Convention speakers

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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....

Context Jim, context...

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.

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.

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).

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.

It can't all be random chance.

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

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...

Didn't Obama crush McCain in NC?

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?

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