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.

""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."

Zimmy, I am sure that the red states, as a group, send more federal tax money to blue states than they receive from blue states. That's federal income tax. What about state income tax? Blue states charge way more state income tax than red states, and almost all of that stays within the state. yet, even with all that state tax revenue, blue states have way more debt per capita.

Zimmy, if you want to suggest that blue states spend less money on state programs than red states, due to the fact that blue states send so much money to red states, then that data will be easy to find and post.

"in case you really wondered why Spence may not be convinced"

No, I don't wonder why he's not convinced, I know for sure why he's not convinced...because he's incapable of admitting factual realities that don't support his pre-determined agenda.

If the charts he provided are accurate, don't they disprove what you think?

Perhaps one of the reasons blue states have higher tax rates is to offset the Federal spending they're not getting.

Seriously, perhaps when you deal in some facts you'll be able to speak with any credibility here.

-spence

This pretty much nails it :hihi:

-spence

Obama's leadership thus far has been imaginary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Roll out the race bit, Spence. Nice. One of these days we'll get past that. Pretty sure you're just trolling (Gawd I hope so)

Come on, it's pretty funny.

-spence

Being that this is a thread on convention speakers......Chaffee?Really? Chaffee?If the most brain-dead human being to ever be elected to office is one of your big speakers than the DNC and Obama have problems,really big problems if they think this buffoon is going to garner them votes.

Maybe Romney should have had Palin speak!

This election is the biggest travesty in my lifetime.Nothing like be held hostage by a broken political system and being forced to vote Romney because no one of sound mind can possibly vote for Obama.Lesser of two evils...what a way to go.Sad.

Spence, betta send a new Swifter Duster to Charlotte.

They're gonna need it when they roll out the leaders of the Dems- Frank, Reid,
Brown, Pelosie,Boxer,Biden etc. LOL :grins:

So is Romney's at the national level. Pick your Kool-Aid

Obama has been an abject failure. Romney is un-inspiring. It's disheartening.

But you want gutsy leadership? How can you claim Paul Ryan isn't the epitome of gutsy leadership. He'sthe first politician in god-knows-how-long to say out loud "Medicare is going broke, and here's my plan to fix it".

I don't know enough about healthcare to say if Ryan's plan was a good plan or a bad plan. What I do know is this...instead of offering an alternative solution, the liberal response was to show a commercial showing Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound lady off a cliff. This, despite the fact that Ryan's plan specifically does not touch Medicare for current seniors.

You may not agree with Ryan's plan. But if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, how do you not give him credit for bold, decisive LEADERSHIP. He's the only policician who has a specific plan to adress what is, BY FAR, our largest economic threat.

I don't usually get excited about vice-presidents. Ryan ain't a rock-star. But he's decent, honest, and clearly not afraid to talk about issues that most cowards in DC don't want to be associated with.

A young politician, a family man who is clearly more concerned with fixing problems than he is with being popular? That's what I call "change I can believe in"