Dems vs Reps - economic competence in figures

Well, I finally found that link. Here we go:    http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm       I want to start a reasonable discussion on this. The reason I haven't taken this comparison to heart yet is because I haven't found much supporting stuff and nothing debunking it. So why not offer some counter-evidence, criticism or at least some kind of coherent reaction? I'm actually not a socialist and I am currently questioning my sinistral alignemnt, so don't think I am making a case with that URL. I'm not convinced of what is said in it, but I would really like people to read it and offer some input or whatever.

There's also this. I've already seen some shortcomings in it, but it is another example of things that people should read w/out neccesarily taking it as the truth.

Ah, link...     http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/16866/Top_5_Myths_About_America  I suck.

>>3
        Myth #1 & #3 are correct as far as historical accuracy goes.
        Myth #4 is fairly stupid and I assume his did it because "Top 5 Myths about America" sounds better than "Top 4 myths about America".  Although it has useful information, arguing that the US isn't a perfect nation isn't really an argument because we all know it isn't.  He is arguing about a basic patriotic statement that our nation is the best in the world, and people of every nation have that.  It doesn't really mean anything.  And it doesn't mean that change doesn't need to be done.

>>4 Abolutely. Maybe he considers the notion of "we're the best" is more widespread in america than in Europe et al., and as a Swede I consider that a correct assumption. Swedes hate no one except themselves, basically. As such, I think it is important to list the various "shortcomings" in order to break through the patriotic wall of noise. It is especially important to note the position on women's rights, that is damning for all those that speak of individuality and such - I blame gender roles, traditionalism, patriarchal notions in western culture and protestantism and the sick sick sick family-first nazis. Blech. Still, I consider america to be a role model in many ways. It needs to become less bisected, emotional and more secular, however.

>>3
      Continued from >>4
      Myth #5 I can't confirm or deny, as I am not sure exactly where his information comes from.  I can say that I know that we are pretty low in ranking for government provided foreign aid.  However, We are extreemly high in Private contribution Foreign aid, which isn't approached in there at all and should be mentioned.
      most of Myth #2 is just bashing and of course he his going to find his side more moral, because morals are personal and not everyone has the same ones.  If I agree with someones personal philosophies I am going to think them more moral than someone with whom I disagree.  If you want to argue governemnt tax dispersion to states, there is a much easier way to do it that.  Rural areas pick up more federal tax dollars per capita, cities and suburbans less so.  Rural areas are overwealmingly conservative, cities and suburbs are overwealmingly liberal.  Left leaning states have overwealmingly large urban populations.  Right leaning states have larger rural populations.

>>6 I very much disapprove of the omittance of private charity figures, and I should have mentioned that. Thanks muchly for the reminder.
That thing about tax dollar distribution is hella interesting, and important. Thanks. It makes me wonder why conservatives are so against the government, it seems a bit hypocritical to demand such autonomy and possibly selfish behavior with such a slant.

>>7
      We aren't against the government totally, just most forms of it.  Money goes from urban to rural areas mostly for simple reasons that get adressed anyways by the government and that nobody really complains about.
      1)  The biggest reason that money goes from urban to rural areas is welfare, but seeing as most intelligent conservatives are absolutely anti-welfare, i would have to assume this goes to the liberal crowd.  This goes on the assumption that sombody who lives on welfare doesn't want to vote for anti-welfare politians.  And a larger number of people on welfare in rural areas are on welfare for greater ammounts of time in rural areas per capita.
       2)  The other two really big ones are simply roads and schools.  There are more miles of road in a rural area per person than in a city.  Rural roadways just don't work in the same way as a city road.  True, that rural roads get a lot more traffic, but most rural governments use this as a reason to path roads more often with a thinner layer of blacktop.  Exactly what this detail means to road maintinence cost per capita traffic, I  don't know. 
       3)Schools also recieve a greater ammount of money per student in rural areas than in urban areas and suburban areas.  However suburban areas and urban areas both get much more money locally.  This is simply a government ballancing issue in order to attempt to make sure that all schools are well funded.  It is also worth noting that rural schools tend to have a lower quality of equipment installed than urban schools, and a much lower student to teacher ratio, and a much higher grade point average.  This is especially true in middleground states such as Ohio, Florida, and Mishigan, Pennsylvania, and Indiana.  In cities such as West Virginia, Texas, California, New York, Alabama, New Jersey, and others of polar alignment it tends to not be so much so(a notable exception would be Rhode Island).  Most of the states I mentioned are also very geograpically close to one another if that means anything.  Also those states tend to be of more mixed urban and rural demographics.  Texas and Alabama are both really rural overall, and New Yourk is very Urban overall.

          the point being here that Conservatives aren't complaining about poor schools getting money, and roads being built thoughout the nation.  We are complaining about Welfare and other unfair social programs that are unfair to the system.  Giving poor schools money is helping them help themselves.  We stand for that.  We may be somewhat cold about them not being willing to help themselves with the money given, especially if those schools have to spend their money on metal detectors and security guards and drug searches.  Roads are a necessary to the transportation and communication infastructure of our nation now, and must be managed properly.

>>8 Kudos, dude, kudos. That answered a lot.