Convention speakers

[Jim in CT]

The GOP convention will feature governors Scott Walker (WI) and John Kasich (OH). These 2 governors will explain how they inherited horrible messes from their predecessors, implemented conservative economic principles, and can point to data that irrefutably shows that those principles are working (these states have lowered taxes, created jobs, and decreased debt).

On the other side, the Democrtatic convention will have Sandra Fluke and Eva Longoria screaming about their desire for free condoms.

Compare the lineup of speakers at each convention. The GOP will have govs Jindal, Christie, and Haley. The Dems have the presidents of NARAL and Planned Parenthood? Oh, and Caroline Kennedy, who has done nothing with her life except trade on her inherited royal status. The GOP will show actual, hard data to suggest that conservative ideas work when implemented. The Democrats' message will be that my side hates women. That's what Obama is hanging his hat on. And it could very well work.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Eva Longoria screaming about their desire for free condoms.

.

mmmmmmmm, I may have to change my political affiliation.

[spence]

Scott Walker balanced the WI budget largely by borrowing money. Ohio's job growth was largely fueled by infrastructure spending (a lot of industrial equipment) and more importantly the auto bail out.

If these are fact based conservative policies they should make for interesting speakers.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Scott Walker balanced the WI budget largely by borrowing money. Ohio's job growth was largely fueled by infrastructure spending (a lot of industrial equipment) and more importantly the auto bail out.

If these are fact based conservative policies they should make for interesting speakers.

-spence

OK, Spence. So WI and OH turned things around by having the government borrow and spend more. Got it.

Spence, if that's true (and of course it's not), why has that approach faired so poorly in CT, MA, RI, and Washington DC?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, Spence. So WI and OH turned things around by having the government borrow and spend more. Got it.

Spence, if that's true (and of course it's not), why has that approach faired so poorly in CT, MA, RI, and Washington DC?

Different situations.

Ohio has benefited from a recovering auto industry of which there's little supply chain in the north east. Ohio also does have a lot of heavy manufacturing which has rebounded well with international infrastructure development and stimulus spending domestically.

Walker certainly did cut some costs, but I believe he's also diverted banking settlement money into the general fund and borrowed $500M to restructure WI debt.

The point being, you can't just say short-term policy has led to growth or stability when there are a number of factors at play...many of which could be geographic or dealing with larger trends.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Different situations.

Ohio has benefited from a recovering auto industry of which there's little supply chain in the north east. Ohio also does have a lot of heavy manufacturing which has rebounded well with international infrastructure development and stimulus spending domestically.

Walker certainly did cut some costs, but I believe he's also diverted banking settlement money into the general fund and borrowed $500M to restructure WI debt.

The point being, you can't just say short-term policy has led to growth or stability when there are a number of factors at play...many of which could be geographic or dealing with larger trends.

-spence

"Ohio also does have a lot of heavy manufacturing which has rebounded well with international infrastructure development"

Spence, please share with us the data that says that infastrusture spending is drivingthe Ohio recovery? What have they done there?

We haven't donemuch infastructure spending. Much of the stimulus money went to public labor unions. I don't see how that helps manufacturing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We haven't donemuch infastructure spending. Much of the stimulus money went to public labor unions. I don't see how that helps manufacturing.

A lot of infrastructure spending is global in nature and drives the entire manufacturing base. Ohio has a pretty big economy, automotive, agriculture, aerospace suppliers, steel production, industrial machinery, medical etc...

Kasich hasn't even been governor for two years. You think he magically fixed things? Their economy is driven by much larger global trends.

-spence

[striperman36]

Don't forget Haley Barbour busting all the unions down there. Using her high heels as weapons in political battles
Nice cheap southern wages with no workers rights

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Don't forget Haley Barbour busting all the unions down there. Using her high heels as weapons in political battles

Haley Barbour wears high heels

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Nice cheap southern wages with no workers rights

Those workers have at least one right...the right to go work somplace else if they don't like the low wages offered in the public sector...

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Those workers have at least one right...the right to go work somplace else if they don't like the low wages offered in the public sector...

I'm talking private sector jobs Jim

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by striperman36

I'm talking private sector jobs Jim

What 'rights' don't those workers have?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What 'rights' don't those workers have?

rights to government mandated benefits....sometimes referred to as entitlements..most of the instances he cited involved getting paid when you aren't actually working....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Nice cheap southern wages with no workers rights

I was unaware that South Carolina has no workers rights

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by scottw

I was unaware that South Carolina has no workers rights

no lunch break, no vacation or sick leave. Employers may decrease an employees salary with seven days notice. Employees can be terminated without reason or notice

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

no lunch break, no vacation or sick leave. Employers may decrease an employees salary with seven days notice. Employees can be terminated without reason or notice

well.....

"there are no requirements under South Carolina law forcing an employer to give an employee a lunch break. Employees may also be fired without a specific reason, as long as it's not an illegal reason, and are not guaranteed "benefits" such as paid days off, sick days or paid vacation days. Employers can also decrease employees' payment if they notify them in writing seven calendar days before the decrease."


I really don't see a problem with these...I'm pretty sure that workers in SC have "rights", these aren't really "rights", more like employer burdens that government may impose on employers in other states, workers have the option("right") not to work where employers do not pay for lunch breaks, days off, sick days,vacation days and can hold you accountable for your performance..you might be confusing "rights" and "benefits" in many cases.....maybe you meant Mississippi?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Employees can be terminated without reason or notice

That's what every private sector worker in the nation lives with. Your 'job security' lies with making sure your boss knows that he is better off with you than he is without you.

And there needs to be a legal reason to fire someone, or the company gets sued.

[striperman36]

Yep you seen him run down the street in red ruby high heels!

Actually it was Nikki Haley

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Yep you seen him run down the street in red ruby high heels!

Actually it was Nikki Haley

thought you had a scoop for a minute there

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

thought you had a scoop for a minute there

If Haley Barbour wore high heels, that would necessarily make him a Democrat...

Just saw Mia Love speak at the convention...black, female, republican mayor in Utah, running for Congress, her parents were Haitian immigrants. Awesome story. She might not be able to top Eva Longoria, I'm sure, but still impressive...

[Raider Ronnie]

Today the liberal media is all over her calling Ann Ronmey a Corporate wife.
I'll take the corporate wife over the gimme handouts her whole life wife.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

[Jackbass]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

.but I really don't think she was saying she was never proud of her country....

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

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...

[RIJIMMY]

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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?

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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?

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

[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