Red state, blue state divide reflected in grim statistic: fatal traffic accidents

reply to post by homeskillet


ok - here is the statistical reason why your conclusion is wrong

new york state has a population of 19 million , with over 8 million in NYC alone [ thats > 40 % of the states population in a single urban metroplis ]

thus as the stats are / 100K population - new york cities lower average speed / journey , better roads [ all paved / lit etc ] , better traffic management , policing , emergency response times , medical " centres of excelence " etc etc etc

will slant the statistics

whereas a rural county like say - hamilton county - has a population of only 4400 and a land area several times the size of NYC [ and no slight intended on its citizens , roads or services ] has more unlit , unpaved roads - longer emergency response times , a longer trip to get the patient to a consultant surgeon with the skills to treat a victim of a major incident

thus 100 fatalities in hamilton county have less impact on the / 100k rate than 1.5 million fatalities in NYC

thats the problem with bare statistics

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
so if someone makes a bad decision in texas it can effect life in new york... or vice versa

Exactly why I want limited regulatory, economic and political interaction between the states and even other nations.

I suppose it's a typical pessimistic/opportunistic perspective difference.

From my perspective the "good" decisions are few and far in between while the "bad" decisions are nearly perpetual in frequency at all levels from my local planning board to the United Nations.

The less anyone can affect my life the better. Failing a return to independence and personal liberties complete gridlock is the next best thing. I say every politician should have a one term limit that lasts all of 15 minutes. The less they do the better off I'll be.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
so if someone makes a bad decision in texas it can effect life in new york... or vice versa

Exactly why I want limited regulatory, economic and political interaction between the states and even other nations.

I suppose it's a typical pessimistic/opportunistic perspective difference.

From my perspective the "good" decisions are few and far in between while the "bad" decisions are nearly perpetual in frequency at all levels from my local planning board to the United Nations.

doesnt matter though because everyones standard of living is dependent on cooperation between states (and on a global scale countries) to just let each state do what it pleases would ensure that ALL states suffer and would very quickly result in wars between states so that each could ensure their own well being by having control of the others

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Whoa there, Out of Context.

Did anyone bother correlating the % rates per capita in blue states for public transportation or for car ownership or licensing % rates per capita?

These stats are misleading because the whole picture is not visible.

Exactly. Common sense. So called " Red States are more rural. Therefore more driving is involved. More driving more accidents.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

doesnt matter though because everyones standard of living is dependent on cooperation between states (and on a global scale countries) to just let each state do what it pleases would ensure that ALL states suffer and would very quickly result in wars between states so that each could ensure their own well being by having control of the others

edit on 20-11-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

Myth and hyperbole. There is virtually no reason whatsoever to war with any other state and should the federal government magically dissolve over night the average home will not experience any reduction in living standard.

Commerce will continue unabated. The dollar is simply a tangible symbol of value that is inherently valueless. All that is required for a standard of exchange is the people believe in it like a god or ghost. Monopoly money, plastic zip ties, or stones shaped like Nixon can replace federal currency.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

doesnt matter though because everyones standard of living is dependent on cooperation between states (and on a global scale countries) to just let each state do what it pleases would ensure that ALL states suffer and would very quickly result in wars between states so that each could ensure their own well being by having control of the others

edit on 20-11-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

Myth and hyperbole. There is virtually no reason whatsoever to war with any other state and should the federal government magically dissolve over night the average home will not experience any reduction in living standard.

Commerce will continue unabated. The dollar is simply a tangible symbol of value that is inherently valueless. All that is required for a standard of exchange is the people believe in it like a god or ghost. Monopoly money, plastic zip ties, or stones shaped like Nixon can replace federal currency.

wrong
for example
california (where i live) what would happen to california if colorado,utah,or arizona decided that they didnt like environmental protection laws and polluted the colorado river downstream or decided to divert the river in their state (it could very well be more more profitable for them to do so)
california would lose access to its largest source of fresh water and it would likely go to extreme lengths to secure said fresh water

that is not hyperbole that is reality and the same could be said of anything from road access to accessibility of food

reply to post by sirhumperdink


You'll have to come up with a reason Colorado or Utah would want to do such a thing.

Then, whatever the reason is, Californias obvious non-war options is sensible trade.

There isnt a lot of precedence for supervillans cutting water access for no reason nor is there a lot of precedence for refusing to deal with sensible bodies.

I suppose my biggest failure here is assuming people arent insane. That somewhere in the realm of reality alternatives to starving a state because one just feels like it and going to war as a knee-jerk reaction is uncommon.

I forget this is America. Home of the paranoid and land of the psychotic.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

You'll have to come up with a reason Colorado or Utah would want to do such a thing.

Then, whatever the reason is, Californias obvious non-war options is sensible trade.

There isnt a lot of precedence for supervillans cutting water access for no reason nor is there a lot of precedence for refusing to deal with sensible bodies.

I suppose my biggest failure here is assuming people arent insane. That somewhere in the realm of reality alternatives to starving a state because one just feels like it and going to war as a knee-jerk reaction is uncommon.

I forget this is America. Home of the paranoid and land of the psychotic.

well look at how businesses are run now... profit above all else and what youre advocating is essentially for states to be run like businesses and if one state is bleeding money .....screw em .....we can just buy them out when they declare bankruptcy
it allows one state that has a resource to have leverage over state that lacks that resource which could be used to influence policy or legislation

seriously if you are lacking something you are almost always willing to trade much more for it than its worth

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

turns out red states take in far more than they pay out to the federal government articles.businessinsider.com...

though i dont agree with the tone of the article the numbers given are correct

edit: taxfoundation.org...

you can check taxes by state from there and google what each state receives in federal aid and services

edit on 20-11-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

That article is toilet paper.

Does it tell you what went to welfare? Homeland Security? Health and Human SERVICES, (aka obamacare), Business contracts/bailouts/stimulus (Solyndra, GM) ? Does it go into what portion of this was welfare per capita?

So when they say welfare queens they aren't being entirety honest with the reader.

double

reply to post by 11235813213455


You just can't deal with facts so you go off on a tangent that shows your paranoia and obvious bias to the reader.

Maybe when the folks in red states learn to keep god out of government, they'll finally get the #ing plot and unite with the rest of us against our true oppressors.

reply to post by sirhumperdink


It doesnt do your business any good to bankrupt your customer.

You're right that businesses are run horribly in the US. But why are they? It should be economically unsustainable to do the things they do yet they can because of two things. One is this nonsense of a global economy. When they ruin their house they can just uproot and move in to another. That works great until all the houses are ruined. Which brings us to number two. The government will bail them out in one way or another. Either overtly through a direct infusion of cash or covertly with political dealings. Both of which are slowly reducing the overall quality of life for all Americans.

It's no secret that household income and wages have dropped every year since WWII while expenses have increased every year.

With all the automation and low wage Chinese fabrication every American should be living like a king working maybe 10 hours a week with a home and two cars in the garage. But we arent. We're being dragged down to Indian and Chinese worker levels a little bit each year thanks to the global economy.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

You just can't deal with facts so you go off on a tangent that shows your paranoia and obvious bias to the reader.

Maybe when the folks in red states learn to keep god out of government, they'll finally get the #ing plot and unite with the rest of us against our true oppressors.

Laughable... Little chance of that.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

It doesnt do your business any good to bankrupt your customer.

You're right that businesses are run horribly in the US. But why are they? It should be economically unsustainable to do the things they do yet they can because of two things. One is this nonsense of a global economy. When they ruin their house they can just uproot and move in to another. That works great until all the houses are ruined. Which brings us to number two. The government will bail them out in one way or another. Either overtly through a direct infusion of cash or covertly with political dealings. Both of which are slowly reducing the overall quality of life for all Americans.

It's no secret that household income and wages have dropped every year since WWII while expenses have increased every year.

With all the automation and low wage Chinese fabrication every American should be living like a king working maybe 10 hours a week with a home and two cars in the garage. But we arent. We're being dragged down to Indian and Chinese worker levels a little bit each year thanks to the global economy.

exactly ..... and the same would happen to states if they didnt all have similar regulations
how different would the world be if china or africa had the same regulations as the united states?
now how different would the united states looked if regulations in mississippi and washington were as different as those between the united states and china?

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
exactly ..... and the same would happen to states if they didnt all have similar regulations
how different would the world be if china or africa had the same regulations as the united states?
now how different would the united states looked if regulations in mississippi and washington were as different as those between the united states and china?

We're back to pessimism and optimism again. Obviously you see the feds regulations and legislation as a positive and I see them as a negative. Obstacles to be overcome.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


no i see them as powerful tools
they could be used to make the world much better or much worse

and it is the people who are to dictate and ensure which is to occur
those tools can only be used to harm us if we collectively consent to it

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

and it is the people who are to dictate and ensure which is to occur
those tools can only be used to harm us if we collectively consent to it

Maybe you havent noticed but those people are morons.

The mob, and by proxy the elected officials, have proven themselves untrustworthy, irrational and dangerous.

I wouldnt trust my neighbors to decide for me the color of my home. I certainly dont trust the 300 million clowns out there to decide a policy that affects me.

Since the premise of the source article is driven by a political angle, and the related discussion is, unsurprisingly, likewise political, I have moved this thread from Breaking Alternative News to Breaking Political News.

As always, if anyone disagrees with my doing so, please send me a private message and I'll be happy to talk about it.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled bipolar partisan divide...

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

and it is the people who are to dictate and ensure which is to occur
those tools can only be used to harm us if we collectively consent to it

Maybe you havent noticed but those people are morons.

The mob, and by proxy the elected officials, have proven themselves untrustworthy, irrational and dangerous.

I wouldnt trust my neighbors to decide for me the color of my home. I certainly dont trust the 300 million clowns out there to decide a policy that affects me.

and that is the core of the problem
its not the government... its the people who are supposed to oversee that government
but the times they are a changin information is more readily available and people more informed (not enough but were getting there) than ever before and it would be tragic to take such a big step back as we are finally maturing enough to govern ourselves

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Because conservatives are only concerned about themselves and their cronies, while liberals are more concerned about others, and that translates to attitudes on the roads.

Living here in Ohio, based upon personal experiance, I would say that Cleveland is second only to Chicago with idiot drivers. They manage to get themselves killed in 35mph accidents.



Maybe Red State drivers just feel the need...

The need for speed!