Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
|
Oh, I did. Massachusetts is quite blue. And you posted a study saying it has a swell economy. I guess I am completely wrong.
Hold on...what variables did your study look at, in ranking the health of the state economy? Income, OK...GDP, makes sense...unemployment, sounds fair. Hold on? No mention of debt! None at all?
Spence, do you know what a "balance sheet" is? When one looks at the health of an organization, do you think it's a good idea to only look at the left side (assets) of a balance sheet, and ignore the right side (liabilities)?
Using that approach, there was a time when this study would have concluded that Allen Iverson's economic health was far superior to mine. After all, he had more assets. Who cares about liabilities?
Here's another study, that looks at state debt per capita...Massachusetts is 3rd highest, with state+local debt per citizen, of $13,000, one spot ahead of CT. So when that debt comes due, which it will soon (it's all tied to when enough Bbay Boomers are retired and looking for fat pension checks), how healthy will that state economy be?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...nding_2016dH0C
You work in some kind of a business capacity, right? That's terrifying.
Yes sir, according to you, assets = economic health. If you have a lot of assets, that's all you need to know!
What is it with liberals, anyway? How is it, that you can convince yourself that future debt, isn't something that needs to be taken into account?