yeah, Ted Cruz is designed to nauseate even the moderates… ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/212 "2013-10-16T13:08:46Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Again, this is only you repeating the things you like about Germany. I asked what the condition of their infrastructure is, and also things like wait times for health care, what is “modestly” higher taxes, are those taxes spread out over the classes, what are they spending on military, what percentage of their population chooses not to work. Just looking at the parts that you want doesn’t even begin to show the whole picture, and frankly its a bit dishonest. > [@Qin Shi Huangdi](#): > > As others pointed out, Germany saves enormous amounts of cash that is spent here for administrative costs. And while Germany certainly isn’t perfect there are virtually no major areas inferior to the United States. There is at least one, which **curlcoat** mentioned but didn’t follow up on: military spending. The U.S. is set to spend $682 billion on its military this year, which is actually a modest decline from recent years, and works out to 4.4% of GDP and $2,158 per citizen. Germany is set to spend $45.8 billion, which is 1.4% of GDP and $572 per citizen. That extra $1,586 per head would buy more butter, if we weren’t convinced we needed all these guns. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/213 "2013-10-16T13:28:25Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > I can understand not giving a fuck about the poor–but must you single out the black ones? Which Texas Democratic programs have raised your ire? > > Alas, some of those Texas Moderates still vote Republican. Remembering Kay Bailey Hutchison, who had a long career as The Relatively Sane Republican Senator from Texas. Flipping that lever to vote the straight party ticket puts Republicans on the State Board of Education–and they do tend to be[the Creationist dingbats](http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_sboe_index). > > But, yeah, Ted Cruz is designed to nauseate even the moderates… It was an example, not something bigoted. I just tried to pick a group and place that’s not me or where I live (middle class, white, Dallas). I could have just as easily said “poor hispanics in McAllen” or “poor rednecks in Vidor” and the point would have been the same, although maybe without so much impact. The really weird thing to me is that Cornyn used to be relatively sane as well, but when Hutchison quit, it’s like he got the chance to come out of his Tea Party closet and go nuts with all the hyper-conservative dingbat stuff. I have to hand it to the dingbat wing of the Republican party in Texas; they’ve done a stellar job of convincing otherwise sane and reasonable people that the Democratic party is going to destroy their way of life. It’s not usually any one issue that has them in such a lather, but the combination of things like gun control, gay rights, wealth transfers, etc… is what gets them. I really do think that in some ways, the Democratic party played right into the Republicans’ hands, or at least allowed the Republicans to capitalize on it, through massive application of FUD. Had they approached it one major issue at a time over a longer period, they might have had a lot more traction with moderates and mildly conservative voters than by trying to push a slate of changes that frighten those people. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/214 "2013-10-17T00:42:20Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > See, that’s the thing. You keep claiming that Germany is some kind of utopia and avoiding direct questions that might show that things aren’t perfect there. I personally have no evidence either way, I just asked you since you brought it up, and you just keep avoiding. I never claimed Germany was a “utopia”, merely that its standard of living is far preferable to here and my direct answer to the question is there is no significant area of German life which is significantly inferior to that of the United States to the best of my knowledge. > [@](#): > > OK. You said “This is partially why goods in Europe may be somewhat more expensive in the United States, but as it shows, the costs are not prohibitively expensive.” What does that mean? Are you saying that goods in Europe or the US are more expensive? What is “not prohibitively expensive”? As what shows? I mean some consumer goods are more expensive then in Europe. > [@](#): > > You are saying there are _no_ jobs out there for this kid? Student loans aren’t required to go to college, and college isn’t required to get a decent paying job. This is an example of someone who took on debt without really considering what it meant, and who apparently wanted that education _now_, instead of taking it slower by working to earn the money to go to college, or go to a trade school instead. So you’re saying a student should not go towards a field of study and career that he is best suited for if it requires a college education and instead go to a trade school? Plus jobs (especially entry-level ones) are not all that high-paying and wouldn’t fully cover college tuition. For example I personally would need both a part-time job and student loans to fully cover my expenses (even after aid and grants) were I to go to a UC. > [@](#): > > In 20 years they didn’t save any money? They have no insurance thru this factory? COBRA goes for at least 18 months. Being out of a job in middle age means nothing - my husband was laid off at 57 just after our current economic downturn started, and got another job in nine months. This really depends on one’s profession. There probably are very few replacement jobs for automobile workers or steel workers for example. And savings can easily be spent up in the event of an emergency or crisis. > [@](#): > > McDonald’s? Seriously? Or Wal-Mart for that matter. > [@](#): > > Not the way you think I should. > > Giving healthcare to people who are not poor is not the bare necessities. This depends on whether said people can afford health insurance or not regardless of where they stand with regards to the poverty line. > [@](#): > > Oh sure. I bet it sprinkles fairy dust on everything too. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Gee, isn’t that too bad. Of course, if folks would adopt more, there would be fewer older kids in the system. I guess kids that don’t share your DNA are less deserving of a good home than those who don’t. > [@](#): > > What makes you think that? Due to its average population density being 88.6 persons per square mile far lower than most other countries. > [@](#): > > Ah. So, since you are not going to have to really pay any, you don’t have any problem with the fact that others are having to pay to support illegals. Gotcha. Everybody pays some form of tax such as a sales tax. And if I did end up making enough up money, I’d be willing to pay further taxes as per the law. > [@](#): > > What evidence? If you are talking overseas evidence, that has nothing to do with the mess that is Medicaid. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International\_Comparison\_-_Healthcare\_spending\_as_%25\_GDP.png](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png) ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/215 "2013-10-17T00:58:02Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > There is at least one, which **curlcoat** mentioned but didn’t follow up on: military spending. The U.S. is set to spend $682 billion on its military this year, which is actually a modest decline from recent years, and works out to 4.4% of GDP and $2,158 per citizen. > > Germany is set to spend $45.8 billion, which is 1.4% of GDP and $572 per citizen. That extra $1,586 per head would buy more butter, if we weren’t convinced we needed all these guns. That is quite true unfortunately. I’d wish, the United States and its allies would pool their defence policies more closely together to ensure a more equitable distribution of military spending. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/216 "2013-10-17T02:12:23Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I never claimed Germany was a “utopia”, merely that its standard of living is far preferable to here and my direct answer to the question is there is no significant area of German life which is significantly inferior to that of the United States to the best of my knowledge. As I said, if you want to keep believing this, I won’t interfere. > [@](#): > > I mean some consumer goods are more expensive then in Europe. And some are cheaper - and? > [@](#): > > So you’re saying a student should not go towards a field of study and career that he is best suited for if it requires a college education and instead go to a trade school? I am saying that if someone wishes to go to college for whatever reason, he shouldn’t expect that anyone other than himself, his family and any scholarships he might get should pay for it. If he _has_ to take out loans, he should be realistic about what he will be able to pay back and not just run up piles of debt in the name of education. > [@](#): > > Plus jobs (especially entry-level ones) are not all that high-paying and wouldn’t fully cover college tuition. For example I personally would need both a part-time job and student loans to fully cover my expenses (even after aid and grants) were I to go to a UC. Or, you could work full time for a year, then go to school for a year, etc. It’s not like it’s a race to finish college. > [@](#): > > This really depends on one’s profession. There probably are very few replacement jobs for automobile workers or steel workers for example. And savings can easily be spent up in the event of an emergency or crisis. I wouldn’t know since I don’t know what skills they need to have, but they do have a union that is supposed to take care of them. What sort of emergency or crisis that wouldn’t be handled by insurance? (Yes, I noticed you ignored that) > [@](#): > > Or Wal-Mart for that matter. Neither are jobs anyone should be trying to make a living on. Especially if she is supporting anyone other than herself. > [@](#): > > This depends on whether said people can afford health insurance or not regardless of where they stand with regards to the poverty line. I have had health insurance all of my adult life, except for from age 18 - 21. I didn’t crawl up over the poverty line until I was around 30. People can afford it, they just don’t choose to buy it because it costs money and doesn’t seem to offer anything, especially when they are young. > [@](#): > > Due to its average population density being 88.6 persons per square mile far lower than most other countries. That isn’t the way to decide if any place is overpopulated. Many of the square miles in the US aren’t really liveable, many more others are not populated because they are being farmed. _And_, saying we are less populated than other countries probably just means those countries are more over populated than we are, not that we are under populated. > [@](#): > > Everybody pays some form of tax such as a sales tax. And if I did end up making enough up money, I’d be willing to pay further taxes as per the law. Yes, the sales tax - the fallback position for those who don’t pay much income tax. If you don’t have much money, you aren’t paying much in the way of sales tax either, but you push to get the government to force the middle class to pay even more. Then you say that if you make enough money (however much that is?) you’d be willing to pay further taxes - do you not see how hypocritical this is? “Everyone should pay, well except me. Unless I get rich.”. > [@](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International\_Comparison\_-_Healthcare\_spending\_as_%25\_GDP.png](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png) This does zero to answer my question, but I am beginning to see where you get some of your beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/217 "2013-10-17T03:38:39Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > As I said, if you want to keep believing this, I won’t interfere. > > And some are cheaper - and? I was responding to your assertion that prices on goods will rise if taxes on the wealthy rise. > [@](#): > > I am saying that if someone wishes to go to college for whatever reason, he shouldn’t expect that anyone other than himself, his family and any scholarships he might get should pay for it. If he _has_ to take out loans, he should be realistic about what he will be able to pay back and not just run up piles of debt in the name of education. > > Or, you could work full time for a year, then go to school for a year, etc. It’s not like it’s a race to finish college. The problem with this is that it denies equality of opportunity (not of results mind you) as those without problems paying for college personally the opportunity to graduate earlier and thus rise up higher and make more money in the long run along with making more connections in college. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t know since I don’t know what skills they need to have, but they do have a union that is supposed to take care of them. What sort of emergency or crisis that wouldn’t be handled by insurance? (Yes, I noticed you ignored that) Since I mentioned the worker was laid off, that presumes he lost the insurance. > [@](#): > > Neither are jobs anyone should be trying to make a living on. Especially if she is supporting anyone other than herself. Some people may not be able to find any other jobs beside that. > [@](#): > > I have had health insurance all of my adult life, except for from age 18 - 21. I didn’t crawl up over the poverty line until I was around 30. People can afford it, they just don’t choose to buy it because it costs money and doesn’t seem to offer anything, especially when they are young. Not if they had (for example) preexisting conditions (until now). > [@](#): > > That isn’t the way to decide if any place is overpopulated. Many of the square miles in the US aren’t really liveable, many more others are not populated because they are being farmed. _And_, saying we are less populated than other countries probably just means those countries are more over populated than we are, not that we are under populated. That is true. But in addition are cities are more sprawled out compared to other countries. And I’m not calling for Yemen-level birth-rates either but simply a steady trickle of increase in the population. > [@](#): > > Yes, the sales tax - the fallback position for those who don’t pay much income tax. If you don’t have much money, you aren’t paying much in the way of sales tax either, but you push to get the government to force the middle class to pay even more. Then you say that if you make enough money (however much that is?) you’d be willing to pay further taxes - do you not see how hypocritical this is? “Everyone should pay, well except me. Unless I get rich.”. No, I’m pushing the government to make the wealthy pay somewhat more in taxes. And what I’m saying is that everybody should pay taxes but that their rates should vary based on their income level. > [@](#): > > This does zero to answer my question, but I am beginning to see where you get some of your beliefs. You were asking for “evidence”. Incidentally you did not mention Medicare which is quite successful. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/218 "2013-10-17T04:34:40Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > And as I must have responded elsewhere, stating things like that in a vacuum means nothing. Plus, we are still going to have those costs in 2014, plus what Obamacare will cost. “In a vacuum”? It directly ties in to your point. Handwave if you like. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/219 "2013-10-17T06:09:08Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I was responding to your assertion that prices on goods will rise if taxes on the wealthy rise. With a comment about the cost of goods in Europe? > [@](#): > > The problem with this is that it denies equality of opportunity (not of results mind you) as those without problems paying for college personally the opportunity to graduate earlier and thus rise up higher and make more money in the long run along with making more connections in college. I’ll tell you something that might make your life a whole lot easier - there is no equality of opportunity. Some people will always do better, be better off, make more money than you. It’s simply the nature of life. Life is not fair. The second thing that might make your life easier - simply because someone had the money to pay for college in four straight years doesn’t necessarily mean that they are going to rise up higher and make more money. And even if they do, that doesn’t mean you won’t be able to rise high and make money, just a couple of years later. And you wouldn’t have a pile of student loans to pay off that Mr Faster and Higher would. > [@](#): > > Since I mentioned the worker was laid off, that presumes he lost the insurance. Which is why I mentioned COBRA. > [@](#): > > Some people may not be able to find any other jobs beside that. How many people do you think that might be? > [@](#): > > Not if they had (for example) preexisting conditions (until now). No, that isn’t true. For one thing, they could have insurance, it just might not cover those preexisting conditions. Or, if they got the insurance thru their employer, preexisting conditions wouldn’t be an issue, or a very short term one - that started in 1996 with HIPAA. > [@](#): > > That is true. But in addition are cities are more sprawled out compared to other countries. And I’m not calling for Yemen-level birth-rates either but simply a steady trickle of increase in the population. Why in the world would you want to increase the population? > [@](#): > > No, I’m pushing the government to make the wealthy pay somewhat more in taxes. And what I’m saying is that everybody should pay taxes but that their rates should vary based on their income level. In other words, you want the people who don’t use these services you think we should all have to pay for them. You want a portion of society to pay to support people they don’t know just because you think they have money to throw away? > [@](#): > > You were asking for “evidence”. Incidentally you did not mention Medicare which is quite successful. No, I asked for evidence that government run health care is better at controlling costs. And I specifically said that I wasn’t interested in what is going on overseas because that isn’t where we live. If you think that _our_ government is doing a better job than private insurance companies, _that_ is the evidence you need to supply. I didn’t mention Medicare because I didn’t have as much experience with it as I did Medicaid. However, not all of Medicare is government run, such as Part D and the 1/4 of people who get their Medicare coverage thru a private company, and Medicare Part B doesn’t really pay that well, which is why those who can afford it get a supplement plan, from a private insurer. And, to top it all off, Medicare does nothing to control costs, and is subject to fraud for the same reason Medicaid is - there really isn’t anyone keeping an eye on it. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > “In a vacuum”? It directly ties in to your point. Handwave if you like. No, it doesn’t. Simply saying that “we spend more as a nation per capita on healthcare administration than the best healthcare systems spend on administration and care” means nothing if you can’t add any details. Like, what best healthcare systems? Why are they “best”? Are you talking in the US or elsewhere? When you say “we” do you mean the US government or do you mean private companies? Etc. There are so many variables that just saying something vague like that means nothing. Its the same as what someone else said - trying to claim our education system must be the best because we throw so much money at it. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/220 "2013-10-17T07:53:44Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > With a comment about the cost of goods in Europe? Yes to show you an example of what might happen. > [@](#): > > I’ll tell you something that might make your life a whole lot easier - there is no equality of opportunity. Some people will always do better, be better off, make more money than you. It’s simply the nature of life. Life is not fair. I agree that perfect equality of opportunity is impossible but that should not stop us from doing as much as possible to ensure equality of opportunity. And once again I emphasize that equality of opportunity is not equality of outcomes-people shouldn’t be equal in how much money they make but people with the same aptitude should have the same chance of getting into college and staying there regardless of the income of their families. > [@](#): > > The second thing that might make your life easier - simply because someone had the money to pay for college in four straight years doesn’t necessarily mean that they are going to rise up higher and make more money. And even if they do, that doesn’t mean you won’t be able to rise high and make money, just a couple of years later. And you wouldn’t have a pile of student loans to pay off that Mr Faster and Higher would. Unless of course Mr Faster and Higher is from a wealthy family who did not have to worry about student loans. > [@](#): > > Which is why I mentioned COBRA. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated\_Omnibus\_Budget\_Reconciliation\_Act\_of\_1985](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1985) > [@](#): > > COBRA does not apply, on the other hand, if employees lose their benefits coverage because the employer has terminated the plan altogether or **if the employer has gone out of business**. In cases where COBRA does not apply, some states have stepped in with state health insurance continuation laws, usually called “mini-COBRA” laws, which help employees continue their health insurance when federal COBRA does not apply.[5] > [@](#): > > How many people do you think that might be? Quite a few people. > [@](#): > > No, that isn’t true. For one thing, they could have insurance, it just might not cover those preexisting conditions. Or, if they got the insurance thru their employer, preexisting conditions wouldn’t be an issue, or a very short term one - that started in 1996 with HIPAA. In other words not cover one of their biggest health problems, which renders it not much of an insurance. > [@](#): > > Why in the world would you want to increase the population? To order to ensure the assimilation of immigrants. > [@](#): > > In other words, you want the people who don’t use these services you think we should all have to pay for them. You want a portion of society to pay to support people they don’t know just because you think they have money to throw away? Yes of course. Unless you oppose all welfare programs, the question is just of degree. > [@](#): > > No, I asked for evidence that government run health care is better at controlling costs. And I specifically said that I wasn’t interested in what is going on overseas because that isn’t where we live. If you think that _our_ government is doing a better job than private insurance companies, _that_ is the evidence you need to supply. > > I didn’t mention Medicare because I didn’t have as much experience with it as I did Medicaid. However, not all of Medicare is government run, such as Part D and the 1/4 of people who get their Medicare coverage thru a private company, and Medicare Part B doesn’t really pay that well, which is why those who can afford it get a supplement plan, from a private insurer. And, to top it all off, Medicare does nothing to control costs, and is subject to fraud for the same reason Medicaid is - there really isn’t anyone keeping an eye on it. The answer in a single chart: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/medicare-vs-private-insurance-in-one-graph/2011/08/25/gIQACp0tlP\_blog.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/medicare-vs-private-insurance-in-one-graph/2011/08/25/gIQACp0tlP_blog.html) Medicaid, indeed, appears just as effective in controlling costs as Medicare. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301.md?page=12)