I guess I am going to take a little more notice to this because I was born in Mississippi and had to go through the devastation that Hurricane Katrina caused there as well.

Link to New York Times Story

*Emphasis Mine

Now I don't have a problem with an elected official having a personal opinion about a state or area he doesn't chose to live, but to voice this opinion in such a way is downright insulting and elitist.

Rep Charles Pickering of Mississippi has asked for a public apology from Charles Rangel, no word if one is coming as of yet.

Questions for debate:

1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?

1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?

I would call it more of a biased perspective that reflects a strong bias against another region of the country. I know many southerners who have a similar attitude about New York, and I have family in town that feels the same way about the metropolitan area I live in because of the traffic.

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?

He darn well should. He is a Congresscritter who is likely looking for greater power and influence. He is triggering that elitist accusation that is implied in that term flyover state. He is misspeaking at a time when there is a chance for pursuing a true bipartisan program for Democratic leadership and high profile Democratic elected officials should be bending over backwards to exude a spirit of cooperation.

They have two year tryout. It is a probationary period during which they must put up or shut up. In this case, Mr. Rangel should have shut up, and now he should speak up.

The other problem with the tone of Mr. Rangel's comments is that, while he is addressing a real problem for his home state, that it gets a less than fair return of federal dollars and perhaps the least fair return of federal tax dollars collected from a state, it still has an implication that government business as usual will happen and the empowered are simply going to redirect federal funds selfishly to themselves.

I don't think it's an example of "elitist" attitude - many people don't like Mississippi, just like many people don't like Massachussetts or Arizona. There're some areas of the country I really wouldn't like to live in. That being said, I would never, ever say something like Rangel said straight to a face of that area's resident. This is inpolite and insulting. Rep. Rangel should apologize indeed, not only to "U.S. citizens who live there" but to all other inhabitants of that state as well, including temporary visitors, Green Card holders, etc.

By the way - the story appears in "New York Times", the bastion of "Secular-Progressives" and the flagship of "Elitist Liberal Media"... please make a note of that.

1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?

I wouldn’t call it elitist, I’d call it a Yankee making disparaging remarks about a southern state that has a population a fraction of that of New York City alone getting more federal funds. New York has been squealing like a stuck pig about how many other states are getting more homeland security money than they are. And anyway, New Yorkers are kind of known for making disparaging remarks about …well, just about anywhere that isn’t New York. Was it stupid? Heck yeah. Was it as bad as Bush's insensitive remarks about Trent Lott's front porch after Katrina or his momma's crass remarks about how good Katrina victims had it in the Superdome? Uh uh. Not even close.

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?

Yes. It was a thoughtless and rude thing to say.

(P.S.) I would expect the same consideration in the future from others when I inevitably hear California referred to as the land of “fruits and nuts” or other pejoratives.)

1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?

Now that Democrats are in power, I suspect we are going to hear this "elitist" crap for years. Like "common sense" this word is open to interpretation. What, other than a rightward slam of liberals, does "elitist" mean?

How many times have I heard "Taxachussetts" used?

I would not be offended it someone said Texas is not a good place to live. I had an uncle who was a chief Naval petty officer in WWII. His wife and children lived in Texas. When he came home he moved to Virginia.

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?

Yes, but it should signal that others should refer to states by their proper name.

BTW: One of my favorite TV series was In the Heat of the Night starring the late Carroll O'Connor as Chief Gillespie. The setting was small town Mississippi and many of todays' hot social and political issues were addressed. I liked the movie, but the TV series was, in my opinion, better.

Edited to add:

Anyone can offend someone at any time. When the colorful and often illiterate Dizzy Dean - "I slud into second base and swallered my chewing tobacco" - uttered the phrase "Good 'ol Mississippi" several times on the Game of the Week, he got slammed. Deans' defense was that he went fishing with friends in Mississippi and was referring to the state's scenic beauties, not it's social attitudes.

Actually, he's already on the path to getting it.

From ABC News.



Given that, such a comment is even more inexcusable. I would think the people of the U.S. might want someone with a little broader perspective chairing such a committee...unless everyone is looking for Ways and Means to send more money to the Northeast. I suspect this is just a precursor of things to come.

Well, any state that elects Trent Lott does have some serious IQ issues.

Not as insensitve as GW on any given day- that being said- if he wants to be a big player in the big leagues- he needs to hone his poeple skills. Won't hurt this early in the game, but he needs to work on it now.

Rangel's voice alone is enough to disqualify him from the "big leagues".

1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?

I wouldn't call it elitism. I'd call it a typical North Easterner's patronizing "we're better than you" viewpoint. As mentioned before, most people like where they live, or else they'd live somewhere else. Of course, to diss an entire state is a bit low for any politician of note.

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?

He should not apologize if he really believes it. That would be hypocritical. People just need to understand where he's coming from: he doesn't like Mississippi.

A day after election results has changed Congress’ composition and the Law of Averages governing foot-in-mouth disease is giving positive proof so soon?


We really have no one but ourselves to blame for allowing our own ideology to be used against us and allowing elitism to apply strictly to our party.


Or evidence of what already was. Steering pork is a fact of office. I hope third parties get a foot in the federal door but I don’t believe for a moment they'll turn their noses up at pork if enough states change their ballots to instant runoff ballots. That said, I'd be elated of the Pelosi and Reid bring pork spending down to the level the Contract With America Republicans used to bitch about.

DHS is an example of what already was. Instead of Congress laying down a tiered criteria demanding specific goals before states could apply for another round of federal funding the department settled for throwing cash at the states and letting them figure out what to do with it. I never understood this hands-off approach by Republicans. I think it’s indicative of their “government is the problem” belief and disbelief in a “micromanaging” governing style associated with the Democratic Party. It led to a lot of waste. You can’t run the government like a business, and states ended up spending federal dollars on bulletproof vests for canines and traffic cones.

In the “DHS Declares War on NYC” thread few if any Republicans/conservatives had a problem the “busiest landmark in Topeka” receiving increased funding to prepare for a terrorist attack and no monuments in New York being listed as icons terrorists would attack. "Political considerations played no part in the allocation process” my left foot. I thought the end result of DHS’ grant process gave one an impression that is worse than pork. By allowing politics to enter national security matters it really undercut the need for legislation and other measures dealing with security and upped the cynicism for everything related with security, including Iraq.

Now all of that being said, I think Rangel should apologize for practical reasons and because it’s the right thing to do. I’m a nobody who could call New Jersey the Armpit State and get away with it. Democrats can’t cling to majority status by relying on the most populated states. Even if I’m wrong and they can continue winning electorate majorities by keeping their eggs in the bigger baskets they shouldn’t do it on principle. We’re supposed to be the party that cares about the poor. If that means New York loses a little more money than it gives up, especially after Katrina, that’s too damn bad, Rangel.

HA! True enough....me too!



I agree with your example, but would point out that no business would even direct money that way...this is a classic example of gov't NOT being run like a business.



I don't remember posting in that thread, but I certainly would have agreed with you.



Agree 100% again. He has every right to say what he said...but doing so is just plain politically stupid and arrogant. Not exactly the ideal posture to solidying and maintaining power on a national basis.

Mississippi has become a symbol or perhaps a stereotype for everything that’s culturally backwards. I think it’s disappearing, but there was a time when the stereotype of Texas was of either a collection of braggarts or of people riding horses down streets shooting each other.

My favorite Stevie Wonder song is Living for the City. I especially like the album version with sirens and police car doors slamming. The Mississippi stereotype is seen in the song’s opening lines. The problem is that things aren’t any better in the big apple.




http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/stevie+wonder...y_20131815.html



I would agree with this statement. We've let them define us in every way possible. Part of Kerry’s problem in 2004 was that he let Karl Rove and the band of swift boat thugs define him. Although Kerry did cook his own goose with his recent remarks, I’m glad he fought back. The days of branding Democrats and/or liberals as elitist or whatever has seen it’s day. In my best Texican, from here on in we will define ourselves, thank you!

Please explain how a president with a family name, legacy at Yale and admission to Harvard (despite limited academic aptitude) and a compound at Kennebunkport, Maine is any less of an “elitist” than those so accused in the initial post of this thread.

According to thed New Oxford American Dictionary, 2004 an elitist is:



Bush’s policies, including the tax cuts ands the bankruptcy bill, support an economic elite.

Sleeper, I am still waiting for you to define elitist, put it in context and tell us why it seems to be a label exclusive to liberals and/or Democrats.

Sorry BoF I didn't see that earlier.

Elitist as in "We here in the northeast are better than you southerners".

Like I said I don't mind people not liking a state, but for a an elected official to say such things doesn't strike me as a statesman.

Actually, BoF, things are better in the Big Apple - no thanks to tax payers outside New York.


I am looking for the Ways and Means Committee to do just that - and have been for years. Frankly I am sick to death of Red State Welfare. Anyone who pays more than their share of taxes in this country should pray that the Ways and Means Committee does at long last start sending more money to the states that actually contribute it.


Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?

No, it's a rare example of honesty in our politicians - and a very sound economic proposal. I applaud both.

Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?

Yeah - as soon as the citizens of Mississippi apologize for having sponged off the northeast for the past ninety-odd years. Let him apologize as soon as California, Illinois, New York, Michigan, and the rest of the Blue States get to keep their own damned money. Let him apologize as soon as thirteen cents out of every one of their dollars isn't donated to a Red State like Mississippi.

Or, better yet, let Rangel apologize when states like Mississippi stop leading the country in poverty, crime, poor health, and moral turpitude. Mississippi has the highest death rate in the United States; it has the highest number of people living below the poverty line (and second highest for children living below the poverty line); it has the second highest incarceration rate in the country - and the highest female incarceration rate; it has the third highest percent of its population behind bars (and fourth highest percent of women); it has the third highest teen birth rate and the third highest illegitimacy rate (no stats for how many of those were the result of incest); it has the highest obesity rate (though it ranks eighth in terms of childhood obesity - possibly due to having the highest percentage of low birthweight babies); it is the second worst educated state in the union (with the third lowest number of college graduates per capita); it has the highest rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia (though, impressively, it drops all the way to ninth for syphilis); it has the tenth highest rate of divorce; it has the fifth lowest number of households that consist of legitimately married couples; it has the highest number of motor vehicle deaths; it has the sixth highest death by firearms rate; and it has the third highest homicide rate in the United States of America.

On the up side, Mississippi has the highest number of children who attend weekly church services - and only ranks seventh in toothlessness.

Yet Mississippi has been one of the top five recipients of our federal tax dollars for at least the past twenty-five years (most likely, since an income tax was introduced) with nothing to show for it apart from the well-lined pockets of people like Trent Lott. These aren't elitist opinions, they are documented facts. Who the hell would want to live in Mississippi, for God's sake? It is a squalid, violent money pit that is dragging this nation down. And no amount of cash that New Yorkers throw at Mississippi is ever going to solve its corrupt political leadership. Indeed, quite the opposite.

When is Mississippi going to apologize to the rest of us? Or, better yet, when is it going to get its act together, oust some of its grossly corrupt leadership, and stop being a drain on the states that actually do something for America apart from perverting its ideals?


At least Charlie Rangel was a bit more circumspect than me. More's the pity.

So after that off topic rant about Mississippi Wertz... Do you think I am a lesser person than another because I was born and raised in Mississippi?

1. No, this is an example of how desperately Republicans are looking for something---ANYTHING to buoy their sagging spirts after a perfectly awful week. What do people in Mississippi care about a New York Congressman anyway?

2. He probably will because he's a politician. Rangel needs the good will of the citizens of Mississippi like a fish needs a bike, but I'm sure he'll issue some kind of half-hearted apology which won't satisfy anyone who was outraged by his remarks in the first place.

I've been to Mississippi. After basic training my first assignment was at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi. There had been so many incidents between airmen and Biloxi citizens that on weekends we were cautioned to either stay on the base or travel in groups of two or more. Seems some of the locals didn't dig airmen especially those of us who would walk around with a White girl on our arm. The best thing about Mississippi was the surprisingly good pizza joint located just outside the gates of the base and it wasn't that far from New Orleans.

Okay place to visit. Wouldn't want to live there.

Of course not. No one should be blamed for an accident of birth - and Charlie Rangel certainly suggested nothing of the kind. Indeed, he said nothing at all about the people of Mississippi. But had I been born in Mississippi (and, trust me, having been born in central Pennsylvania was close enough), I'd either have done my damnedest to change the place or got the hell out.

As for being an "off topic rant", I thought we were discussing Rangel's observation, "Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?" - and whether it was "elitist". I addressed the fact that Mississippi does indeed get more than its fair share of federal tax revenue and attempted to provide a bit of foundation for his rhetorical question. Under StateMaster's Best States to Live, Mississippi ranks fiftieth - out of fifty. It comes in last. To me, suggesting that people may not want to live in the worst state in the union isn't "elitist", it's rational.

But even if Mississippi were the best state in the union, it wouldn't justify their receiving a bigger slice of the American pie. The fact that Mississippi has done more sucking at the national teat than almost any other state - with nothing to show for it - only adds to the bitterness of our inequitable tax disbursement.



Oh, yeah - I left out the fact that Mississippi has had more race-based lynchings than any other state in the union (and I use the term "union" loosely). They're number one in both per capita lynchings of blacks and total lynchings of blacks. It's nice to know they're good at something, right? And let's not forget that Mississippi was the last state to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment - in 1995. Can't say I blame Charlie Rangel for not wanting to buy a summer home there.

Geez, Wertz. I wonder why some places think that others think they are elitist. This is like a teacher dealing with the dullest kid in class by screaming "Why do you have to be so stoopid"

I realize that there is the ability to try to extract revenge for 12 years of shutting out the democrats. But if the Democratic Party can't find a way to connect with poor white Mississippians, for example, it won't find a way to rule for long. This definitely isn't an improvement from a conservative viewpoint that tends to blame the individual for being poor because of poor decisions. Individuals may be responsible for shortcomings, but blaming the poor or the state of Mississippi simply isn't fair.

Your rant was holding a state accountable for it's weaknesses. I know many good people from Mississippi.

I hope the left stops its gloating soon and stays focused on the humility of the reality that it's moment in the sun is courtesy of many red state voters who are looking for an improvement.

Flyover arrogance will only led to the congressional reconquest of 08 or 10.

Well, first of all, I'd like to point out that there is no state in the Union that is the target of as many jokes [and inaccurate ones a that] than New Jersey. We've learned to take other's misunderstandings with grace, but I do not believe that we would if it were, say, a member of Congress, were the one insulting us.

No, it's an example of something that a lot of people say and think that is inappropriate for a member of Congress to say in public. Would I like to live in Mississippi, no [no offense Sleeper, I wouldn't want to live in New York either, nothing personal], asking "who the hell wants to live there" if you're a United States Senator is innapropriate, period. I also find it funny that this comes from Charlie Rangel, representative from the Bronx...The Bronx.

Yes, but I doubt he will, he's one of he lowest class individuals in Congress.

CP

1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?

Charlie Rangel, is a member of Congress, which makes him elite because there are only 535 such members in a population that is at last estimate over 300,000,000. This could be the collective elitist opinion about Mississippi. Most states get their identity through what makes them most popular or their culture and Mississippi has a racist past and are known for their burning crosses. But part of why areas have the image they have is because the centrifugal media source is New York City. The major news networks and papers all come from that city, so the attitude of the nation is shaped by the writers of the Northeast. The only thing to determine whether this is an elitist opinion or not is to ask; has Charlie Rangel ever been to Mississippi? If so, then no, this is not an elitist opinion, it is an empirical opinon based on his life's experience. If he has not been there, then yes, it is safe to surmis that his opinon was shaped by the elitist media.

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?

People need to stop apologizing for what they say. It is freedom of speech, if there are consequences for what you say then our speech really is not free. I would like it if Congressmen and women expressed their opinons more and let us know what they are thinking. It helps with the decision making process come election time. I am so sick of politicians who use doublespeak to say nothing.

I knew that there would be a thread about this and that I'd manage to find someway to slumber out of the cave!

I won't even bother answering question number two, seeing as how it won't really matter if he does or not.


1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?

Looks that way to me. When I first heard his comments, an image of someone holding a sign at some political rally (I can't remember where or when) that read "Screw Middle America" popped into my head. Wertz, and all his great research ( as usual) pointed out how Mississippi is the worst of the worst in categories ranging from death rates to crime to poverty. Spending money on losing economic ventures, most of the time, is obviously nonsense. At some point, one must cut their loses.

But we're not talking about a business. We're talking about people.

But, for the sake of playing with numbers, I've picked the 2004 fiscal year that federal aid was given out to the states as examples.

(FY 2004)

PDF NEEDED

Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2004

New York recieves more aid than Mississippi. Over eight times more overall. (Page 14)

About three times more from the Department of Agriculture. (Page 14)

What is New York growing that is more important than Mississippi?

Democratic voters?

Wertz pointed out that Mississippi has the highest rate of people with obesity. Could that be that they recieved approximately five times less aid for Food and Nutritional Services than New York? (Page 15)

Even when the aid is small, like it is from the Department of Commerce, Mississippi still falls behind New York. (Page 17)

Wertz also pointed out how Mississippi was the second to worst educated state in the Union.

Perhaps the fact they have 1/5 of the aid New York got from the Department of Education has something to do with it? (Page 18)

I ask you this. Why is New York, with a state economy that would be the 16th largest in the world if it were a country, recieving more aid per capita than Mississippi? More people to care for? Why do they need aid at all when they have the largest and strongest economy in the country?

I thought the whole point of aid was that those who can afford to give, do so, while those in need, are given what they need.

What exactly does New York need from the Federal government that it can't possibly provide for itself?

I couldn't tell you, but if we want to see more of an improvement from states like Mississippi, maybe we should blame ourselves for letting states like New York, with all it's economic greatness, keep Mississippi from improving.

Wertz, I find your comments most disturbing for many reasons, one of them being that they seem to contradict the liberal idea of protecting the little guy. Protecting those in need. What happend? Are the only ones worth helping those who live in Democratic strongholds?

Eeyore and Lesly are the only liberals I've seen that fully understand the power the Dems have now and the responsibility with witch it must be wielded. They understand that screwing middle America will only result in the Dems own demise.


Speaking of "sponges" from those South of us...I'd like all the taxes I put in that went to Illegal Immigrants back. But again, those folks are more likely to vote Democrat.

I actually have no problem with the proposal, and agree that there should indeed be a better correspondence between taxes paid and benefits received. In fact, I wish most government were better at that. However, denigrating others states is certainly not the best way to get there, and will at worst alienate people to the idea and at best obsfuscate the issue and still make it less likely to happen. So, if that is his plan...he had better learn to curtail his tongue a bit, I would think...or it won't happen.





Hmmmm....manage governmental programs more like a business, stop throwing money at ineffective programs, eliminate income redistribution. I say, Wertz....I do believe we're making a conservative out of you!

I am quite clear about who I hold accountable - and it is most certainly not "the poor":

I hold a corrupt political system and corrupt leaders responsible for Mississippi's shortcomings, Eeyore - and it is obvious that handing those politicians even more federal funds and filling their barrels with even more pork is not going to address those shortcomings. Obviously, there are "many good people" from Mississippi. There are "many good people" from central Pennsylvania. But there is an extent to which the people of any given city or state or nation must be accountable for the people they choose to represent them. The policies and politics of a state do reflect on the local population. And Mississippi has long been a hotbed of racism, corruption, and violence. And if the Democratic Party finds a way to connect with that, it doesn't deserve to rule for very long.

There is plenty in the Democratic Party's platform to appeal to poor people of any color anywhere. If the people of Mississippi are going to reject that platform because a Congressman from New York made a joke at their expense, then they're in a sorrier state than I can even imagine. But if you're suggesting that the Democratic Party should compromise the few values that it actually has to pander to "poor white Mississippians", then I simply cannot agree. If their policies are sound enough and communicated clearly, there is no need to "connect" with anyone.


The fact that a few voters in predominantly Republican states have finally realized that the people they've been supporting have done nothing to serve their country's needs or improve their lot demands humility on behalf of those who have known this all along? Okay... I'm encouraged by the fact that many cited "corruption" as one of the deciding factors in casting their vote this year, I'm delighted that more citizens have started being accountable for the people they choose to represent them, but I'm hardly humbled by their "courtesy" in deciding not to support gangsters for once.

But I trust you're not suggesting that I am gloating over the election results. To me, there is little difference between a Democratic Congress and a Republican Congress and, to the extent that my views have a modicum of overlap with those of some members of the Democratic Party, I see these election results as a disadvantage for the Democrats in 2008. Those areas of overlap would include Rangel's suggestion that we should end Red State welfare. In discussing that policy, he made a joke about Mississippi. Big deal. Saying that it sucks to live in Mississippi is a far cry from saying that New York liberals hate America or that those from the northeast support terror. And it's much closer to the truth.

This is a storm in a teacup - if that. And all I've done here is explain why I don't feel that Charlie Rangel owes anyone an apology for anything. But nighttimer was more to the point: this is the Republican Party grasping at straws - and it signifies nothing.

Titus, I'll get back to you. You, too, Hobbes.

Wertz, I agree that things are probably better in New York City.

Yet, in the context of Stevie Wonder's song, Living for the City, the young unemployed black man in "hard time Mississippi" was no better off being unemployed in the Big Apple.

1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?,

Yep, sure looks that way. Those dang whining NE Demos stomping all over the tender sensitivities of the Red Southern states. You'd think these elitists would have been happy had the Confederacy won.

They're just ticked off that the backwards South sucks up so much of their Yankee industrial bucks. They're probably ticked too that it was NYC that got slammed, not New Orleans. Oh, wait. I take that back.

No, it must be that the lack of terrorist oversight while GWB had the watch led to 9/11, whereas it was God at work on New Orleans. Yes, that has to be it. Red states did it to NYC, so there has to be resentment. God did it to New Orleans, so how come the Bible Belt doesn't just suck up the Divine Judgment?

Well. It sure looks like elitism though. The whining Demos want to keep their own money! Why, that's not even, um, well, it is something like Republican.

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?

I think he should in the Republican way. He should express sorrow that his fellow US citizens are stuck in such a disaster-prone area and don't have the means to move to higher ground. He should point to Bernie Ebbers, former white-collar crook who destroyed the careers and savings of tens of thousands, and express sorrow that such a bastard came from the great state of Mississippi.

He should then slap the back of Colorado and other high country states that took in Katrina victims with open arms, and tried to find these people jobs, even while the native population was out of work. He should point to all the efforts being made to rebuild New Orleans, and maybe even mention that someday, the Northern states might find a cure for kudsu.

Yep. Apologize and spin like a top.

Just like a Republican.

Seriously though, I did like Mississippi around the Greenville area. Great blues festivals. It's too hot and muggy for my taste, the kudsu creeps me out, and I had nightmares about voodoo queens in New Orleans. Combining a Northern Minnesota accent with a Memphis drawl is a pretty darn ugly thing you know, y'all, hey?

I won't go back to Mississippi, and I won't go back to Minnesota. Shoot, I don't even want to go back to Colorado Springs! Must be my liberal Democratic elitism.

Oh, I know! The guy should say he misspoke, as in, "I really meant, 'Who in New York City would want to live in Mississippi?'" Then a poll could be taken and we'd know who in NYC wants to move to Mississippi. There might be someone.

1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?
I'm not too concerned with his remarks. Nearly everyone, from politicians to average Joe's harbor some biases, perceived or real, against certain states or parts of the country. The south has its rednecks, the northeast it's Ivy League liberals, the midwest it's hayseeds, California it's nuts and hippies, and my great state of Oregon is nothing but granola-eating-birkenstock-wearing-tree-hugging-owl-saving peacenicks named Rain or Butterfly. Who cares? Everybody holds elitist attitudes against somebody based on geographical location or upbringing.........this is a non-issue.

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?
To my surprise, I find myself in complete agreement with barnaby2341: I would like it if Congressmen and women expressed their opinions more and let us know what they are thinking. It helps with the decision making process come election time. I am so sick of politicians who use doublespeak to say nothing.
I can't add anything to that statement.

1. Is this an example of an elitist attitude towards states in the south such as Mississippi?

It's an example of hypocrisy on the part of Rangel. When a certain senator from Mississippi made an unintended error about an old colleague, he had to resign his post as Majority Leader.

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?
Rangel should resign his position as chairman of Ways and Means committee chair immediately. In fact, he should offer his resignation from the House for good measure. If he is already making such remarks, can you imagine his attitude when he sees a measure that may benefit Mississippi.

2. Should Rangel apologize for his comments about Mississippi and the U.S. citizens who live there?


Wow! Please let me draw a parallel here.



Just as MJF isn't from Missouri, you are not from New York. If the voters in Rangel's district are unhappy with him, they can get a new representative in 2008. His resignation is a pipedream.

I somehow doubt the Founders intended for members of Congress to resign because their remarks offended someone.

Should they give up their post though? I mean the senator from Mississippe had to. Oh, I forgot, it's different when a Democratic black man insults someone, then it's okay.

I stand by what I wrote. You explicitly called for Rangel to resign from Congress. That decision is for the voters of New York to make. In fact, they made that deision last Tuesday by a near unanimous vote.

Rangle, in fact, got 94% of the vote in New York's 15th district. Are you saying that you, (The Founders' Intent), want to nullify the voters overwhelming decision in Rangel's district? This call for resignation is clearly not what the real founders intended.



http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/re...s/NY/index.html

Lott's loss of his Majority Leader post was a decision of the Republican Party. George W. Bush, had a hand in orchestratring Lott's ouster.



http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...120/ai_96555070

Rangle operates within the Democratic Party. I can't see Nancy Pelosi or anyone else challenging his chairmanship.

Trent Lott did not resign his senate seat and he won reelection in Mississippi rather handily last Tuesday.




http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2...results.html#ms

He is also running for the Republican whip post with the blessing of John McCain. I wouldn't cry too many tears for Trent Lott.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...cs/16012502.htm

The Rangle story was a blip on the radar screen. You are beating a dead horse.

BTW: I agree with the thought that living in New York City would be culturally better than living in Mississippi. On the other hand, I am retired. I have to be careful with money. The lower cost of living in parts of Mississippi would be a consideration.

Edited more times than I can count to add information, correct typos and enhance cosmetics.

Allow me to re-state this inserting "inner city school districts" for "Mississippi":


The irony is thick.

It is the liberal philosophy to give to those at the bottom in order to lift them up. Obviously, from the statistics you cited, Wertz, we have not done enough to help Mississippi. We need to give them MORE money.

Or, more specifically, we're talking about those who represent people. We're talking about corrupt politicians and a corrupt political system.


The tables that you cite are looking at total payments. If one looks at how this aid is allocated on a per capita basis - which is what is actually under discussion - it is quite a different picture. For example, your statement that New York receives "over eight times more overall" aid than Mississippi ignores the fact that New York has a population of 19,254,630, while Mississippi has a population of 2,921,088. The mean tax burden of a New Yorker is $2,376.77, while that of a Mississippian is $1,766.54 - ergo, New York contributes almost $47 billion annually while Mississippi contributes just over $5 billion. So New York contributes over nine times more than Mississippi, yet - in direct aid (which is all your tables examine) - only gets back eight times more than Mississippi. You see how this works? And when you look at the specifics, the imbalance is even more ridiculous.

The Tax Foundation releases an annual report including tables of federal spending by state per dollar of federal taxes - in short, how much you get back for the amount you put in. The disparities are apparent.


Good question - though probably more appropriate to a separate thread if we are to address it in depth. Briefly, if you are arguing that New Yorkers should be exempt from federal income tax and therefore receive nothing back from the federal government, I couldn't agree more. New York would be much better off raising its own taxes and spending its own money. Indeed, I feel that federal income tax should only be used on federal programs that benefit all the states, such as military expenditure, and federal programs that benefit the national infrastructure, such as the interstate highway system (though, in that case, I'd argue that funds should be disbursed on the basis of mileage - those states with more highways should clearly receive more maintenance funds).

But if you are arguing that New Yorkers' taxes should go entirely to corrupt politicians in Mississippi, West Virginia, and Alabama, then I can't agree on any level.

While I appreciate your communist sympathies - from each according to their means, to each according to their needs - we are not talking about a Robin Hood type situation here. The federal tax system does not rob from the rich to give to the poor, it robs from the people in states with healthier economies and gives to the politicians in states with corrupt economies. And, as I've already stated, the solution to that problem is not giving those corrupt politicians even more money to waste on themselves and their cronies. States like Mississippi have received a considerably larger dole from the feds for two generations now - and I don't think the fact that they remain at the bottom of the barrel is due to their gene pools. It is due to their political systems. Either that, or it's karma.


According to the Tax Foundation report cited above, for every sixty-four cents a Mississippian pays in federal taxes, a New Yorker pays $1.25. For every $1.12 a Mississipian gets back in federal expenditure, a New Yorker gets ninety-nine cents. You, in California, get eighty-seven cents. What more should the "blue states" be doing? Whistling Dixie?



The problem with these arguments - and with Amlord's whole inner city school district "analogy" - is that they presume that there are no little guys in New York, no one in need in New Jersey (where they only get fifty-five cents back on the $1.41 they put it) - and, on the other hand, no inner city school districts in the south. What is it that makes Alabama's inner cities needier than those in Illinois?

I don't know what "the liberal philosophy" entails, but my philosophy excludes throwing money at a problem when it's a policy that is clearly not working. The subsidization of Mississippi is not improving its standard of living by any number of barometers - there is no discernable progress in any area. But in opposing the underwriting of "red states", I'm not advocating the elimination of essential programs anywhere - or removing any kind of protection from little guys in any state - or, indeed, failing to lift anyone's bottom. I'm speaking of essential welfare reform. Welfare is meant to provide an assist; it is not meant to be a permanent subsidy - correct? And those who argue that welfare breeds dependency are, in some cases, right. And the politicians of many red states are welfare queens in Cadillacs - they are deadbeats - and their constituents are so many crack babies. Feeding their habit by perpetuating inequity in federal expenditure does not make sense - on a fiscal or a humanitarian level. Those in receipt of federal funds need to be accountable for the disbursement of those funds - and the results produced - or the system needs to be changed.

There is also the issue of self-reliance and the contract between the several states - which may be more to the point. While the founders clearly would have opposed a federal income tax in the first place, I can't imagine how they'd feel about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts paying for the education of children in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Constitutionality of a federal income tax falls for a variety of reasons - and the forced subsidization of one state by another would certainly be one of them.



Well, I doubt that Mississippi would be one of the states signing on to this sort of proposal at the best of times. Who is going to support the reduction of their own revenue (and that's certainly how it would be characterized)? I don't imagine that making this kind of remark is going to become a habit with Rep. Rangel at this point in his career, but if it were, I'd agree that it would be ill-advised. If nothing else, it would serve as a distraction from the real issue. While DTOM is quite right that this is a non-issue, that won't stop cable news and the blogoshpere from treating it like a real issue.


I'm not sure if the advocacy of accountability is either conservative or liberal. I don't think either faction has a monopoly on being rational (or not).



Apples and oranges, sir. At worst, Rangel was putting down another state. While somewhat crass, this is nothing new among state politicians. Trent Lott, on the other hand, stated that the US "wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if we had voted to support racial segregation in 1948 - and it wasn't unintended. Overt support for racist policies in the twenty-first century is something new among politicians. And, as advocted by barnaby and DTOM, it does "let us know what they are thinking". And it's a far cry from joking about who might want to live in one of the states that did vote to support racial segregation in 1948.

I'd like to say first, glad to see you made it through Katrina. Being from Biloxi, and I go back a LITTLE bit farther than you , I take this a little more to heart than most. I grew up there in the 40's and 50's, and when the South was solid Democrats. Yes, we've earned the reputation 10 times over. Problem is though, we things we did(good, bad or indifferent) have, or still are, going on today, all across this country. We just didn't hide it.

Now for Rangel, understand...where did he make this comment? I would have more respect for him if it had been made around Biloxi, Escatawpa or Shabuta Mississippi. Which is why he's still in one piece.

Should he apologize? Sure...will he? Doubt it very seriously.


SNAKE

Considering that this thread and incident date back to November, I doubt it, too.

It's an dead issue, snake.