Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, January 05, 2021

The five metro areas with the highest move outs in 2020 were located in New York and New Jersey, according to a study from moving company United Van Lines.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Where are those liberal Americans going, and how will they affect the voting in their destinations?

Maybe turn some red states purple?

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-01-05 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Oh look... it's the weekly everyone is moving to Texas thread.

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-01-05 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Prob be flat earth next.

#3 | Posted by Lohocla at 2021-01-05 02:42 PM | Reply

Where are those liberal Americans going

Read the article..

Maybe turn some red states purple?

Most will move to the big cities in any state, they will keep away from the country side. And most states will structure the voting power to reflect that so that the cities arent always outvoting the countryside.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2021-01-05 02:46 PM | Reply

The five metro areas with the highest move outs in 2020 were located in New York and New Jersey, according to a study from moving company United Van Lines.

I can think of several factors contributing to this.

The pandemic, quarantining, unemployment, the cost of living in expensive cities/states.

Also. As Lamplighter ponders. Where are these people moving to? What will be the results when liberals and moderates move into conservative states and cities? More purple, less red? I guess we'll find out.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 02:48 PM | Reply

And most states will structure the voting power to reflect that so that the cities arent always outvoting the countryside. disenfranchise voters.

We get it Boaz, you hate it when people get equal representation.

Why should each person's vote be counted equally?

Fkkk them.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#6,

Actually, I'm on record as saying local should be democratic and it should. But eventually, people get tired of one city speaking for an entire state, especially if the rest of the state isnt liberal.

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2021-01-05 02:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

But more on topic Clownshack, even you liberals dont want to live next to each other, you are leaving your cities and states you have created, coming to the more family friendly conservative and nicer country areas..

One wonders why you were not not conservative to begin with, your areas may have stayed nice instead of becoming the cesspools most of them are now.

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2021-01-05 03:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

For the record, we're not sending you our best.

#9 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2021-01-05 03:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#9,

LOL...

#10 | Posted by boaz at 2021-01-05 03:07 PM | Reply

local should be democratic and it should.

I agree. Which is why gerrymandering bothers me.

Candidates should win because everyone voted for them. Not because there's lines on the map that guarantee a D or an R the win.

Same with policies.

Listen. I understand there's a problem when people in cities dictate life for people in rural areas. California is literally the result of major cities - mostly Los Angeles - dictating policy for the entire state.

I've been up to Central Valley California. I know how much the farmers hate city folks. Especially during times of drought and water conservation.

But giving people in Central Valley more representation won't fix things. It will create a different form of imbalance.

#11 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And most states will structure the voting power to reflect that so that the cities arent always outvoting the countryside.
#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Yeah.
About that.
That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

When you "structure voting power" to give some people more power at the expense of others, you're subverting democracy.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-05 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Life is very expensive in California. It is a lot cheaper in the -------- States like throughout most of the South and Texas. It makes economic sense that people with fixed incomes (such as retired folk) and wage laborers would move to those ---------. But living in South Carolina or outside Dallas Texas will never be anywhere near as nice as living in most of Southern California. It just is what it is. And that is why it is so expensive to live here. Overall, it is far better. The Market does not lie. It is unfortunate that economic reality prevents so many people from living here and remaining here. My daughter and her husband are a perfect example. They lived outside of San Francisco where they were paying $3000 a month for a 750 sq. foot apartment. Now they live outside of Seattle (in Kirkland) in a 2000+ ft house with a backyard and lots of Douglas Fir all around them for almost the same cost.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-01-05 03:19 PM | Reply

Please read the actual study - it is much more interesting than the spin. For instance, who'd have thought that the number one state moved to for retirement was...

Delaware.

Oregon - that insanely too liberal a place we get told all about by righties was #3 on the "move to" list.

This year's survey results indicated 40% of Americans who moved did so for a new job or job transfer (down from prior years), and more than one in four (27%) moved to be closer to family (which is significantly up over prior years).

Data from March to October 2020 also revealed the COVID-19 pandemic influenced Americans' decisions to move. For customers who cited COVID-19 as an influence on their move in 2020, the top reasons associated with COVID-19 were concerns for personal and family health and wellbeing (60%); desires to be closer to family (59%); 57% moved due to changes in employ

www.unitedvanlines.com

#14 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-05 03:20 PM | Reply

The Nassau-Suffolk area in New York is a pretty heavily Republican and Trumper area.

Not that I'd expect someone who's never been to New York to know that!

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-05 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I usually find these red/blue arguments with regards to cities and states to be nothing but low level drivel intended to spark arguments over who's the superior ideology.

boring........

Just because a city sees a decrease in population due to more migration out vs in doesn't mean it's a failure of liberal policies.

Cities expand and sometimes they contract....much like the overall economy. Some places experience economic growth to a point where the cost of living becomes a real challenge and then a local employer sees their business move overseas or contracts locally for whatever reason...and then people flee out of necessity.

I don't see it as a "this goddam liberal place has pissed me off, I'm leaving".

That's absurd.

Rural towns in the Midwest have been shrinking for decades. It's not about blue vs red. It's about the economics of scale impacting agriculture.

The town has shrunk because there are fewer farmers (farming much more), which leads to fewer students in school (usually the largest employer in town), which leads to fewer businesses, etc...on and on.

You can't swoop into town with your conservative or liberal magic wand and fix it with your superior ideology.

Arguments like this are why I'm a moderate. I see both sides engaging in an exercise of futility with threads like this.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2021-01-05 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

One wonders why you were not not conservative to begin with,

It's horrible to know there are people in our nation that are homeless or poor or struggling to make ends meet. For what ever reason.

When, as a nation, we could be taking care of everyone and making life better for our fellow human beings.

I think, at the end of the day. This is why I stand where I do, politically.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 03:21 PM | Reply

"Delaware."

Not too surprising. Rehoboth, Bethany, that other one... nice beaches, very rustic setting, and not overrun with Trumpers.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-05 03:23 PM | Reply

I've always wanted to move to Oregon.

If only it weren't so cold.

At 50 degrees here in So Cal, I'm already frozen.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 03:26 PM | Reply

"One wonders why you were not not conservative to begin with"

I was conservative to begin with.
I got better.
Perhaps it was when I was old enough to think my girlfriend ought to be able to get an abortion if she so chooses.
Or maybe it was when I realized letting people starve in Africa wouldn't actually make starvation go away.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-05 03:27 PM | Reply

"When, as a nation, we could be taking care of everyone and making life better for our fellow human beings."

The idea of doing anything "As a nation" is an existential threat to them.

It terrifies them, that they might lose their individuality.

Why they can't just get a tattoo like a normal person who insists on being unique, I really don't understand.

Truth is, I'm unique. Just like everybody else!

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-05 03:31 PM | Reply

You can't swoop into town with your conservative or liberal magic wand and fix it with your superior ideology.

While I agree with the majority of your post.

Conservative ideology is basically libertarian capitalism.

The government is only here to establish law and order. Everything else is survival of the fittest, shrewdest. Which. In the long run, has negative impacts on smaller, more fragile, economies.

Liberal ideology of taxation and wealth redistribution - aka Democratic socialism (don't get scared off!) - would actually help fund smaller economies allowing them to survive.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 03:34 PM | Reply

-Liberal ideology of taxation and wealth redistribution - aka Democratic socialism (don't get scared off!) - would actually help fund smaller economies allowing them to survive.

You just described most rural communities entirely run by conservatives.

cities and counties that have sales and property taxes levied to pay for schools, roads, fire departments, etc.....and when they want a new school or civic arena or something, they push for and pass a sales tax increase and/or property tax increase to fund a debt obligation used pay for it.

Call it liberal ideology or democratic socialism if you want but it's carried out by conservatives everywhere.

Maybe there aren't as many Ayn Rand disciples out there running things like you think.....

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2021-01-05 03:59 PM | Reply

But giving people in Central Valley more representation won't fix things. It will create a different form of imbalance.

So taking one person's representation for another is ok with you?

#24 | Posted by boaz at 2021-01-05 04:08 PM | Reply

Funny. California has one of the lowest property tax rates in the nation. That we like to breathe clean air and drink clean water may be anathema to some of you Ayn Rand losers concerns me not.

#25 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-01-05 04:10 PM | Reply

@#4 ... And most states will structure the voting power to reflect that so that the cities arent always outvoting the countryside. ...

So, you seem to be saying that the Republicans of those destination states will continue their efforts to prevent Democrats votes from mattering.

#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-01-05 04:11 PM | Reply

-California has one of the lowest property tax rates in the nation.

That tax, by itself, doesn't tell you enough. Many states have low property tax rates and high state income taxes or it's in reverse.

wallethub.com

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2021-01-05 04:21 PM | Reply

California does have comparatively low property taxes especially if you have owned the same residence for a long time. Let's not try to make the argument that overall California has low taxes. We do not. That's the price of living in paradise.

#28 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-01-05 04:25 PM | Reply

You just described most rural communities entirely run by conservatives.

I might be. I'm not sure.

But in my perspective. Conservatives tend to cut taxes on the rich, which results in less revenue coming into their local economy.

There seems to be a theory that if the rich are taxed less, they'll spend more, or perhaps invest the money they're saving back into America. It's never happened.

It only results in 40 years of neglect to local infrastructure, local communities, and the advancement of America in general.

Remember World Fairs? I'm not sure when the last one was and I only know of them because of television, and a show I worked on.

But that was when America had high ideals for itself and its future.

Pretty sure that's when America was at its greatest.

Pretty sure that's back when the wealthy were being taxed at a reasonable rate and were still the wealthiest people in the world.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 04:50 PM | Reply

So taking one person's representation for another is ok with you?
#24 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I'm never suggested such, or didn't intend on implying it.

Each person's vote should be counted the same, regardless of where in the state they're living.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 04:54 PM | Reply

Boaz,

Maybe I'm mistaking what you meant when you wrote:

"most states will structure the voting power to reflect that so that the cities arent always outvoting the countryside." (#4)

It reads to me like you're saying, states should give greater representation to people living in rural portions of the State.

That's what my original disagreement was.

I disagree that if people from out of state move to (let's say) North Carolina causing local elections to start turning out more Democratic. The answer is to change the voting structure to give more weight to rural (conservative) voters.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 05:03 PM | Reply

There seems to be a theory that if the rich are taxed less, they'll spend more, or perhaps invest the money they're saving back into America. It's never happened.

That's a lie.

In almost every time Republicans cut taxes, it was followed by a booming economy, and it's been the same under Trump.

Does the money go directly into the pockets of the poor? Probably not. But it's not supposed to. It goes to the tradesmen and women who work for the rich. It goes to the small businesses the Rich shop at. In short, it goes to the competitive edge. It always has and always will.

#32 | Posted by boaz at 2021-01-05 05:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#31,

Yes, I was saying some districts should be heavily weighted so as to not throw the city disproportion out of wack.

It's the only way to protect the country folk who's culture isnt like the liberal elites in the cities. Their interests are just too different.

#33 | Posted by boaz at 2021-01-05 05:10 PM | Reply

-But in my perspective. Conservatives tend to cut taxes on the rich, which results in less revenue coming into their local economy.

I think the difference between liberals and conservatives fade considerably at the local level. The rhetoric and vitriol generated in the media would have everyone believe that the left/right divide is as strong at your local school board meeting or county commissioner meeting as it is in DC.

Not in my experience.

And if people actually attended those meetings or rolled up their sleeves and got involved directly.....they'd know that.

But it appears most folks would rather blog and watch Cable TV and pretend they have the same knowledge they'd have if they bothered to get involved themselves.

I think they'd find out that the arguments over partisan lines happen less frequently than they imagined. (notice I said "imagined" because they don't know).

Do they happen? yes, but not that frequently.

Are there some scary creatures with extreme viewpoints occupying seats in those places? absolutely.

But more than folks would believe, elected leaders are working together with each other, balancing budgets, compromising and communicating and they aren't standing so far apart on the issues of taxation. They understand they have important services that need funded and they agree how they are to be funded.

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2021-01-05 05:15 PM | Reply

@#32 ... That's a lie.

In almost every time Republicans cut taxes, it was followed by a booming economy, and it's been the same under Trump. ...

The GOP Tax Cuts Didn't Work
www.theatlantic.com

...Donald Trump's signature legislative achievement was the corporate-tax cut he signed in 2017. Republicans said it would grow the economy by up to 6 percent, stimulate business investment, and pay for itself.

None of those promises have come to pass. GDP growth has declined to less than 2 percent according to the latest report, released yesterday. Business investment has now declined for two straight quarters, dragging down economic growth. And the federal deficit exceeds $1 trillion....



A Tale of Two Tax Cuts (2001)
www.epi.org

...Present-day Republicans, however, are promoting a tax cut that disproportionately benefits those with high incomes, the rationale being that this will stimulate the economy by increasing saving and investment. Critics of these cuts prefer smaller overall tax cuts with greater focus on relief for lower-income individuals; it is these lower- and middle-income families, critics argue, that are most likely to spend any extra disposable income and hence stimulate the economy. A look at recent history supports such claims.

Two major recent recessions-1974-75 and 1981-82-were accompanied by Republican-led tax cuts markedly different from one another both in terms of who benefited and in their long- vs. short-run focus. President Ford's tax cut in 1975 was targeted at low- and moderate-income families and helped to stimulate private consumption, putting the economy back on its feet. By comparison, President Reagan's tax cut in 1981 disproportionately benefited those at the top of the income scale and ultimately did nothing for the slumping economy until 1983.1...



Kansas Provides Compelling Evidence of Failure of "Supply-Side" Tax Cuts
www.cbpp.org

...The deep income cuts that Kansas enacted in 2012 and 2013 for many business owners and other high-income Kansans failed to achieve their goal of boosting business formation and job creation, and lawmakers substantially repealed the tax cuts earlier this year. The Kansas experience adds to the already compelling evidence that cutting taxes does not improve state economic performance.Former supporters have offered explanations for this failure to prevent the Kansas experience from discrediting "supply-side" economic strategies more broadly. But the evidence does not support these explanations. Rather, the Kansas experience adds to the already compelling evidence that cutting taxes does not improve state economic performance....

#35 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-01-05 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#35 - Thanks for doing that. Again.

#36 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-05 05:45 PM | Reply

That's a lie.

In almost every time Republicans cut taxes, it was followed by a booming economy, and it's been the same under Trump.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Examples would be helpful.

In a few instances. Such as with George W Bush, he cut taxes when the economy was already booming. The effects were felt a few years later.

Same with Trump. I'd also like to point out how twice under Trump Trillions were dumped into the stock market in order to stabilize it.

I'm expecting a depression to be on the horizon. Trump and Republicans have left a disaster for Biden and Democrats to clean up.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-01-05 06:15 PM | Reply

"And most states will structure the voting power to reflect that so that the cities arent always outvoting the countryside."

Odd way to say gerrymander.

#38 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2021-01-05 06:54 PM | Reply

And most states will structure the voting power to reflect that so that the cities arent always outvoting the countryside.

#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ

As usual Mr. Patriot himself is a huge proponent of our democratic system of governance.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-05 10:38 PM | Reply

But eventually, people get tired of one city speaking for an entire state, especially if the rest of the state isnt liberal.

#7 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Too f&^%ing bad.

Crafting elections to give you the desired outcome is as unAmerican as it gets, Boaz. Why do you hate America?

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-05 10:40 PM | Reply

One wonders why you were not not conservative to begin with, your areas may have stayed nice instead of becoming the cesspools most of them are now.

#8 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Jesus you're such an uninformed ignorant moron.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-05 10:41 PM | Reply

So taking one person's representation for another is ok with you?

#24 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Considering it's OK with you this is a rather dumb question.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-05 10:46 PM | Reply

" eventually, people get tired of one city speaking for an entire state"

Although strangely, they never get tired of that one city paying for an entire state.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-01-05 11:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You just described most rural communities entirely run by conservatives.
I might be. I'm not sure.
But in my perspective. Conservatives tend to cut taxes on the rich, which results in less revenue coming into their local economy.

#29 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2021-01-05 04:50 PM | FLAG:

The vast, overwhelming majority of rural communities do not have rich people to cut taxes for. They don't even have a Walmart to give a property tax break.

Your tax cutting Republicans are from the suburbs.

#44 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-01-06 10:34 AM | Reply

In almost every time Republicans cut taxes, it was followed by a booming economy, and it's been the same under Trump.
Does the money go directly into the pockets of the poor? Probably not. But it's not supposed to. It goes to the tradesmen and women who work for the rich. It goes to the small businesses the Rich shop at. In short, it goes to the competitive edge. It always has and always will.

#32 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You're such a gullible rube, easily entranced by parlor tricks.

Literally nothing you said there is correct.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-06 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In almost every time Republicans cut taxes, it was followed by a booming economy....

Followed by?

I always Republicans are like aliens going planet to planet. They use up whatever they can to prosper, then leave for the nextg planet when it's turned to ---.................

#46 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-01-07 04:29 PM | Reply

The vast, overwhelming majority of rural communities do not have rich people to cut taxes for. They don't even have a Walmart to give a property tax break.

Your tax cutting Republicans are from the suburbs.

#44 | Posted by sitzkrieg

But the morons in the farmlands still vote for the plutocrats who will cut taxes for the rich and cut benefits for the non rich. All because propaganda brainwashed them to think their biggest enemies were imaginary communists and transexuals.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-01-07 04:51 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort