It was a stupid thing for Rangel to say, but he was alluding to something that I think is on a lot of bluestaters' minds-- namely, we pay far more taxes into the government than we get back, while a lot of the poorer red states get much more back than they pay in. Now, as a Democrat who believes the poorer should get a helping hand from the wealthier, that doesn't bother me in theory. In fact, it seems quite reasonable. What bothers me is that many residents of these states that depend on the largess of the blue states make a lot of noise about how the poor need to stand on their own two feet so they don't support any social programs for them, because hey, they themselves don't take anything from anyone; they pay their own way-- when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. And then they call us elitists, and communists, and terrorist sympathizers, and all this time, we're paying their way through life.
Seems awfully rude and ungrateful, doesn't it?
By the way, Danzig, I'm certainly not singling you out, because you certainly don't say anything like this and have never attacked me-- I'm just taking this opportunity to point out that a lot of "red" states get more from the government than they pay in. And I feel like they use it as an opportunity to not fairly tax their own wealthier citizens (Tennessee doesn't even have a state income tax)-- why bother, when they can count on the blue states to support them. And then when blue-staters get bashed as elitists by people they are essentially supporting-- can you see why this blue-stater gets really annoyed?
Here's an interesting op-ed on the pros and cons of the goverment's wealth redistribution process:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1677
And, of course, I'd never in a million years think Southerners were stupid. Bill Clinton, after all, was born and raised in the South.
