When my son made Eagle Scout I was Really Proud of him...doesn't mean I was never proud of him before that. It just means at the point of time I was feeling awesome in the moment.

I'm pretty sure at that moment I even said to him I am really proud of him...I know he didn't take it that I was never proud of him before

It wasn't a smart thing for her to say...but I really don't think she was saying she was never proud of her country....just at that moment in time she let emotions take over and said something that just wasn't worded correctly

Mia Love
 

I guaranty the DNC has people working right now to get dirt on Mia Love. That Woman was great everything she said was true (I obviously can not speak for the 10 dollars) and made sense. I am looking forward to how this Utah Congressional election works out.

ohio successful - auto bailout!
texas successful - energy credits!
Wisconsin successful - borrowed $!
Colorado,Virginia, - defense spending! cheap labor!
Okay,
So lets take a different approach, can you enlight me on why CT, RI, MA, MI and for giggles lets throw in CA are all s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g wind, broke, losing population and general in a heap of shat?

maybe the dems can have Jerry Brown speak? It seems he has the same "Hope and Change" solution Obama. Is there only one page in the Democrats play book?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Tax the rich! That's how California Governor Jerry Brown wants to solve the state's growing budget crisis that now nears $16 billion.

The governor laid out his revised spending plan Monday. It would slash $8.3 billion from almost every part of the state's government. But it would increase funding for K-12 education if voters approve his proposal to hike income taxes on the rich and sales taxes on everyone.

So do we infer the actions or thoughts of one person represent the larger group?

- GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying "This is how we feed animals."

Spence UUUU left out COAL

I don't know what she meant, but I know what she said. She said it twice. In scripted, rehearsed speeches.

We all put our feet in pour mouths. But that's a hell of a thing she said (twice).

And Spence said it wasn't a fact that she said it.

Great post. I'm waiting for Spence's response...

no, I infer the economic polices of democrats adversly impact the states they control. I come to that conclusion based on evidence consistently offered by myslef and others on this board and "explained" away by our liberal contingent. If we can explain away why republican controlled states seem to be fairing MUCH better than democrat controlled states, I would like to know why the democrat states are fairing so poorly?

It's a fact when you take her quote out of context. She went on to add that what she was feeling proud about was people uniting around a common cause. She did this twice, in scripted speeches.

-spence

I vote mainly based on socials issues more than economic issues so I don't get involved in many discussions here on economic policy. But to give you the courtesy of a response, I'll give you a very short, very general and prob. disjointed answer- I think it is a mixed bag, some cons. states are doing better than lib. states and vice versa. I think the quality of life is much higher in the lib. states. Certainly, jobs have moved south (cons.) due to less regulation and the ability to pay less taxes. There is a huge drain of fed. taxes that the lib. states pay to the govern. that gets transferred to the cons. states. Educ. levels, health, obesity are all better in the lib states. Higher environ. standards costs $ in the libs states. We'll disagree whether higher taxes are worth it for all that and what you and I consider quality of life.

And just to go on the record, I don't believe whoever made that idiotic statement is crazy and doesn't represent the Rs.

I appreciate your response, but its misinformed. Quality of life is subjective however there are some parameters universally accepted -
cost of housing, schools, recreation, culture, etc. I'd be glad to repost all the items I posted in the Coincidence thread but its tiring. My "quality of life" in new england consited of long commutes, freezng winters and unfriendly people, high cost of living and declining schools. I lived in a decent town in MA. What you call concervatve states are growing, have a high quality of life - not a bunch fo trailer parks and taco bells. Again referr to to the many, many articles on "best cities to live, best cities for job growth", etc. I've found New Englanders view of the the south and or conservative states is about 25 years behind. Believe it or not, these rednecks have been sending their kids to college the last few decades and most are pretty bright. Things are way different. Paul - I leave you with this. A non political, brief analysis.
Please read - http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/do...oungAdults.pdf

Here is an exceprt - it seems the great quality of life you mention may not be shared....
What is less well understood is why the distribution of the
young adult age cohort is so unequal across diff erent regions.
Why do some of the Mountain, Northwest and Southeastern
states have positive growth rates of 20 to 60 percent in the
young adult age group while New England has double-digit
decline? Th e dramatic diff erences suggest that New England
is not “attractive” to young adults, but what factors contribute
to young adults’ preference for one region over another?
What is the relative importance, for instance, of factors such
as costs of living? What role do housing or energy costs play
in the choices made by diff erent age cohorts? Are certain
types of jobs or environments more desirable by people
of diff erent ages? How do current “myths” about some
regions being more youth-oriented and youth-friendly than
others infl uence the changes we have seen in recent years?
We do not yet have answers to questions like thes

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/do...oungAdults.pdf

and what was this cause that people united around?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another thing TDF...Michelle Obana sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years. Among other htings, Rev Wright preaches that the Amrrican govt invented AIDS to exterminate the black man. Rev Wright said that. Michelle Obama asked him ti marry her, and to baptize her 2 kids.

Don't tell me it's that much of a stretch to suggest that Michelle hates what she considers to be "white" America. There isn't a single person in that "church" who isn't filled, and deranged, with hate.

I guess this is a moot discussion anyway, since Spence says Michelle never even said those words...

I didn't take anything out of context. If her intended context was what you claim, than she should have said what you claim she meant to say.

So she was saying that Americans, prior to the summer of 2008, have never "united around a common cause"? No??

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid spence...

Spence - to reiterate...I did not take Michelle's line out of context...I simply failed to state her reason for not being proud of America until 2008. But you stated her reason, and I'm sure you're correct...in the mind of Michelle Obama, Americans had never united around a common cause in way that was worthy of her pride. That is why she wasn't proud of America.

The question then is, does she have a valid point, or is she a greedy, hate-mongering, race-baiter?

America has done a lot to be proud of...we have free elctions every year...we saved the world in 1942. we are a beacon of light to people everywhere who want to be free...we are the most generous nation in the history of the planet. And speaking for Michelle Obama, America didn't treat her all that poorly - Ivy League education, jobs on a hospital board paying hundrds of thousands of dollars a year.

She wasn't proud of any of that. None of that mattered until we coronated her husband as king and deity.

I'd rather have Eva Braun as first lady.

Thank you for showing me the reason you're going back on my ignore list.
As an ex-gi you should be ashamed of your own vitriol

It's precisely because I was a GI that I refuse to ignore (or celebrate) the kind of hate that Michele Obama spews. Her hate is ignored (or celebrated) because she is pretty, black, and eloquent.

When I was a GI, I lost 2 kids under my command, in combat. One was 19 years old, 1 was 20 years old. Both of them should have been spending weekends on the beach, chasing girls, dreaming of the wonderous possibioities of their futures. Instead, they volunteered to serve in the most difficult, dangerous branch of the military. They made this choice knowing what could happen, knowing that they were likely to fight in places that they never heard of when they were kids.

Regardless of what you think of the mission in Iraq, what they did was heroic. Yet Michelle Obama, our repugnant First Lady, literally spits on their graves when she says that she was not proud of the fact that her country has produced hundreds of thousands of Americans (millions of similar heroic Americans in our proud history) ready to make that sacrifice. Nope. She did not recognize THAT sacrifice as Americans rallying around a worthy cause. To her, the only worthy cause, the only thing worthy of her pride, was bestowing royalty, or heavenly, status on her husband. Up until that point, nothing that America had ever done was worthy of her pride. Those are her words, not mine.

She was not proud of anything America has ever done? We are the bravest, most generous, most selfless country in the history of the planet Earth. While we are obviously far from perfect, no nation has done nearly as much to be proud of.

She's a grotesque, spoiled, hate-filled, ungrateful race-baiter. Not one person who sits in Rev Wright's church (week in, week out) can possibly be described any other way. It's just not possible. Anyone who is a deep, genuine believer of a religion called "Black Liberation Theology" is deranged.

you meant Eva Longoria....right? :)

Jim...please correct me if I am wrong....U R a Marine I do believe... not a G I (drafted.. Government Inductee) that is what the initials have ment...not bashing the other branches of the military.

Once a Marine.. always a Marine.

"Semper Fi"

I was a Marine...I was just responding in context, and didn't bother to point out the inconsistency...

For one thing, New England has higher real estate and energy costs which impact both cost of living and cost of business. My understanding is that the small size of local municipalities also drive up state debt as the states effectively have to underwrite capital investment so communities can get more favorable terms. State pensions do factor in as they do in most states.

RI might not have a great business climate but I don't think MA is that bad...and Boston is seeing a but of a high-tech revival fueled in part by a highly educated local work force. CT is experiencing growth due to aerospace business improving globally.

High energy costs are a big factor here as well. Why does TPI make wind blades in Iowa instead of Warren, RI? It's not because of taxes or regulation, it's because of transportation costs.

The point is, that there are a lot of variables to factor in if you're going to try and understand why some states are doing better than others at any given point in time. Yes, low taxes and regulation might be an enticement...but perhaps overshadowed by cheap housing, cheap land and cheap energy all of which have driven growth in TX.

So would Rhode Island be successful if it acted more like Texas? Unfortunately it's just not possible.

-spence

First of all, you denied that it's factually true that Michelle O said she had never before been proud of the US. Spence, when you do that, and never admit you made it up, you lose a lot of credibility....

"CT is experiencing growth due to aerospace business improving globally."

OK. I have lived in CT my entire life when I wasn't in the military. UCONN just released a report this week that said that the CT economy is in worse shape than previously thought. That one sector may be growing, I don't know, combined with your history of making stuff up, who knows. But CT is a disaster, and it will get worse as the Baby Boomers get older and retire.

"low taxes and regulation might be an enticement...but perhaps overshadowed by cheap housing, cheap land"

But what if cheap housing and cheap land are a direct result of the low taxes and little regulation? You are assuming there is no correlation betwen such things. But the fact is, red states have lower costs of living (and far less debt), and blue states have higher cost of living (and more debt).

It can't all be random chance.

Spence, what blue states are thriving? Really thriving, the way NC is thriving? I would say TX and Alaska, but those states are bursting with oil, so it's not a fair comparison...

According to almost every conceivable finansial measure, red states are better off than blue states. Can you, Spence, admit the possibility that there might be a correlation there?

Context Jim, context...

The point is that aerospace growth isn't moving to Texas because of lower taxes...it's staying in CT because that's where the skilled workers are.

A lot of automotive engineering fled south MI when the industry fell apart. Now companies are moving to the same locations because that's where the talent is.

Many of the blue states tend to be in developed urban areas. Land is more expensive simply because there's less of it.

You can't magically lower regulations and make a field appear for an office park or factory.

Nobody ever said it was random, but it is cyclical.

Didn't Obama crush McCain in NC?

There really are very few pure red or blue states, those are political designations without much meaningful statistical relevance.

How well was Texas doing when oil was 10 bucks a barrel?

-spence

we're talking about business development not oil production. We dont pay much less than you for a gallon of gas. Once again, every thing I read may be wrong - low tax and business friendly climate is driving growth in these states.

Spence did you read this link, its brief.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/do...oungAdults.pdf
Do you know how catastrophic the implications are for New England? You're losing your growth population. Couple that with an aging population, slow growth, high taxes. The workforce of 25-35 yr olds pay high taxes, buy houses, have babies. They drive economic growth!
As someone who plans business for a living, we look closely at this data. are you going to grow your company where there is an abundant workforce or a declining workforce? The answer is obvious. Are you going to tell me people are moving to the southwest because of OIL? really?
Couple the analysis in the link with my own experience - - my 2 best friends in Highs School (from CT), smart, educated guys - live in Arizona and Tennesse. Of my 6 best friends from college all from RI and CT, not ONE lives in new england. Florida, CA and Georgia
2 families in my old neighborhood, couldnt find jobs here, educated and experienced - just moved to Ohio with good jobs within the last month. My secretary - lived in a rented Revere apt, made the move to TX in the last month. For 170K bought a 2010 - 4 bedroom 3600 sq ft house with large inground pool in a great neighborhood. Loves the shops, restaurnats and activities nearby. Tell me where a secretary in NE can buy a 4 bedroom house?
The data is there. You may think its cyclical, I think its a major population shift driven by good economic climates in areas with nice weather, good jobs, great infrastructures

To chime in on the Spence/Jim cuddle fest...
My only point with oil isthat a big reason why the states can afford to offer the really low taxes, and still provide the level of services all of those people moving there can enjoy, has to do with the non-(income/sales etc..) tax revenue paid by the oil co's. It has nothing to do w/ cost at the pump.

So how does Florida afford to have no state taxes?

How is their economy doing right now?
all I hear about is the real estate bubble and no jobs... Are they booming like your new home state?

No idea how their economy is, but I was talking about the state. How are they paying for services without income tx revenue and oil?

Bry - check this chart out -

Which States Will Add Jobs in 2012? - Kiplinger

Only one state in New England is showing any color for adding jobs - New Hampshire. Tell me what every state in New England except New Hampshire has?
I bet you'll tell me its the state liquir stores driving the jobs//////

Jim I don't disagree with your point re: taxes and buisness.

So is the answer to dramatically cut services (spending), which we can agree helps lower income folks more than the rest of us (not saying everyone deserves it, and acknowleding there are many who abuse the system), and hope buisness comes back, the cost of living drops and the state's economy turns around?

None of this is as easy and simple as we make it seem online....

"So is the answer to dramatically cut services (spending), which we can agree helps lower income folks more than the rest of us "

I don't thnk cutting services, especially if they are wasteful and inefficient, necessarily causes harm to those in need. The state of Texas doesn't spend a lot per capita, and they have lots of penniless immigrants who need help. Those people aren't all dying in the streets.

Get rid of stupid waste. Stop giving blank checks to labor unions (that's a HUGE ISSUE). Don't over-regulate business to the point that it makes their lives impossible.

It's not as hard as you think, I bet.

Not all problems are solved simply by throwing money at them. SD and VT pay their teachers very little compared to other states, but they have some of the highst test scores.

Any one state can be an exception (in the case of FL, that's a place that got clobbered by the housing bubble).

But if you look at red states (as a group) compared to blue states (as a group), and compare every measurable economic statistic (unemployment, debt per capita, where the popluations are increasing/decreasing, cost of living, ease of doing business) you'll see results that couldn't be any more conclusive if Sean Hannity made them up himself. How does that not convince you that conservative economices is superior toi liberal economics? What will it take to convince you? Do you remember what Bill Clinton did, and whatthe results were?

When speaking about hypotheticals, things get confusing and complicated. But in thsi debate, we have more than enough real, tangibke data. i don't get it...

Think about the impact of oil exploration and the supply chain. Texas has most of the equipment providers and EPC (engineer/procure/construct) companies headquartered there...and they're cranking due to the energy situation.

Granted, there's other industry as well...but for a lot of other reasons.


I think I've stated in several posts that companies will move where the talent it, this is their most valuable asset.

But is the shift of talent being driven by local policies? I don't think there's data that really suggests this.

-spence

Clint Eastwood = What were they thinking? :confused:

Rubio = Great speaker but all he threw out were feel good lines.

Romney = Empty. Seriously empty. I was at least expecting some vision, got nothing.

-spence

Clint = Combination Funny / Scary in delivery

Rubio = good, some substance

Feel good lines = what I see when I watch the Dem conventions, little substance

Romeny = better than I expected, fewer promises to have to not live up to later on

Agree with exception to Clint (thought it was really bad personally). Although maybe by deisgn as it made Romney speech seem perfect compared to his.

It was nice to see Mike Eruzione in attendence

Sad, but funniest line at the convention-

"And then there is the recent college grad without a job, living home with his parents,
laying in bed staring at a faded picture of Obama on the wall."

Maybe he knows that there are things called variables and it is very difficult to draw conclusions when there are many, many, variables. Here is one you might consider:

"Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC."

PolitiFact | 'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars

here it is explained slightly differently:
"Red states were more likely to get a bigger cut of federal spending. Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16"

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

A principal components analysis would almost certainly show that the fact that they take in more tax dollars than they pay out is at least as relevant to the quality of life indicators you addressed than political association. So if you really wanted to test the theory of "conservative economics," you couldn't have those states take in 46% more than they pay out. Just in case you really wondered why Spence may not be convinced.

so Zim, looks like you're also saying Cons are better at representing their states in Congress?

A lot of that money is in defense and if you talk to the majority of defense folks, they are treated far better in the south, west, and heartland than in the northeast or northwest.

In a nutshell we can argue until the cows come home - wherever the money comes from or goes to, we spend FAR MORE than we take in. This is not sustainable.

If we keep spending like we do now and accelerate that with current obligations - sorry Baby Boomers but you will kill this country - this country will break.

Maybe that is the desire of some, make money a non-factor, worthless, to move to a different system. Other than greed or apathy, I can see no other reason many keep moving the goal posts.