Convention speakers

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

low tax and business friendly climate is driving growth in these states.

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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?

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...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"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.

""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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

-spence