Michael,

The graphic I posted is not a state to state comparison, but comparison between Congressional districts, which are often divided between Dem-leaning urban cores and GOP-leaning exurban areas-- which was your point.

And data shows that those exurban areas soak up far more federal spending per person than the urban core.  

And the fact remains that while there is a lot of commuting within exurban areas, the commuting between exurban areas and the urban core is still overwhelmingly into the inner urban area for jobs.  

I was made so curious by Lind's posts that I went to his think tank New America Foundation to read some of his opinions, and also looked him up on Wikipedia. I was a bit startled to find he was formerly a neocon according to Wikipedia, for whatever that's worth.

I guess he's currently a radical centrist, meaning that he seeks to find common ground between R/L debates, which in principle sounds good.

So, the New America Foundation had one of his opinions "Explode the Myths of Global Competition" on the front page.  It struck me as odd in the same way as his posts on cities and suburbs did, the same faulty compromise and false assumptions.

To sum it up, he claimed he was debunking the conventional wisdom, one being that we need a highly educated work force, another being that any job can be done anywhere in the global economy, and lastly that a welfare state is a problem. So, I was curious to see the debunking and read on.

He did make some good points about foreign competitiveness, and rightly pointed out that many nations with public health care (as one example) are actually very competitive in the global market place, and therefore the anti-public services argument simply isn't supported by the evidence. Fine, I give him credit  for pointing that out, although it's been said by many. His other two points were most interesting and more radical though.

Regarding loss of jobs to overseas competition he listed the fastest growing professions, including computer programmers and nurses as two examples. He made the comparison between outsourceable and non-outsourceable, arguing that while we might lose programming jobs, nursing requires hands on care and isn't going anywhere; and there will be more nursing jobs than programming jobs. He added the caviat of improvements in robotics.

Regarding education he asserted nurses (and presumably other non-outsourceable jobs) won’t require people to learn trigonometry, so we shouldn’t be overly concerned with the "myth" everyone needs to be highly educated in mathematics and hard sciences.

Well….There are several problems with that which seem fairly obvious to me.

1) Quantity of jobs isn't the same as quality of jobs. To use his example, nursing could explode as a profession, but it's not going to float our economy because much of the new nursing jobs would be low paying unskilled, nor is nursing an economic growth driving profession.

2) Many low or unskilled services rely on technology and capital from others. For example, many nurses may be low skilled labor, but they often rely on high tech medical equipment, equipment that can only be built by a high tech economy, or bought by an otherwise exporting economy, and nursing and similar service aren’t exportable for the same reason they’re not outsourceable.

3) The scenario Lind suggests seems to imply is a much more closed, less competitive economy, where we’ll all take care of each other, not worrying too much about global competitiveness, or things like math. Basically economic isolationism, sort of the United States of Amish America. But then where will the medical equipment come from? The consumer gadgets? How will our military stay competitive? May as well have argued for tractor factories.

4) Lind perhaps implies that America will always have enough workers educated in mathematics and hard sciences and will always be competitive, at least enough to support the vast service sector of low skilled nursing and such. But doesn't that run counter his initial assertion and take far too much for granted? A nation can't simply train the same numbers in mathematics and hard sciences as it has jobs for. To be globally competitive requires a deep bench where the best of the best rise to the top. It also requires a culture which deeply values math and the sciences to create sufficient numbers of top notch competitors.

5) Lastly, there is the issue of how safe are those jobs Lind assumes aren’t outsourceable, & will remain safe. In his example of the nursing profession gave the caviat: barring advances in robotics. Well, that can’t have been an accidental reference becasue that’s exactly what Japan is doing. Facing a marginally declining and aging population, they’re seeking efficiency multipliers to take care of their elderly without increasing the public burden, developing and using robotics, which help to make each nurse a more productive super nurse. Since their economy is very high tech and they have a surplus of people who for example know math, they’re taking the lead in design and manufacture of such exportable technologies. The point being, in the near future, those who can afford nursing (or other presumed “safe” services) may choose to buy a Japanese labor reducing nurse robot, and lay off much of their human nurse staff to save costs. Not knowing what high tech competitive economies will invent next, maybe no job is safe after all.

To sum up, Lind made a few good points, such as the simple fact that many nations with more public services and heath care than the US are still highly competitive, some beating us. However his assertions that math and sciences aren’t as important as people think, and neither are cutting edge jobs producing IP, it all seems rather wrong headed. It seems he wants to have the cake and eat it to, delivering the good news to those like suburban nurses who are perhaps aren’t fond of mathematics. No need to study math and be competitive, we’ll all just be nurses to each other, and we’ll still have all the gadgets and high tech things we love. Oh, if only it were true. Instead it sounds like a short sighted, feel good, cultural suicide.

I felt the same about his suburb arguments posted here, where he describes a future when we’ll all move to the burbs, and cites will become irrelevant. That’s a tired line, often a Republican line to justify some suburban Republican politics, particularly tax avoidance to pay for civil infrastructure of the cities. But if it were ever true, then why are the leading tech hubs and economic drivers all placed in or immediately around cities, and all linked inextricably to the city, and people who know math?

 

Oh, cmon, sphealy, you have more of a sense of humor than to downrate me for that. Especially in one of these discussions started by the far-too-earnest Mr. Lind.

Thanks for doing all of this homework. Thanks also for pointing out something that is ignored on both sides of the political aisle -- it's not enough that a person has a job, the job should be fulfilling, it should provide for comforts, should offer upward mobility... there's a lot that a job is supposed to do for a worker. Merely giving everyone a job isn't enough.

Same on education -- and it shouldn't just be about math and science -- we need a highly educated population because highly educated people make better decisions about what they want out of life.

"A note to many TPMCafe readers:  referring to Americans who don't vote for the Democrats now, but might in the future, as rubes, rednecks, cretins and the like, is not a prudent political strategy for liberals who hope to be part of a national majority again one day."

The post that says we haven't seen much of that here is too kind.  It'd be fairer to say that we haven't seen much of that from liberal or Democratic politicians, period.  You see conservatives getting mileage out of misleading stereotypes and gutter name calling.  (FWIW, I   don't like latte, and I'm sure Kerry's a pretty macho athlete to be a windsurfer.)  And Democrats plead for mutual understanding.  

In other words, once again Lind manages to recite Rove's framing of the issues as if it were rational rather than gutter politics and, on top of that, as if it were supportive of progressives.  I give up.  I'm really tired of his upside-downism, to use Josh's phrase.  Doesn't he have a neocon think-tank of his own as a base to pontificate?  

A note to many TPMCafe readers:  referring to Americans who don't vote for the Democrats now, but might in the future, as rubes, rednecks, cretins and the like, is not a prudent political strategy for liberals who hope to be part of a national majority again one day.

Rubes, rednecks and cretins isn't nearly as bad as what us liberals have been called by the other side and by even some who claim to be on our side (I have been called traitor, coward, pussy, terrorist sympathizer).  That being said I will do my part to keep decorum at a high level here, I'd hate to offend any of my friends by insulting our opponents...

I still think the other side of the political spectrum has facist tendencies...but that doesn't mean they're facists, lol. ;-)

In the third debate, sitting President George Bush used the word "Massachusetts" twice in framing his attacks on Kerry.  Both times he suggested that being from Massachusetts was somehow prima facie evidence for one's unfitness for the Presidency (e.g. "only a Senator from Massachusetts would think...").

So get off your high horse.  It's Republicans who are advocating for and perpetuating the rhetoric of regional divisiveness, not Democrats.  And your "cities as parasites" argument is not only counterfactual as Nathan pointed out, but it feeds directly into the disgusting divisiveness that Republicans encourage, support, and exploit.  

it's not enough that a person has a job, the job should be fulfilling, it should provide for comforts, should offer upward mobility... there's a lot that a job is supposed to do for a worker.

True, and something else that's rudimentary but sometimes forgotten:

A critical component of any economy is to have a workforce which is #1 at something in the world, that produces the economic driving force which increases GDP and which creates the IP and exportable goods which allow us to trade with other economies.

If we lack competitiveness, then other economies will figure out how to beat us at our own jobs, like the robotic nursing equipment example I gave. To be blunt, that economic driving force is directly linked to blue cities and surrounding metropolitan areas, blue universities teaching mathematics and hard sciences, and the diverse-liberal-blue often immigrant highly-educated high tech work force.

Btw, no I'm not an unrestrained free-trader, a lot of it is just insane, shooting ourselves in the foot. But neither do I think we can forget trying to be competitive, move to the burbs, adopt red ideology (like I.D. to use an extreme example), not study math, all "service" each other, and perhaps protect ourselves with isolationism while living off the fat of the land. It’s just a pipe dream.

 

Thanks for providing those examples. I am going to pay more attention to the replies to your posts from now on, but I must say that  the most blatant ones I have seen in response to you, I have seen those rated low by others. Often people do not wish to respond, but use ratings instead, because they don't want to encourage a trollish debate on it.

Lind scolds the TPMC community against using the terms:

rubes, rednecks, cretins and the like

Where does he get off making that accusation? Where are the examples? I haven’t seen any of that at all.

If anything he's the one defaming the TPMC community.

WTF? I will say Lind is starting to sound like a Freeper, but he is free to prove me wrong and stop with the bogus accusations, and start substantiating his arguments on various fronts, any time. 

 

Jane I like your style.  I too was getting a feeling that Mr Lind was being a bit condescending and was wondering why he was posting here when he seemed to have so much contempt for most of his audience.

I doubt that the people whose feelings Mr. Lind is protecting read this site very often.  

Nathan: I wasn't talking about federal outlays, either (I know that situation quite well, as Pat Moynihan used to send me copies of his Fisc every year on its publication).  I was mocking the complaints of capitalists and affluent professionals living in major cities whose earnings come from investments in agriculture in Montana, textiles in North Carolina, or Nike factories in Southeast Asia.  I can't believe that anyone to the left of the Wall Street Journal would endorse the conservative line that the true "wealth creators" are investors, rather than the often remote people who actually do the work.

In my universe, the "wealth creators" in the South were the black and white field hands who picked the cotton, not the absentee landlord who owned title to the plantation, and the West was developed chiefly by ranch hands, not by the British and French investors who owned title to properties they never saw.  In my native Texas, most of the oil industry was owned in practice from the 1920s by people in New York, New Jersey, London, etc.  Did that make the coupon-clippers in New York and London "wealth-creators" compared to the roustabouts who worked on the rigs?  Unless one hundred percent of the (private, not public) investment income streaming into the pockets of the wealthy few in blue cities comes entirely from enterprises located in blue counties, my point stands.  To me, as a Roosevelt Democrat, it's bizarre that any Democrats would take the line of reactionary Republican conservatives in the 1930s--namely, claiming that the only true "wealth creators" in the US are investors, and the rest of us are either mere factors of production or beneficiaries of their largesse.

Oh, and by the way, as I used to point out in friendly debates with Senator Moynihan, the flow of profits from the red states to the investor class concentrated in a few coastal cities is the reason why the New Deal Democrats favored the reverse flows of federal revenue-sharing and other forms of national redistribution in the first place.  Poor New York, New Jersey and Connecticut--having to subsidize New Mexico and Mississippi!  This argument was pioneered by Alf Landon Republican types who hated the New Deal and the Great Society; the fact that Democrats are now professing to feel sorry that rich states (translation:  extremely rich people who happen to live in a few states) are taxed to subsidize poorer states shows how far the party has drifted from its labor-populist roots.

Genuinely egalitarian liberals would oppose the abuse of inter-regional transfers by Newt Gingrich and the like, but they would never complain that tax money is flowing across artificial state lines from the rich (who are concentratedin coastal cities) to the needy (who are diffused throughout the country and concentrated in the South and Southwest).  If the base of the Democratic Party is becoming coastal-city investors and professionals (the old anti-Roosevelt base), then it's no longer the party of the people.  (The anti-Roosevelt investors and professionals tended to take liberal positions on social issues like birth control and separation of church and state, too, half a century ago).

Mr Lind:

It's all well and good for you to have different opinions than the bulk of the visitors here, and I appreciate that Josh has clearly made an effort to seek out some variety of opinion. I think there are some nuggets of truth in what you wrote about the urban-exurban divide--certainly, at the least, Democrats need to be cognizant of suburban votres. And you've certainly made people think and scurry off to Google to check your assertions.

But you owe this forum collectively a big apology. Nobody in the comments to your post refered to anyone as a "rube, redneck, or cretin." Your autonomic statement is a dishonest plea for street cred from, frankly, a pack of dinks in whose interest it is to continue nurturing the lie that political differences in this country are about a contest between elite fruitloops and "just folks." This forum is dedicated to fostering reality-based discussion, not the Cliff Notes view of reality we can get from MSM pundits or big  business shills.

I appreciate your contrarian posts. It's a shame your responses to comments are the usual pap from the O'Reilly playbook.

I see too your little fib prodded some unfortunate commentary defending the straw person you erected. Somehow I suspect you knew the most gullible of us would rise to that bait. Shameful.

You wrote ... "A note to many TPMCafe readers:  referring to Americans who don't vote for the Democrats now, but might in the future, as rubes, rednecks, cretins and the like, is not a prudent political strategy for liberals"

You are correct. We Democrats do need to reach out to others by sticking to policy discussions, and avoid the name calling. Name calling always gets in the way of persuading people, and right now new supporters and new voters are what the Democratic Party needs, so we have a lopt of persuading to do in the months to come. I've seen a lot of name calling over the past year or so on various Democratic/Leftist/Progressive internet forums and blogs (haven't visited any Republican/Conservative blogs and forums, so can't speak about those). Lots of it can be chalked up to the internet milieu, where people seem to accept bad behavior as a norm, and lots of it can be explained by the lack of political maturity of the people involved. We have new people coming into the Democratic Party every day, especially through the internet, and often they simply haven't learned the things that make for good campaigning and politics. Even here, some people are quick to judge if someone has a different viewpoint than is the "accepted wisdom," and this seems particularly true among younger members. If we are to have a genuine big-tent party, though, we must reach out, and we must welcome all sorts of people who want to align with us. If we are going to call anyone a name, let that name be Democrat.

Where does he get off making that accusation? Where are the examples? I haven’t seen any of that at all.

I do have a habit of referringto Rev. "Sponge Bob" Dobson and his merry band of hate mongers as...

Insane Batshit Death Cultists

I wonder if means that?

It appears that there are Dittoheads on the left as well as the Right

Whoops!  There's that name-calling again.

I was made so curious by Lind's posts that I went to his think tank New America Foundation to read some of his opinions, and also looked him up on Wikipedia. I was a bit startled to find he was formerly a neocon according to Wikipedia, for whatever that's worth.

It isn't worth anything at all.

I guess he's currently a radical centrist, meaning that he seeks to find common ground between R/L debates, which in principle sounds good.

I think he is trying to get you to understand that Farm subsidies go to the red States and return to the blue states as cheap bread.

I think he is trying to tell you that Military and defense R&D go into sparsely populated red States and return to the blue as military defense umbrellas.

So, the New America Foundation had one of his opinions "Explode the Myths of Global Competition" on the front page.  It struck me as odd in the same way as his posts on cities and suburbs did, the same faulty compromise and false assumptions.

Everything else in this post is either an ad hominem aor non germane to the discussion, in short it is non responsive to the topic. Pure red State pairie grass.

Gosh, it isn't really that hard to test Mr. Lind's hypothesis.  You go to the BEA website and get the county personal income data.  Then you subtract out unearned income (rents, interest, and dividends) and transfers.  Of course, this is a very strange definition, as others have pointed out, since it assumes that all unearned income is parasitical.  It is, however, the definition that Mr. Lind gave us.

By that definition, New York City, L.A., San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Miami, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, New Haven, Denver, Boulder, Honolulu, Baltimore, Detroit, Jersey City, Milwaukee, and Providence earn about 15% of the earned personal income in this country.  They also possess about 14% of the jobs. 

That's a just a near-random selection of Blue cities, of course, and it doesn't include the Blue suburban counties, including suburbs of places like Boston and San Francisco that are anything but suburban.  Anyway, I don't see the unsustainability.  Perhaps I am missing something.

Of course, there is that demographic issue, but I am lost as to the significance of the fact that Blue cities attract people from elsewhere in the United States and overseas.  In addition, many Blue cities, such as New York, do, in fact, have positive population growth from natural increase.


<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="215" border="0"><tr height="17"><td width="215" height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt<tr height="17"><td height="17"></td&gt</tr&gt</table&gt

I do have a habit of referringto Rev. "Sponge Bob" Dobson and his merry band of hate mongers as...

Insane Batshit Death Cultists

I wonder if means that?

No, he isn't referring to rational descriptions of groups, but to extremist language. You are in the clear.

I think he is trying to get you to understand that Farm subsidies go to the red States and return to the blue states as cheap bread.

Really? Where did he say that?

I think he is trying to tell you that Military and defense R&D go into sparsely populated red States and return to the blue as military defense umbrellas.

Built with blue designed technology and with blue tax dollars. That is why cities are "parasites" in Linds words? I'd say it's complimentary, which is why us blue city folk, unlike say those red state politicians, are always supportive of subsidy for preserving quality of life in American commuities, for public education, and for support of the social safty net.

By comparison, it seem red politicaians are always bashing public spending, always bashing any social services, always bashing taxes, but you don't see them complaining about subsidy when it's thier state do you? Republicans are the opposite of "not in my backyard" when it somes to subsidy. They're "only in my backyard."

And as far as your debating skills go, I think you need to stick to what Lind actually said and stop imagining it into something you wanted to hear. Lind didn't actually say any of those things, so stop accusing me of misunderstanding what you heard him say in your head, but he never actually wrote here.

non germane to the discussion

His views on the future economy as being pure suburban, service sector, and not needing to worry about math, hard sciences or global competitiveness isn't the point?

No, you're beside the point, and when you can actually back up any of your absurd claims and stop putting words into Lind’s mouth for him, then let me know.

In the meanwhile, I know troll when I see one.

For someone who claims to recognize radical "realignments" you seem to have missed a couple. The wealth of our nation is hardly measured by the bushel these days. It's not as though today subsidy is anything but pure such rural industries for social, quality of life, reasons.

The wealth of our nation is still carried by the bushel unless farm subsidies aren't included in GDP.

The cities produce a lot of wealth because they have a lot of people which is a given. But they also dislike ICBM silos in downtown or the 'burbs so they stick these high dollar expenses in the sparsly populated red States. Hardly a subsidy. As for social programs the Southern States are far less generous than the Northen States so per capita they spend less, but we do have a large influx of Northern retirees because the cost of living is lower, which is reflected in the data as Social Security and Medicare. Hardly a subsidy.

As I pointed out earlier, it's generally red communities who are against any subsidy of anything, on principle, except for their own pork of course.

Red communities do not have any kick against farm subsidie and military spending. They have a problem with the Republican echo chamber that defines subsidies as welfare queens and illegal immigrants in schools and Emergency rooms. Of course hubris such as yours may tend to make a farmer or two dislike the Democrats enough to vote Rethuglican.

The point is to establish what is what so that the people who would support Democratic policies if they understood the above, would vote Democratic in Red States.

It's also generally the blue communities which will most openly admit that subsidy as social welfare sometimes has merits to preserve quality of life, for broad ideological reasons.

Yeah generally blue assertions of "facts" do not generate votes from generally red voters either.

So, which ideology, blue or red, do red states have to thank for subsidy? Or do you prefer to think that red states can be against subsidy ideologically, while each continuing to get theirs?

These remarks reek of prejudice, absolutely reek. Not only do you paint the Red States with a broad brush of sweeping generalizations, you do it without even using accurate information. You sure you're not a Republican counter intelpro troll?

Built with blue designed technology and with blue tax dollars. That is why cities are "parasites" in Linds words? I'd say it's complimentary...

Agreed.

which is why us blue city folk,...

All blur city folk?

 ...unlike say those red state politicians,

All red state politicians?

are always supportive of subsidy for preserving quality of life in American commuities, for public education, and for support of the social safty net.

So are all of us in the red states, if I define us as you do.

By comparison, it seem red politicaians are always bashing public spending, always bashing any social services, always bashing taxes, but you don't see them complaining about subsidy when it's thier state do you? Republicans are the opposite of "not in my backyard" when it somes to subsidy. They're "only in my backyard."

Red State Politicians and Republicans are not synonymous.

And as far as your debating skills go, I think you need to stick to what Lind actually said and stop imagining it into something you wanted to hear. Lind didn't actually say any of those things, so stop accusing me of misunderstanding what you heard him say in your head, but he never actually wrote here.

My debating skills are not the issue here. Your bringing your information from his website is. Or is that something he wrote here too?

Indeed one must try to interpret what other people are saying and then restate that understanding if we are to presume that one is learning.

No, you're beside the point, and when you can actually back up any of your absurd claims and stop putting words into Lind's mouth for him, then let me know.

The principal source for Federal funds data is the Consolidated Federal Funds Reports data from the Census Bureau. ERS aggregates the latest available data (fiscal year 2001) to the county, State, regional, and national levels for each program and computes per capita estimates by type of nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) county. Overall, nonmetro areas received slightly less funding per capita ($6,020) than metropolitan (metro) areas ($6,131), but the amount of funding varied greatly by type or function of the program. Nonmetro areas benefited disproportionately from agriculture and natural resource program payments, income security payments (including Social Security and food stamps/other assistance to low-income individuals), and human resources programs. In contrast, metro areas benefited more from community resources programs (including infrastructure, housing, and business assistance), defense and space programs (the largest of the national programs), and national (nondefense) function programs such as criminal justice and law enforcement, energy, and higher education and research.

So which regions get what in rural America? Total Federal funding was highest in the South ($6,660 per capita) and lowest in the Midwest ($5,566 per capita), but this pattern did not hold up for nonmetro areas. The nonmetro West received the most ($6,129 per capita) due to higher-than-average payments from community resources and national functions as well as relatively high funding from human resources and defense/space functions. On the other hand, the nonmetro Northeast received the lowest funding ($5,512 per capita) as a result of lower-than-average payments for agriculture and natural resource programs.

In the meanwhile, I know troll when I see one.

Yawn

You're still spinning half truths Mr. Lind. Political demographers routinely make the distinction today between older, inner suburbs which since 1992 have leaned in many cases Democratic, and newer, often less affluent outer suburbs, or exurbs. If Democrats routinely lost both inner and outer suburbs there's no way they would be a 48% party today, as they are.

they also dislike ICBM silos in downtown or the 'burbs so they stick these high dollar expenses in the sparsly populated red States. Hardly a subsidy.

whoa there friend....  are you trying to suggest that 1) cities aren;t the forst buclear targets in a nuclear exchange, or targets for terrorism of r that matter 2) That it would ever make sense to put a silo in the middle of a metropolis either economically or strategically 3) that the large subsidy going to red states is for missile silos?

None of those have any basis in reality whatsoever. I don't know if those are some rural legends or something, but they're pretty silly. The subsidy goes to keeping agriculture prices up, and stops the rural economy from completely collapsing. Personally I'm for them for the most part because I believe in protecting a way of life and helping people adjust to economic changes. Along with that I support subsidy for education and other civic infrastructure to help rural communities adapt. But don't give me any nonsense about the subsidy going for missile silos or something to make it sound like you're doing us a favor. We're paying for them and it's usually red state hawks who wanted them and a bunch of other pork barrel defense projects to boot.

Red communities do not have any kick against farm subsidie and military spending.They have a problem with the Republican echo chamber that defines subsidies as welfare queens and illegal immigrants in schools and Emergency rooms.

Well sure they don't. That's pretty self serving isn't it? But let's be perfectly clear on some facts: that money comes from blue states, and it's the red states that complain most about welfare in the inner cities and such. I don’t make it that way, republican politicians from those red states started the myth about  the welfare moms and such. Considering the flow of tax dollars is from blue to red, red states aren't paying for it anyways so I don't really see what they're complaining about. So let's just stick to the facts here.

Of course hubris such as yours 

Hubris? That's a laugh. Since when is it hubris to point out the truth? I'd say red politicians lying to their constituents to make them think they're getting bilked, and to try and split them away from blue people who had stood with them in solidarity and willingly subsidized rural folks, many of them family; red state politicians who launched that culture war to get red state voters to vote for Big Business Republicans who then helped the corporate takeover of rural areas, now THAT's HUBRIS!

The point is to establish what is what so that the people who would support Democratic policies if they understood the above, would vote Democratic in Red States.

That I agree with, which is why I was saying it.

These remarks reek of prejudice, absolutely reek.

Nonsense. It's just the political reality of the people red states have been voting into office. If I say red states have been voting into office Republicans who then start myths to divide people on culture wars, are big business and such, ig rural voters think that "reeeks" well then they should change it. But the fact is that these red state republicans keep lying and that needs to be said. 

Not only do you paint the Red States with a broad brush of sweeping generalizations, you do it without even using accurate information. You sure you're not a Republican counter intelpro troll?

Unsubstantiated nonsense. Your strategy seems to be the Democrats shouldn’t tell the truth abut what’s been going on. I think that’s crazy.

Right, Dan, let's stick to "policy discussions." Leave it to the Republicans to call us traitors, faggots, cowards, etc. That's been winning us so many elections lately, why change now?

"In the third debate, sitting President George Bush used the word "Massachusetts" twice in framing his attacks on Kerry.  ...  So get off your high horse.  It's Republicans who are advocating for and perpetuating the rhetoric of regional divisiveness, not Democrats."

Of course, the current regional divisions benefit Republicans, not Democrats.  So it's not surprising that Republicans intentionally emphasize them...

whoa there friend....  are you trying to suggest that 1) cities aren;t the forst buclear targets in a nuclear exchange, or targets for terrorism of r that matter 2) That it would ever make sense to put a silo in the middle of a metropolis either economically or strategically 3) that the large subsidy going to red states is for missile silos?

1)Knowing our ability to respond to a first strike, I doubt the Russians, who are the only ones capable of such an attack at the moment would neglect the silos regardless of where they are. Terrorism is a straw man in discussing strategic ICBMs. 2) There is no strategic value to destroying New York City when carbon fibers would shut it down and preserve most of the infrastructure, especially if one expected a response from such an attack. I would go for the silos first regardless of where they were.  3) No I am saying you cannot call an umbrella expense a subsidy to anyone when everyone derives a benefit from it.

The subsidy goes to keeping agriculture prices up, and stops the rural economy from completely collapsing.

Farm subsidies also keep food prices down for the cities, where the largest agribusinesses are also located their major purchases, tractors, seed etc are from dealers located in cities. The fuel,fertilizers and pesticides are purchased from cities. The check may go to Bug Tussle, but the money ends up in the city. So don't give me any nonsense about federal expenditures in red states as being pure subsidy like you're doing us a favor either. The working and middle class in rural America see next to zip in federal money.

But let's be perfectly clear on some facts: that money comes from blue states, and it's the red states that complain most about welfare in the inner cities and such. I don't make it that way, republican politicians from those red states started the myth about  the welfare moms and such.

Let's be perfectly clear the money comes from businesses in blue states not individual taxpayers in blue states. The federal money winds up in the hands of businesses in red states and not in the hands of any individual tax reciepient. Ronald Reagan was a blue state republican. I think you have your flags crossed up.

I'd say red politicians lying to their constituents to make them think they're getting bilked, and to try and split them away from blue people who had stood with them in solidarity and willingly subsidized rural folks, many of them family; red state politicians who launched that culture war to get red state voters to vote for Big Business Republicans who then helped the corporate takeover of rural areas, now THAT's HUBRIS!

So quit aiding them and distinquish between spending that aids one and all and subsidies that aid the wealthy more than those whom you

slander with your sweeping generalizations. The very people you think have left the Democratic party don't take hand outs from anyone. Most people I know would rather starve than ask the government for help, including the SBA. You may see the rocket of money leaving the blue states, but you apparently don't have a clue as to where it lands in the red. If you do, your presentation is counter productive to your stated political aims.  

But the fact is that these red state republicans keep lying and that needs to be said.

Agreed, but you still need to distinquish between the politicians, and the voters. All your doing with your subsidy nonsense is alienating the people you wish to reach.