Convention speakers

[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...

[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 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