Interesting Maps

Coming from a red county in a red state, I believe that the map has much more significance than has been mentioned here. It is really very similar to the 2000 map, which I once heard described by a speaker at a national meeting with the phrase "The people in the blue counties depend on the people in the red counties for their very survival". The unavoidable fact is that the red counties contain the resource-producing areas of the country, whether you want to call it farming, ranching, logging, mining, or virtually any other production-based economy you wish to name. The Democratic emphasis on taking care of its citizens, rather than relying on citizens to take care of themselves, does not play well in rural areas. Although I have not been in big-city life for many years, it does seem to me that urban residents generally want more assistance from government, and that rural dwellers would more often just like to be left the hell alone. In that context, the map make more sense than I would like. To me, it exemplifies the true urban/rural division that this country has undergone during the past several decades. This in itself I find troubling, and I certainly do not foresee any improvement in the immediate future. Any consoling comments?

steppnwolf , are you takeing into consideration that allot of the business in the city own land in and or get the materials they need inorder to make that money from the Red states. having your headqurters in NYC or LA dose not mean the product bringing in the cash comes from thoses places.

it is the combination of both my dear , i never said otherwise .
i stated only that the cultural differences are in part being fueled by the ideas of the two different concepts of government

... when someone like me points out ...

From 1995 to 2002 the U.S. taxpayer doled out more than $114 billion to farmers, and in 2002 President Bush upped subsidies to $190 billion over the next 10 years. For perspective, consider that in the year 2000 alone, U.S. spending on farm subsidies exceeded the gross domestic product of more than 70 nations, based on federal government figures.

Farm subsidies are not intended to reduce the cost of food significantly. If prices fell too much, farmers would lose money. To prevent this, Congress also has "environmental" conservation subsidies that pay farmers not to cultivate their land, resulting in higher prices for crops that are thus made scarcer. Consequently, from 1995 through 2002 we paid $14 billion for farmland conservation subsidies that increased the price of our food.

Rabel, just where did you get your information. My county is 92% federal land, and I can assure you from firsthand knowledge that your facts are utter fantasy that I constantly hear repeated by preservationist organizations. Incidentally, these groups are ALWAYS from "blue" counties.

If you've ever seen the Lemhi Valley in Idaho, it's not hard to imagine why Michael and Carolyn Thomas chose to return there to ranch with his parents. Salmon, population 3,000, is located at the forks of the Salmon and Lemhi Rivers. ... snip

As natives like Michael know, it's a beautiful place to live, but a hard place to make a living in agriculture, the main industry. A total of 92% of Idaho's land is federal or state-owned. ... snip

Combining the two ranches, the Thomases have 1,300 to 1,400 private acres, including 250 irrigated acres. They also have a Bureau of Land Management grazing lease.

Last week, in Clark County, a retired railroad engineer from Jackson, Wyo., outbid Larry Lee of Mud Lake for the grazing rights on 2,885 acres of state land. Lee was outbid by T.R. Shelby, who paid $46,000 for the 10-year lease, $1,000 more than Lee offered.

Grazing leases may be vital to ranchers, but that's too bad

Quote:

Grazing leases may be vital to ranchers, but that's too bad

This displays such ignorance and contempt for the folks who feed you. The only reason ranchers/farmers need to use federal land is because the federal government owns the majority of the land and individuals cannot possibly purchase enough land (because it isn't available) to operate. Without use of adequate land, we import even more of our food and export even more jobs and the same people who whine about federal land use, whine about jobs and imbalanced trade deficits.

Stepp is correct - tax money flows from urban areas to rural areas. BUT a huge reason for that is because groups in urban areas prevent people in rural areas from using resources to their full potential, effectively crippling rural economies.

The government sells public ground to industry for about 6 dollars an acre ...

This gives them the right to mineral and lumber rights on said ground.

Mesquite wrote:

Grazing leases may be vital to ranchers, but that's too bad

This displays such ignorance and contempt for the folks who feed you. The only reason ranchers/farmers need to use federal land is because the federal government owns the majority of the land and individuals cannot possibly purchase enough land (because it isn't available) to operate. Without use of adequate land, we import even more of our food and export even more jobs and the same people who whine about federal land use, whine about jobs and imbalanced trade deficits.

Stepp is correct - tax money flows from urban areas to rural areas. BUT a huge reason for that is because groups in urban areas prevent people in rural areas from using resources to their full potential, effectively crippling rural economies.

Last week, in Clark County, a retired railroad engineer from Jackson, Wyo., outbid Larry Lee of Mud Lake for the grazing rights on 2,885 acres of state land. Lee was outbid by T.R. Shelby, who paid $46,000 for the 10-year lease, $1,000 more than Lee offered.