Convention speakers

[RIJIMMY]

maybe the dems can have Jerry Brown speak? It seems he has the same "Hope and Change" solution Obama. Is there only one page in the Democrats play book?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Tax the rich! That's how California Governor Jerry Brown wants to solve the state's growing budget crisis that now nears $16 billion.

The governor laid out his revised spending plan Monday. It would slash $8.3 billion from almost every part of the state's government. But it would increase funding for K-12 education if voters approve his proposal to hike income taxes on the rich and sales taxes on everyone.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

maybe the dems can have Jerry Brown speak? It seems he has the same "Hope and Change" solution Obama. Is there only one page in the Democrats play book?

So do we infer the actions or thoughts of one person represent the larger group?

- GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying "This is how we feed animals."

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So do we infer the actions or thoughts of one person represent the larger group?

- GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying "This is how we feed animals."

no, I infer the economic polices of democrats adversly impact the states they control. I come to that conclusion based on evidence consistently offered by myslef and others on this board and "explained" away by our liberal contingent. If we can explain away why republican controlled states seem to be fairing MUCH better than democrat controlled states, I would like to know why the democrat states are fairing so poorly?

[PaulS]

I vote mainly based on socials issues more than economic issues so I don't get involved in many discussions here on economic policy. But to give you the courtesy of a response, I'll give you a very short, very general and prob. disjointed answer- I think it is a mixed bag, some cons. states are doing better than lib. states and vice versa. I think the quality of life is much higher in the lib. states. Certainly, jobs have moved south (cons.) due to less regulation and the ability to pay less taxes. There is a huge drain of fed. taxes that the lib. states pay to the govern. that gets transferred to the cons. states. Educ. levels, health, obesity are all better in the lib states. Higher environ. standards costs $ in the libs states. We'll disagree whether higher taxes are worth it for all that and what you and I consider quality of life.

And just to go on the record, I don't believe whoever made that idiotic statement is crazy and doesn't represent the Rs.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I vote mainly based on socials issues more than economic issues so I don't get involved in many discussions here on economic policy. But to give you the courtesy of a response, I'll give you a very short, very general and prob. disjointed answer- I think it is a mixed bag, some cons. states are doing better than lib. states and vice versa. I think the quality of life is much higher in the lib. states. Certainly, jobs have moved south (cons.) due to less regulation and the ability to pay less taxes. There is a huge drain of fed. taxes that the lib. states pay to the govern. that gets transferred to the cons. states. Educ. levels, health, obesity are all better in the lib states. Higher environ. standards costs $ in the libs states. We'll disagree whether higher taxes are worth it for all that and what you and I consider quality of life.

And just to go on the record, I don't believe whoever made that idiotic statement is crazy and doesn't represent the Rs.

I appreciate your response, but its misinformed. Quality of life is subjective however there are some parameters universally accepted -
cost of housing, schools, recreation, culture, etc. I'd be glad to repost all the items I posted in the Coincidence thread but its tiring. My "quality of life" in new england consited of long commutes, freezng winters and unfriendly people, high cost of living and declining schools. I lived in a decent town in MA. What you call concervatve states are growing, have a high quality of life - not a bunch fo trailer parks and taco bells. Again referr to to the many, many articles on "best cities to live, best cities for job growth", etc. I've found New Englanders view of the the south and or conservative states is about 25 years behind. Believe it or not, these rednecks have been sending their kids to college the last few decades and most are pretty bright. Things are way different. Paul - I leave you with this. A non political, brief analysis.
Please read - http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/do...oungAdults.pdf

Here is an exceprt - it seems the great quality of life you mention may not be shared....
What is less well understood is why the distribution of the
young adult age cohort is so unequal across diff erent regions.
Why do some of the Mountain, Northwest and Southeastern
states have positive growth rates of 20 to 60 percent in the
young adult age group while New England has double-digit
decline? Th e dramatic diff erences suggest that New England
is not “attractive” to young adults, but what factors contribute
to young adults’ preference for one region over another?
What is the relative importance, for instance, of factors such
as costs of living? What role do housing or energy costs play
in the choices made by diff erent age cohorts? Are certain
types of jobs or environments more desirable by people
of diff erent ages? How do current “myths” about some
regions being more youth-oriented and youth-friendly than
others infl uence the changes we have seen in recent years?
We do not yet have answers to questions like thes

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/do...oungAdults.pdf

[RIJIMMY]

we're talking about business development not oil production. We dont pay much less than you for a gallon of gas. Once again, every thing I read may be wrong - low tax and business friendly climate is driving growth in these states.

Spence did you read this link, its brief.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/do...oungAdults.pdf
Do you know how catastrophic the implications are for New England? You're losing your growth population. Couple that with an aging population, slow growth, high taxes. The workforce of 25-35 yr olds pay high taxes, buy houses, have babies. They drive economic growth!
As someone who plans business for a living, we look closely at this data. are you going to grow your company where there is an abundant workforce or a declining workforce? The answer is obvious. Are you going to tell me people are moving to the southwest because of OIL? really?
Couple the analysis in the link with my own experience - - my 2 best friends in Highs School (from CT), smart, educated guys - live in Arizona and Tennesse. Of my 6 best friends from college all from RI and CT, not ONE lives in new england. Florida, CA and Georgia
2 families in my old neighborhood, couldnt find jobs here, educated and experienced - just moved to Ohio with good jobs within the last month. My secretary - lived in a rented Revere apt, made the move to TX in the last month. For 170K bought a 2010 - 4 bedroom 3600 sq ft house with large inground pool in a great neighborhood. Loves the shops, restaurnats and activities nearby. Tell me where a secretary in NE can buy a 4 bedroom house?
The data is there. You may think its cyclical, I think its a major population shift driven by good economic climates in areas with nice weather, good jobs, great infrastructures

[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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

we're talking about business development not oil production. We dont pay much less than you for a gallon of gas. Once again, every thing I read may be wrong - low tax and business friendly climate is driving growth in these states.

Think about the impact of oil exploration and the supply chain. Texas has most of the equipment providers and EPC (engineer/procure/construct) companies headquartered there...and they're cranking due to the energy situation.

Granted, there's other industry as well...but for a lot of other reasons.

Spence did you read this link, its brief.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/do...oungAdults.pdf
Do you know how catastrophic the implications are for New England? You're losing your growth population. Couple that with an aging population, slow growth, high taxes. The workforce of 25-35 yr olds pay high taxes, buy houses, have babies. They drive economic growth!
As someone who plans business for a living, we look closely at this data. are you going to grow your company where there is an abundant workforce or a declining workforce? The answer is obvious. Are you going to tell me people are moving to the southwest because of OIL? really?
Couple the analysis in the link with my own experience - - my 2 best friends in Highs School (from CT), smart, educated guys - live in Arizona and Tennesse. Of my 6 best friends from college all from RI and CT, not ONE lives in new england. Florida, CA and Georgia
2 families in my old neighborhood, couldnt find jobs here, educated and experienced - just moved to Ohio with good jobs within the last month. My secretary - lived in a rented Revere apt, made the move to TX in the last month. For 170K bought a 2010 - 4 bedroom 3600 sq ft house with large inground pool in a great neighborhood. Loves the shops, restaurnats and activities nearby. Tell me where a secretary in NE can buy a 4 bedroom house?
The data is there. You may think its cyclical, I think its a major population shift driven by good economic climates in areas with nice weather, good jobs, great infrastructures

I think I've stated in several posts that companies will move where the talent it, this is their most valuable asset.

But is the shift of talent being driven by local policies? I don't think there's data that really suggests this.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

No idea how their economy is, but I was talking about the state. How are they paying for services without income tx revenue and oil?

Bry - check this chart out -

Which States Will Add Jobs in 2012? - Kiplinger

Only one state in New England is showing any color for adding jobs - New Hampshire. Tell me what every state in New England except New Hampshire has?
I bet you'll tell me its the state liquir stores driving the jobs//////

[RIROCKHOUND]

Jim I don't disagree with your point re: taxes and buisness.

So is the answer to dramatically cut services (spending), which we can agree helps lower income folks more than the rest of us (not saying everyone deserves it, and acknowleding there are many who abuse the system), and hope buisness comes back, the cost of living drops and the state's economy turns around?

None of this is as easy and simple as we make it seem online....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim I don't disagree with your point re: taxes and buisness.

So is the answer to dramatically cut services (spending), which we can agree helps lower income folks more than the rest of us (not saying everyone deserves it, and acknowleding there are many who abuse the system), and hope buisness comes back, the cost of living drops and the state's economy turns around?

None of this is as easy and simple as we make it seem online....

"So is the answer to dramatically cut services (spending), which we can agree helps lower income folks more than the rest of us "

I don't thnk cutting services, especially if they are wasteful and inefficient, necessarily causes harm to those in need. The state of Texas doesn't spend a lot per capita, and they have lots of penniless immigrants who need help. Those people aren't all dying in the streets.

Get rid of stupid waste. Stop giving blank checks to labor unions (that's a HUGE ISSUE). Don't over-regulate business to the point that it makes their lives impossible.

It's not as hard as you think, I bet.

Not all problems are solved simply by throwing money at them. SD and VT pay their teachers very little compared to other states, but they have some of the highst test scores.

[spence]

Clint Eastwood = What were they thinking?

Rubio = Great speaker but all he threw out were feel good lines.

Romney = Empty. Seriously empty. I was at least expecting some vision, got nothing.

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Clint Eastwood = What were they thinking?

Rubio = Great speaker but all he threw out were feel good lines.

Romney = Empty. Seriously empty. I was at least expecting some vision, got nothing.

-spence

Clint = Combination Funny / Scary in delivery

Rubio = good, some substance

Feel good lines = what I see when I watch the Dem conventions, little substance

Romeny = better than I expected, fewer promises to have to not live up to later on

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Clint = Combination Funny / Scary in delivery

Rubio = good, some substance

Feel good lines = what I see when I watch the Dem conventions, little substance

Romeny = better than I expected, fewer promises to have to not live up to later on

Agree with exception to Clint (thought it was really bad personally). Although maybe by deisgn as it made Romney speech seem perfect compared to his.

It was nice to see Mike Eruzione in attendence

[justplugit]

Sad, but funniest line at the convention-

"And then there is the recent college grad without a job, living home with his parents,
laying in bed staring at a faded picture of Obama on the wall."

[RIJIMMY]

so Zim, looks like you're also saying Cons are better at representing their states in Congress?

[JohnR]

A lot of that money is in defense and if you talk to the majority of defense folks, they are treated far better in the south, west, and heartland than in the northeast or northwest.

In a nutshell we can argue until the cows come home - wherever the money comes from or goes to, we spend FAR MORE than we take in. This is not sustainable.

If we keep spending like we do now and accelerate that with current obligations - sorry Baby Boomers but you will kill this country - this country will break.

Maybe that is the desire of some, make money a non-factor, worthless, to move to a different system. Other than greed or apathy, I can see no other reason many keep moving the goal posts.

[spence]

This pretty much nails it

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

This pretty much nails it

-spence

Obama's leadership thus far has been imaginary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Obama's leadership thus far has been imaginary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So is Romney's at the national level. Pick your Kool-Aid

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by striperman36

So is Romney's at the national level. Pick your Kool-Aid

Obama has been an abject failure. Romney is un-inspiring. It's disheartening.

But you want gutsy leadership? How can you claim Paul Ryan isn't the epitome of gutsy leadership. He'sthe first politician in god-knows-how-long to say out loud "Medicare is going broke, and here's my plan to fix it".

I don't know enough about healthcare to say if Ryan's plan was a good plan or a bad plan. What I do know is this...instead of offering an alternative solution, the liberal response was to show a commercial showing Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound lady off a cliff. This, despite the fact that Ryan's plan specifically does not touch Medicare for current seniors.

You may not agree with Ryan's plan. But if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, how do you not give him credit for bold, decisive LEADERSHIP. He's the only policician who has a specific plan to adress what is, BY FAR, our largest economic threat.

I don't usually get excited about vice-presidents. Ryan ain't a rock-star. But he's decent, honest, and clearly not afraid to talk about issues that most cowards in DC don't want to be associated with.

A young politician, a family man who is clearly more concerned with fixing problems than he is with being popular? That's what I call "change I can believe in"

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But you want gutsy leadership? How can you claim Paul Ryan isn't the epitome of gutsy leadership.
You may not agree with Ryan's plan. But if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, how do you not give him credit for bold, decisive LEADERSHIP.

Gutsy leadership? Then why didn't he come out and say "I was also against Simpson-Bowles; Obama reduced 700 billion from medicare, but I also voted for the same cuts because it will reduce the burden medicare will put on future generations; Under my plan we would balance the budget, but to do it, exemptions would have to go away and the tax rate on people who make less than X amount would pay 10%. Since exemptions are gone, it would actually end up raising their taxes by about $2000. For people who make more, the rate will be 25%. It will result in a substantial tax inrease for those in the bracket who get most of their income from salary, but it necessary to balance the budget. I would get rid of taxes on dividends and interest, because I believe that the result will be a boom in the economy and everyone will benefit from the incredible investment that results from the wealthiest Americans investing in business."

How about that kind of leadership? Then people could vote for the plan they prefer.

Like Obama or not, he said what his policies would be: healthcare payed in part by tax increases on the wealthy; more regulation on wall street; stimulus bills that focus on teachers, firefighters, and job training, etc. He was wrong about the results and the speed of the recovery, but he didn't misrepresent what his policies would be.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by striperman36

So is Romney's at the national level. Pick your Kool-Aid

Obama had 4 years to show as all, he failed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

This pretty much nails it

-spence

Roll out the race bit, Spence. Nice. One of these days we'll get past that. Pretty sure you're just trolling (Gawd I hope so)

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Roll out the race bit, Spence. Nice. One of these days we'll get past that. Pretty sure you're just trolling (Gawd I hope so)

Come on, it's pretty funny.

-spence

[basswipe]

Being that this is a thread on convention speakers......Chaffee?Really? Chaffee?If the most brain-dead human being to ever be elected to office is one of your big speakers than the DNC and Obama have problems,really big problems if they think this buffoon is going to garner them votes.

Maybe Romney should have had Palin speak!

This election is the biggest travesty in my lifetime.Nothing like be held hostage by a broken political system and being forced to vote Romney because no one of sound mind can possibly vote for Obama.Lesser of two evils...what a way to go.Sad.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

This pretty much nails it

-spence

Spence, betta send a new Swifter Duster to Charlotte.

They're gonna need it when they roll out the leaders of the Dems- Frank, Reid,
Brown, Pelosie,Boxer,Biden etc. LOL