Puzzling George Will Article

[HDPM]

This may be the worst will article I have read. It seems to be a mere apology and campaign piece for GWB. I guess some might say they are all that way. The article seems to contradict itself; he basically points out everything wrong with the Republican Party then says that's why R's are so great. Huh? Seems like pure spin to me. I think people who are against big governemnt and spending vote R because they are not as bad as Ds. But they aren't good. Anyway, here's the article. web page (http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/8185253p-9116545c.html)

[andyfox]

[Phat Mack]

I've read his baseball book, but don't read his other stuff often. This is the most tortured and self-contradicting prose I've seen in a while.

My favorite:

Republicans plan to sacrifice some equality to promote individualism. Democrats want to limit freedom of choice

If the Dems are now against freedom of choice, does that mean the Repubs are for it?

[KJS]

Did you see this piece?:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30PINK.html

It shows that "Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party; their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic."

Most states carried by Bush in '00 were states that got more than they gave from tax dollars. States that gave more than they got? Voted Gore.

Who says people who vote Republican are against big government? Or that the GOP is against big government? It just doesn't seem true to me.

KJS

[HDPM]

Can't find my NYT password so can't get the article until I email them bla bla. But you are right, republicans have turned into a big spending party. I just can't believe the budget explosion w/ GWB. I figured the day we had a R President and R congress, things would get better. Sure I knew they wouldn't do the right thing and really cut, but small to moderate overall cuts of 10% (see I think reasonable spending cuts are in the 75% range /images/graemlins/laugh.gif) might happen. Instead we have massive spending increases. It is gross. The problem is that D's are more blatant about their socialism. And I am not in support of that. Big government in R hands is also dangerous because there will always be an Ashcroft type lurking in an R gov.

[MMMMMM]

"Who says people who vote Republican are against big government? Or that the GOP is against big government? It just doesn't seem true to me."

Apparently it is no longer true, if it ever was.

This may also be a good time to recall a quip I read perhaps a year or so ago:

"The Republicans have become Democrats, and the Democrats have become Socialists."

^For whatever it's worth.

Anyway, I think the Libertarian Party makes a lot more sense on economic matters than do the Donkeys or the Elephants.

[KJS]

Given the choice between a gov't that gives $ primarily to "socialist" programs that help people and one that gives $ primarily to huge defense contractors, which would you choose? I know you don't like socialism, but its better than corporate welfare, isn't it?

If the Dems can't capitalize on the fact that we went from a surplus to a historic deficit in one term they are really hurting.

KJS

[HDPM]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
It shows that "Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party; their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic."

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe sorry KJS as much as I like and respect you I think this article is garbage neither proving your quote nor disproving it. Here's the first major problem with the article, the article discerns no valuable trend data. To make the conclusions that the author does one needs to identify a trend of givers and takers. Reagan won in 1984 and carried 49 states what does that say about the writer's conclusion of a structural divide? What happened when Clinton was elected? I'd be willing to bet money that the data cited was very close to being the same.

A second problem with the analysis is that there's a very good reason why there are net outflows of federal tax money from states like California and New York. The taxable base of income is disproportionately much, much higher than in a state like North Dakota. Yet North Dakota is represented equally in the Senate for one thing and many Federal outlays for things like defense for one go to states that are less poplulated yet California and New York at least benifit from these outlays.

A third problem is that there is no statistical analysis to support the conclusion. To wit:

Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.

Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12.

The fact that 25% of the states in each category directly refute the author's conclusion seems to be a fairly significant number in my mind.


The fourth problem with the article is the loaded rhetoric used by the author. To wit:

Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party — their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic.

Where's the proof that they're actually living off of the tax dollars spent and that none of it in anyway benifits the "giver" states?

You can argue that the Republicans are buch of big time spenders and are no better than the Democrats in wasting tax dollars but in my mind this article certainly doesn't prove it.

The NY Times IMO has really gone down hill over the years. I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way. Jason Blair is a prime example and the one sided op ed pieces and editorials are another.