Uh Oh, this is going to ramble. I’m in a hurry, but here it goes.

This isn’t just a problem with the party over the last eight years, it started as soon as Newt and Co. booted the Dem’s in 94. It started out well enough on the fiscal side, but the social conservative even then were working to be the main influence in the party.
By the time the Second Republican revolution came round in 2000, big spenders such as Tom DeLay and Ted Stevens had subverted the fiscal agenda the seeds were sown for failure. The party had lost its way.

Then for President, we elected a Governor who already had a history of using accounting tricks to increase spending in his state in the 90′s. Yes, he cut taxes during that period, but he allowed spending to increase beyond what the government was taking in, then hid it with budgetary underestimates in social programs suck as Medicaide (it’s the same thing they did with Medicare-D a few years later). And, as Molly Ivans took glee to point out, he had never run a business that was profitable. He really wasn’t all that as far as real life fiscal policy goes,. He did promise to do away with base-line budgeting (which is a BIG reason I voted for him, that, and Al Gore), but, if we would have looked deeper, we would have realized “hey, if this was such a good plan, why didn’t he do this in the State that he governed”? Even Rush was a bit weary of Bush and his Compassionate Conservatism. But many voted for Bush , because (A) he supported traditional values, and (B) he wasn’t Al Gore.

By 2005 the transformation was complete. The Republican party was no longer the the party of fiscal restraint, but the party of “Family Values”. The Terry Schiavo fiasco was the apex of the transformation.

My view is that you can’t have the party operating at cross purposes. Take for instance the aid given to Africa. If the anti-abortion provisions were not in the package to sweeten the deal, would it have ever passed? It almost certainly not have passed in 1995. I still hold to my position, that the Republicans will not be the party of fiscal responsibility until it permanently puts the social conservative agenda second to fiscal responsibility.

And if you’re complaining about illiteracy, maybe you should look at the Chicago Public Schools run by Obama’s buddy, and the new SecEd, Arne Coleman, which achieved a breathtaking 83% illiteracy rate.

The reason why Chicago and other blue enclaves are blue is because of this massive teeming underclass that the Obama Party’s welfare policies create — completely dependent on government aid and therefore unable to vote for anything other than an Obama Party member.

Regards,
Peter H.

nyc certainly is not everyone’s cup of tea. that isn’t the point either. there is no disputing that there is more demand to live there than, say, houston.

That’s why Texas is winning. For more, there’s this City Journal article on the higher quality of life in Houston versus NYC.

blue states also tend to be places ppl actually want to live. basic supply and demand tells us why apartments in manhattan, for example, are just a SMIDGE more costly than apartments in little rock. some companies may set up operations in the cheaper states because the cost of setting up shop there is much lower (lower rent, lower wages for employees, etc.).

It’s you who need keeping up. is there migration to blue states? Oh? Please provide the data. That’s news to me.

And please note while you may think it’s a waste of time to spend thirty seconds reading a post you show no knowledge of understanding, I don’t spend much time dealing with your comments. More than anything they amuse me.

You have yet to provide any evidence from history that increased government spending during an economic downturn will increase economic activity. And you try to twist the economic data from blue states to make your point.

If big government worked, then more corporations would be setting up shop in California, New York & etc. rather than looking elsewhere to base their operations.

another quick thing to note. a correlation does not equal a causation. people leaving a state that also happens to have higher taxes doesn’t necessarily mean people are leaving for that reason.

it’s indisputable that the best talent from the country’s (and the world’s) top universities flock in huge numbers to places like nyc, boston, san francisco, chicago, los angeles, etc. they don’t go to tulsa (no offense, tulsa, i’m sure you’re a great town).

And check and see the states people are fleeing, many of them have high tax rates.

So, if they’re fleeing to states with lower cost of living, as you say, then I guess you comment above about higher per capita income as a sign of economic health is thus rendered moot.

and part of the reason ppl migrate away from expensive blue states is b/c they’re looking for a lower cost of living, not b/c of tax policies. but if you think the migration patterns are in your favor, you haven’t looked at a map lately.

save me the crocodile tears.

So Bob is saying that the reason Detroit is an economic basket case is because it is run by conservative African-Americans. This is at once staggeringly delusional… and predictably racist…

And look at migration patterns. People are fleeing those blue states, even California, not just for sunnier climes, but for less burdensome tax and regulatory systems which they tend to find in redder states.

per capita income (third or so one down) is the best measure of prosperity, but they all show that blue states kick the red states’ asses.

What is it disingenuous to imply that Republicans have seen the light? I’ve been trying to get them to see it for as long as I’ve been blogging. Is it disingenuous to praise someone for finally doing what you’ve been begging him to do?

And heck, I wouldn’t mind if it were political expediency as long as they stand for Reagent principles.

Bob, ER, excuse me, bob, so spending is what gov’t needs to do when economy is in the tank? Hmmm . . . . seems we’ve been reading different economic text books and studying different history. With an increasing regulatory burden and high corporate tax rates, it’s no wonder the economy’s in the tank.

If government spending works, then we should be in boom times now, just go look at how domestic spending increased under Bush and Congresses Republican and Democrat, something you yourself acknowledge.

Oh, and bob, so you’re saying the most prosperous states are blue states, you mean, like Michigan, California, New York and New Jersey? Last I heard Texas was faring better than most states and it doesn’t look very blue to me.

V, I was under the impression it was New Orleans. No wonder Bush, Cheney and Rove blew up the levees to punish those wicked evildoers!

And the evil Republicans held up the buses so that the poor innocent inner-city victims who could not escape to safety without governmental assistance!

Oh, wait – it was actually because the mayor (D) and governor (D) didn’t have an emergency action into place. And that they waited until the storm was upon them to ask for help – totally forgetting that they had waved off federal assistance just a few days prior.

That’s the truth, and it makes more sense than the first paragraph. Yet certain lower-casers on this blog (who know who they are) would swear by the first paragraph.

Ah, Louisiana – as we Texans say, “half of it is underwater, the other half is under indictment.”

Regards,
Peter H.