Red State is a Poor State

[Conservative]

Your info is obsolete. Cali is soaring right now. You need to lay off the Fox News and widen your information net.
5 Reasons California Went From A $42 Billion Deficit To A Surplus - The National Memo


And, to think. They do this without denying 6 million people access to healthcare. :roll:

That has been debunked over and over again yet you continue to post the same story. get your facts straight. All Brown did was kick the can down the road as the state has billions in unfunded liabilities and there is no surplus.

California's 'wall of debt' is only a slice of its liability problem - San Jose Mercury News

 

[clownboy]

Your info is obsolete. Cali is soaring right now. You need to lay off the Fox News and widen your information net.
5 Reasons California Went From A $42 Billion Deficit To A Surplus - The National Memo


And, to think. They do this without denying 6 million people access to healthcare. :roll:

Actually, that's precisely how they did it - cuts to state funded healthcare and several children's programs that weren't protected by state constitutional allotment.

Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee lays it out:

There are, however, caveats on that rosy scenario.
It barely touches immense liabilities for pensions and retiree health care, and it assumes that the economy remains upbeat and that politicians restrain spending and create a reserve to cushion future downturns.
Brown clearly wants to follow that path and is discouraging fellow Democrats and liberal advocates who want to ramp up spending, especially on health and welfare services that have been reduced.
The next few years, therefore, will be a test – one that the Capitol has often flunked. Can it resist pressure from constituencies on which politicians are dependent for campaign support?
After 35 years, is this truly the end of the structural deficit, or just another temporary respite?

Read more here: Dan Walters: Has California finally closed its structural deficit? - Dan Walters - The Sacramento Bee

 

[Conservative]

You evidently don't get the concept of economic multipliers. The energy industry has huge economic multipliers in the economy just like the Wall Street does in NYC.

California has more potential and natural resources that are untouched than any other state in the union. I suggest you look at the Fortune 500 Companies that have relocated to TX and tell us how many of those are energy companies?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Love how you lie through ommission. Tennessee has the 5th lowest cost of living of all the states, whereas Minnesota rings in at #35. Pretty sad showing for the supposed progressives. They make a little more, but keep far less.

Cost of Living Annual Average 2013

You have a nasty habit of accusing others of lying. Just the same, its an absurd comparison you are making.

Tennessee has a low cost of living primarily because:

A. Its climate is mild and thus utility costs are low. Heating costs in Tennessee are much lower than average, yet its a state whose summers are no more harsh than much of the Midwests.

B. Housing costs are lower due to cheaper labor (lower wages), and lower residential building costs in general due to lower insulation needs and the lack of basements in most homes.

Minnesota's cost of living is higher due to:

A. The highest heating costs in the nation outside of Alaska.

B. The cost of housing being higher due to better paid labor, basements, and much better insulation.

If you actually compare cost of living, if you make 41k in Nashville, then you have to make 50k in Minneapolis to maintain the same standard of living. (Cost of Living Calculator: Compare the Cost of Living in Two Cities - CNNMoney)

The Median Household income in Nashville is $52,424
Nashville, TN - Forbes

The Median Household income in Minneapolis is $63,772
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN - Forbes

The cost of living in Nashville is 1.2% above the national average (adjusted for income) while in Minneapolis its 1.2% below the national average (adjusted for income). Moreover, by every measure: Crime rates, Access to Parks and Greenspace, Schools, Arts and Culture and so on, Minneapolis beats Nashville. (everything but winters of course)

 

[ocean515]

You evidently don't get the concept of economic multipliers. The energy industry has huge economic multipliers in the economy just like the Wall Street does in NYC.

California is ranked 4th in the United States for Oil Production. So it has both Silicon Valley, and Oil.

Of course it used to have auto production, and aerospace, and steel, and shipbuilding and.....

Perhaps that explains California's position at or near the top of the chart for unemployment.

Is blue the color of people holding their breath for the next promise from Sacramento?

Good thing they've managed to capture the flag for highest taxes and fees.

 

[clownboy]

You have a nasty habit of accusing others of lying. Just the same, its an absurd comparison you are making.

Tennessee has a low cost of living primarily because:

A. Its climate is mild and thus utility costs are low. Heating costs in Tennessee are much lower than average, yet its a state whose summers are no more harsh than much of the Midwests.

B. Housing costs are lower due to cheaper labor (lower wages), and lower residential building costs in general due to lower insulation needs and the lack of basements in most homes.

Minnesota's cost of living is higher due to:

A. The highest heating costs in the nation outside of Alaska.

B. The cost of housing being higher due to better paid labor, basements, and much better insulation.

If you actually compare cost of living, if you make 41k in Nashville, then you have to make 50k in Minneapolis to maintain the same standard of living. (Cost of Living Calculator: Compare the Cost of Living in Two Cities - CNNMoney)

The Median Household income in Nashville is $52,424
Nashville, TN - Forbes

The Median Household income in Minneapolis is $63,772
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN - Forbes

The cost of living in Nashville is 1.2% above the national average while in Minneapolis its 1.2% below the national average. Moreover, by every measure: Crime rates, Access to Parks and Greenspace, Schools, Arts and Culture and so on, Minneapolis beats Nashville. (everything but winters of course)

No, I don't. But I do have a habit of pointing it out when others do, as in this case. You go on to prove it while serving up why you think COL is different. The point that you ignored in the first place was that COL is different.

I'm happy for you, you found two cities in the states that busts your whole starting position that states are monolithic in their economic conditions. You're digging the hole deeper to defend a bogus point.

 

[ludin]

You evidently don't get the concept of economic multipliers. The energy industry has huge economic multipliers in the economy just like the Wall Street does in NYC.

you are only looking at 1 aspect of their economy that isn't the fully economy. texas more so austin is becoming a major tech hub. big tech companies are moving into the austin area and moving out of the silicon valley. this has made austin become one of the hottest growing cities in the south but still affordable to many.

CA has lost a lot of it's economic activity as businesses are migrating away due to the high costs of living and to operate there in general.

i wouldn't want to live in CA or NY just not worth the cost of living alone.

 

[clownboy]

California has more potential and natural resources that are untouched than any other state in the union. I suggest you look at the Fortune 500 Companies that have relocated to TX and tell us how many of those are energy companies?

In what universe is that true?

 

[Fenton]

You evidently don't get the concept
of economic multipliers. The energy industry has huge economic multipliers in the economy just like the Wall Street does in NYC.

You guys just dont let up do you ?

Now its "multipliers".

The only way you people can save face is to apply some arbitrary metric thats exclusive for some reason to Texas.

Instead of mustering up the needed humility to admit that Californias continued decline is directly atttibuted to Liberal policies you make something up thats indefinite and unquantifiable.

Just like the supposed effects of Stimulus.

Silicon Valley recieves Billions in Tax incentives annually. California has GOOGLE and APPLE for petes sake and a variety of Large Corporations that recieve the same incentives that any other Corporation in the US does.

Give me a break.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No, I don't. But I do have a habit of pointing it out when others do, as in this case. You go on to prove it while serving up why you think COL is different. The point that you ignored in the first place was that COL is different.

I'm happy for you, you found two cities in the states that busts your whole starting position that states are monolithic in their economic conditions. You're digging the hole deeper to defend a bogus point.

I am not sure what you are getting at. I made a comparison between a progressive state with progressive policies and a conservative state with conservative policies. I deliberately picked two states that are not on the coasts, don't sit on vast oil reserves, and that were of fairly similar populations and urban / rural population distributions.

You then call me a liar because you claim Tennessee is cheaper to live in. I then point out while its cheaper to live there (which has nothing to do with the states policies, its the states climates), and then point out, with sources, that actually, the lower cost of living in Tennessee is not sufficient to make up for the lower incomes - not to mention much higher unemployment rate, and that once you adjust for income differences, you actually do better in Minnesota than you do in Tennessee. For example, Haiti is cheaper to live in than Canada, but you don't earn nearly as much in Haiti as you do in Canada, thus in the end you do better with the money you earn in Canada than in Haiti. Its a fairly simply concept.

Then seem to miss all of that, I suppose rabid ideology is blinding you to reason idk, and then insinuate I was lying again. Take a breath dude.

 

[Fenton]

They are adding jobs ... thank God for
government contracts ....

Who ? NASA ?

Lol !!

Obama has been cutting funding to NASA and its contractors for the last 5 Years.

Companies like Lockheed, Jacobs and Boeing are Laying off people as fast as they can pass out pink slips.

He needs it for his growing class of dependent voters.

Poverty is the only thing Liberals policies really produce

 

[RGacky3]

Who ? NASA ?

Lol !!

Obama has been cutting funding to NASA and its contractors for the last 5 Years.

Companies like Lockheed, Jacobs and Boeing are Laying off people as fast as they can pass out pink slips.

He needs it for his growing class of dependent voters.

Poverty is the only thing Liberals policies really produce

Do you have any evidence that government Contractors are laying off People? and military Companies are laying off People?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You guys just dont let up do you ?

Now its "multipliers".

The only way you people can save face is to apply some arbitrary metric thats exclusive for some reason to Texas.

Instead of mustering up the needed humility to admit that Californias continued decline is directly atttibuted to Liberal policies you make something up thats indefinite and unquantifiable.

Just like the supposed effects of Stimulus.

Silicon Valley recieves Billions in Tax incentives annually. California has GOOGLE and APPLE for petes sake and a variety of Large Corporations that recieve the same incentives that any other Corporation in the US does.

Give me a break.

I am not defending California. I am saying compare states that don't benefit from energy booms and see where you come out. For example, its stupid to compare Detroit to Houston. Similarly, it would be stupid to compare Mississippi to North Dakota. You have to compare Apples to Apples. For example, one could compare New Hampshire to Vermont as they are similar states in every way. Or you could compare Washington State to North Carolina. You could compare Arizona to Colorado.

 

[newpublius]

The different policies at the state level still exist on a backdrop of federal policies that constitute the majority of the taxation.

http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html

Here of course we can see how per capita state burdens fall on the populations with a high in VT and a low in SD ranging from 3600 in VT to 1400 in SD with the US average at 2200, 2005 data, a bit dated, but the overall point is still clear.

Problem though is that the per capita income is much, much higher.

It's a variable with an impact of course, but it's just not a primary or 'driving' variable.

 

[Conservative]

I am not defending California. I am saying compare states that don't benefit from energy booms and see where you come out. For example, its stupid to compare Detroit to Houston. Similarly, it would be stupid to compare Mississippi to North Dakota. You have to compare Apples to Apples. For example, one could compare New Hampshire to Vermont as they are similar states in every way. Or you could compare Washington State to North Carolina. You could compare Arizona to Colorado.

What you fail to recognize is that state policies on top of Federal policies affect the cost of living in all the states. California has among the highest state taxes in the nation because all those "free" things aren't really free and have to be paid for by state policies and thus taxes. Even with all those state taxes California remains billions in debt and billions in unfunded liability. It seems that the people there care more about social issues such as gay marriage, pot, free stuff than they do on the economic conditions in the state. Fiscal issues are of no concern to people who live off the taxpayers and get all that "free" stuff.

 

[Fenton]

Your info is obsolete. Cali is soaring right
now. You need to lay off the Fox News and widen your information net.
5 Reasons California Went From A $42 Billion Deficit To A Surplus - The National Memo


And, to think. They do this without denying 6 million people access to healthcare. :roll:

LOL !!

Yea what a "surplus".

Just dont look behind the Curtain of massive unfunded liabillities.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why do these misconceptions and lies from the left media keep happening? Year after year, I see such threads started.

Why do you people keep going for the propaganda?

One-size-fits-all federal regulation is not good.

There are more people class as poverty, because red states are cheaper to live in. Cost of living is lower. Therefore, wages are lower. When you apply that to the one-size-fits-all mentality, more people in these states are eligible for federal benefits.

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL !!

Yea what a "surplus".

Just dont look behind the Curtain of massive unfunded liabillities.

It isn't a surplus unless the national debt lowers...

 

[calamity]

Why do these misconceptions and lies from the left media keep happening? Year after year, I see such threads started.

Why do you people keep going for the propaganda?

One-size-fits-all federal regulation is not good.

There are more people class as poverty, because red states are cheaper to live in. Cost of living is lower. Therefore, wages are lower. When you apply that to the one-size-fits-all mentality, more people in these states are eligible for federal benefits.

So red states showing high poverty rates and teen pregnancy is LW propaganda?

 

[Conservative]

So red states showing high poverty rates and teen pregnancy is LW propaganda?

Have you ever asked yourself why so many people are migrating to Red States? Think the poverty rate and teen pregnancy issue is preventing massive state growth and total economic prosperity? Got it, people are moving to these states because of high poverty, low wages, and of course no health insurance. What we need is liberal govt. providing that for us, right?

 

[clownboy]

I am not sure what you are getting at. I made a comparison between a progressive state with progressive policies and a conservative state with conservative policies. I deliberately picked two states that are not on the coasts, don't sit on vast oil reserves, and that were of fairly similar populations and urban / rural population distributions.

You then call me a liar because you claim Tennessee is cheaper to live in. I then point out while its cheaper to live there (which has nothing to do with the states policies, its the states climates), and then point out, with sources, that actually, the lower cost of living in Tennessee is not sufficient to make up for the lower incomes - not to mention much higher unemployment rate, and that once you adjust for income differences, you actually do better in Minnesota than you do in Tennessee. For example, Haiti is cheaper to live in than Canada, but you don't earn nearly as much in Haiti as you do in Canada, thus in the end you do better with the money you earn in Canada than in Haiti. Its a fairly simply concept.

Then seem to miss all of that, I suppose rabid ideology is blinding you to reason idk, and then insinuate I was lying again. Take a breath dude.

No, you've bought the red state/blue state script outright and lie by omission. You leave out whatever data works against your presumption. And no again, your sources don't at all "prove the lower cost of living in Tennessee is not sufficient to make up for the lower incomes". Further you're comparing a service economy state with an agrarian economy state. Mn's GDP is 32 billion more than TN's, largely due to it being a banking center. Red/blue politics has little to do with that - bank favorable laws are more likely the explanation.

Then you further jump the shark by choosing two cities to compare. Of course you may or may not know TN is still largely rural population whereas 60% of Mn's population (and main revenue generators) lives in the area of the MN city you chose.

 

[ChezC3]

Following liberal, victim-hood logic the answer to this is simple. The Southern States aren't suffering due to their political persuasion, they are suffering as a direct result of the draconian measures placed upon it after the Tyrannt's war and the plundering that took place in the South thereafter.

I think reparations are in order...

 

[CriticalThought]

LOL !!!

You literally just made that up....

Wow !

In 2013, 33 % of our Nations Welfare recipients lived in California even though they only represent 1/8 of our Nations Population. TEXAS... is home to 3% of our Nations Welfare recipients even though it represents 8 % of our population.

SNAP Benefits have shot up in California 103% since 2007

So NO, your'e wrong and stop lying.

So basically your argument is that welfare reduced poverty...which is the purpose of welfare.

I suggest you look up what poverty is. Welfare is different than poverty.

 

[calamity]

Have you ever asked yourself why so many people are migrating to Red States? Think the poverty rate and teen pregnancy issue is preventing massive state growth and total economic prosperity? Got it, people are moving to these states because of high poverty, low wages, and of course no health insurance. What we need is liberal govt. providing that for us, right?

I'm sure Chinese and Indian cities attract a lot of workers too. Doesn't mean they are nice places to live. But, I am sure that fact escapes most conservatives.

 

[loader]

They are adding jobs ... thank God for government contracts ....

The government pays its contractors money that it borrowed from China. Thanks to China, not to God.