Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes even the liberal are seeing how destructive liberal policies are and have made efforts to change things but when a state has been liberal for a long time it is an up hill battle turning that ship around.
Oh so now you want to call LIBERAL states Conservative states that is laughable
Pennsylvania has not voted for a republican President since 1992
In the case of Pennsylvania, at the time of the data collection is had a GOP Governor and it has a GOP MAJORITY in both the state Senate and the state House. At the Federal level PA has one Democratic Senator and one GOP Senator, and in the U.S. House it has 5 Democrats and 13 GOP members.
So how does that make Pennsylvania any kind of Democratic bastion?
You made the claim in your initial post -that the states folks are fleeing from are "Democrat run", NOT "states that voted for a Democratic President" in NATIONAL ELECTIONS - those are 2 different things. At the time of the article Pennsylvania was NOT "Democrat run" - NOT EVEN CLOSE. It' had a GOP governor and the GOP controlled BOTH the state house and state senate.
New Jersey lib state
New Jersey does have 2 Democratic Senators, but 6 of its' 12 U.S. Congressmen are Republicans. Combined with it's GOP governor, how does that make it a Democratic bastion?
California lib state
And has come roaring back.
Illinois the liberal state
New York liberal state
Which has a budget SURPLUS
It is interesting how many of the GOP Governors that were elected have made huge stride towards helping their state go from being in debt to having surpluses,which would be a great topic for another thread
The MAJORITY of states - whether Red or Blue - have made "huge strides towards going from being in debt to having surpluses" - that's the nature of a NATIONAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
Of those still in economic trouble, MOST are GOP run. Case in point - Wisconsin, which is still in big economic trouble, while neighboring Democratic-run Minnesota is doing well. How does that show that GOP policies are "superior"?
Then of there's Jindal's wreck of Louisiana, basket-case Kansas, Alaska - where a GOP governor has saddled his independent replacement with a $3.5 billion deficit, and of course here in Arizona GOP governor still has a huge deficit to deal with.
Yup those GOP policies sure have led to better results.
And AGAIN - how many times does this have to be repeated? - Tbe correlation between folks moving from cold-winter states to warm-winter states in just as strong as the correlation between folks moving from Democratically-run states to GOP-run states. You have NO WAY of knowing WHY the people are moving from one state to another. If you disagree with that then PROVE that the REASON folks are moving in the patterns they are because of politics rather than because of weather.
I'm still waiting for you to do that.
Folks continue to move here to Arizona even though our economy here is still in the bottom half of the US - so HOW is that "proof" that folks are coming here because it's "GOP run"? Seems to me that folks are coming here IN SPITE of the fact that Arizona is GOP-run. I certainly know that's the case with ME - and of the many folks (most of them older) who I know who've moved here to Arizona over the past couple of years, ALL of them are former snowbirds who moved here for the WEATHER. Not ONE moved here because it's a "red state".
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,743 posts, read 23,798,187 times
Reputation: 14640
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
And AGAIN - how many times does this have to be repeated? - Tbe correlation between folks moving from cold-winter states to warm-winter states in just as strong as the correlation between folks moving from Democratically-run states to GOP-run states. You have NO WAY of knowing WHY the people are moving from one state to another. If you disagree with that then PROVE that the REASON folks are moving in the patterns they are because of politics rather than because of weather.
I'm still waiting for you to do that.
LOL, you're trying to REASON with the OP? Nothing she has said stands to reason, she just compiles numbers and presents them as facts to conform to the blanket statements she makes. Truly out of touch. If you disagree with any of her statements she'll accuse you of being off topic, because she can't handle an objective opinion. Trying to reason with her is like a dog chasing its own tail. Futile.
The MAJORITY of states - whether Red or Blue - have made "huge strides towards going from being in debt to having surpluses" - that's the nature of a NATIONAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
Of those still in economic trouble, MOST are GOP run. Case in point - Wisconsin, which is still in big economic trouble, while neighboring Democratic-run Minnesota is doing well. How does that show that GOP policies are "superior"?
Then of there's Jindal's wreck of Louisiana, basket-case Kansas, Alaska - where a GOP governor has saddled his independent replacement with a $3.5 billion deficit, and of course here in Arizona GOP governor still has a huge deficit to deal with.
Yup those GOP policies sure have led to better results.
And AGAIN - how many times does this have to be repeated? - Tbe correlation between folks moving from cold-winter states to warm-winter states in just as strong as the correlation between folks moving from Democratically-run states to GOP-run states. You have NO WAY of knowing WHY the people are moving from one state to another. If you disagree with that then PROVE that the REASON folks are moving in the patterns they are because of politics rather than because of weather.
I'm still waiting for you to do that.
Folks continue to move here to Arizona even though our economy here is still in the bottom half of the US - so HOW is that "proof" that folks are coming here because it's "GOP run"? Seems to me that folks are coming here IN SPITE of the fact that Arizona is GOP-run. I certainly know that's the case with ME - and of the many folks (most of them older) who I know who've moved here to Arizona over the past couple of years, ALL of them are former snowbirds who moved here for the WEATHER. Not ONE moved here because it's a "red state".
I have found that on this forum no matter how much proof I provide showing the failures of liberalism and its doctrines liberals will attack and never concede that liberalism is destructive and does not work.
Look at the last 7 years under liberal king obama everything has gone downhill.
I am always accused of being divisive because I have accepted that liberalism has never worked, does not work and will never work.
The IRS and Census statistics provide overwhelming evidence that the top 5 places losing huge amounts of people are liberal states or liberal leaning states, the states where people are migrating to are mostly solidly conservative states, you want to pass this off as coincidence even when a liberal paper concedes the point by allowing someone who is not a liberal to concede the point in their Daily Beast news site.
If want you to argue with someone go to the census bureau or the IRS they provided the statistics. These are what you call FACTS.
Quote:
New census numbers show citizens fleeing by the millions from liberal states and flocking in comparable numbers to bastions of right-wing sentiment. Call it the Great Political Migration.
Between 2009 and 2010 the five biggest losers in terms of “residents lost to other states” were all prominent redoubts of progressivism: California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. Meanwhile, the five biggest winners in the relocation sweepstakes are all commonly identified as red states in which Republicans generally dominate local politics: Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. Expanding the review to a 10-year span, the biggest population gainers (in percentage terms) have been even more conservative than last year’s winners: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Texas, in that order.
Quote:
it’s not surprising that states with pro-business, pro-family attitudes draw disproportionate numbers of new arrivals. At the same time, it makes sense that those states with aggressive, intrusive bureaucracies, high taxes, and relentless experiments in multiculturalism will encourage mass departures.
Quote:
The newly released data set in motion the reapportionment of the 435 House seats among the 50 states — a high-stakes process that will redraw the election map for the next decade.
The changes recorded in this year's census were expected to play into the hands of Republicans, with GOP-leaning states gaining the most seats and many Democratic strongholds, such as New York, losing. But shifts in the numbers of minorities might even things out politically, experts said.
Texas, with a population growth of 20.6 percent since 2000, will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.
Ohio and New York will lose two House seats each. Losing one House seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Rate this post positively
I have found that on this forum no matter how much proof I provide showing the failures of liberalism and its doctrines liberals will attack and never concede that liberalism is destructive and does not work.
Look at the last 7 years under liberal king obama everything has gone downhill.
Ignorant nonsense
I am always accused of being divisive because I have accepted that liberalism has never worked, does not work and will never work.
Seems to work up in Seattle - a place solidly Blue and with one of the most consistantly powerful economies in the NATION.
The IRS and Census statistics[/color] provide overwhelming evidence that the top 5 places losing huge amounts of people are liberal states or liberal leaning states, the states where people are migrating to are mostly solidly conservative states, you want to pass this off as coincidence even when a liberal paper concedes the point by allowing someone who is not a liberal to concede the point in their Daily Beast news site.
If want you to argue with someone go to the census bureau or the IRS they provided the statistics. These are what you call FACTS.
[color="red"]And those "losing" states are COLD WINTER states and those "winning" states are WARM WINTER states.
What makes you think I give a rip what the Daily Beast says? All they've done it parrot what the other article says. NO ONE bothered to question the REASON for the population changes. There is ZERO evidence to prove that the REASON those people moves had ANYTHING to do with POLITICS. ZERO. You have provided NO proof of that whatsoever. Not all the "winning" states are Red and not all the "losing" states are Blue - and Pennsylvania is a prime example - with (at the time the data was collected) a GOP governor and BOTH states houses under GOP control. How is that even remotely a "blue - run" state? The fact that YOU or anyone else claims it's a "Blue-run" state doesn't make it so. The fact remains that Pennsylvania was a RED-RUN state - with a GOP governor and a GOP-controlled state House and state Senate. Red-run, NOT Blue-run. THAT is a FACT.
As mentioned, the Census info says NOTHING about WHY those people moved from one area to another. The fact that you or anyone else choose to ASSUME that reason doesn't make that ASSUMPTION correct.
PROVE the REASON those people moved the way they did.
Unless you can do that, your argument is pointless opinion - NOT FACT. You can of course HAVE that opinion - but that doesn't make it FACT.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 10-09-2015 at 10:31 AM..
What makes you think I give a rip what the Daily Beast says? All they've done it parrot what the other article says. NO ONE bothered to question the REASON for the population changes. There is ZERO evidence to prove that the REASON those people moves had ANYTHING to do with POLITICS. ZERO. You have provided NO proof of that whatsoever. Not all the "winning" states are Red and not all the "losing" states are Blue - and Pennsylvania is a prime example - with (at the time the data was collected) a GOP governor and BOTH states houses under GOP control. How is that even remotely a "blue - run" state? The fact that YOU or anyone else claims it's a "Blue-run" state doesn't make it so. The fact remains that Pennsylvania was a RED-RUN state - with a GOP governor and a GOP-controlled state House and state Senate. Red-run, NOT Blue-run. THAT is a FACT.
As mentioned, the Census info says NOTHING about WHY those people moved from one area to another. The fact that you or anyone else choose to ASSUME that reason doesn't make that ASSUMPTION correct.
PROVE the REASON those people moved the way they did.
Unless you can do that, your argument is pointless opinion - NOT FACT. You can of course HAVE that opinion - but that doesn't make it FACT.
Ken
Taxpayers Fleeing Democrat-Run States for Republican Ones
Quote:
In 2013, more than 200,000 people on net fled states with Democrat governors for ones run by Republicans, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by Americans for Tax Reform.
"People move away from high tax states to low tax states. Every tax refugee is sending a powerful message to politicians," said ATR President Grover Norquist. "They are voting with their feet. Leaders in Texas and Florida are listening. New York and California are not."
That year, Democrat-run states lost a net 226,763 taxpayers, bringing with them nearly $15.7 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI). That same year, states with Republican governors gained nearly 220,000 new taxpayers, who brought more than $14.1 billion in AGI with them.
Quote:
Top 5 loser states for Democrat governors in 2013:
· New York (114,929 people with $5.7 billion in AGI)
· Illinois (68,943 people with $3.8 billion in AGI)
· California (47,458 people with 3.8 billion in AGI)
· Connecticut (14,453 people with $1.8 billion in AGI)
· Massachusetts (11,915 people with $1 billion in AGI)
Top 5 winner states for Republican governors in 2013:
· Texas (152,912 people with $6 billion in AGI)
· Florida (74,094 people with 8.3 billion in AGI)
· South Carolina (29,176 people with 1.6 billion in AGI)
· North Carolina (26,207 people with $1.5 billion in AGI)
· Arizona (16,549 people with $1.5 billion in AGI)
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,743 posts, read 23,798,187 times
Reputation: 14640
Quote:
Originally Posted by autism360
Taxpayers Fleeing Democrat-Run States for Republican Ones
Quote:
Top 5 loser states for Democrat governors in 2013:
· New York (114,929 people with $5.7 billion in AGI)
· Illinois (68,943 people with $3.8 billion in AGI)
· California (47,458 people with 3.8 billion in AGI)
· Connecticut (14,453 people with $1.8 billion in AGI)
· Massachusetts (11,915 people with $1 billion in AGI)
Top 5 winner states for Republican governors in 2013:
· Texas (152,912 people with $6 billion in AGI)
· Florida (74,094 people with 8.3 billion in AGI)
· South Carolina (29,176 people with 1.6 billion in AGI)
· North Carolina (26,207 people with $1.5 billion in AGI)
· Arizona (16,549 people with $1.5 billion in AGI)
Are you going to discuss these migration patters, or not? You've been given plenty of elaboration here that stands to reason. You think its all political, yet can't ponder any reasons that don't fit into your own little political box, as you have clearly demonstrated here that you can't handle an objective response. You keep circling back to your same old tired argument rather than having any meaningful discussion. Why did you bother opening the thread in the first place if you are not open to any meaningful discussion? Do you really think the governors of these states are blanket statements telling every story for these migration patterns? That's pretty shallow if you do.
Are you going to discuss these migration patters, or not? You've been given plenty of elaboration here that stands to reason. You think its all political, yet can't ponder any reasons that don't fit into your own little political box, as you have clearly demonstrated here that you can't handle an objective response. You keep circling back to your same old tired argument rather than having any meaningful discussion. Why did you bother opening the thread in the first place if you are not open to any meaningful discussion? Do you really think the governors of these states are blanket statements telling every story for these migration patterns? That's pretty shallow if you do.
You will not stick to the thread topic and you refuse to discuss the IRS and Census data that was used for these statistics. Conversation ended
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,743 posts, read 23,798,187 times
Reputation: 14640
Quote:
Originally Posted by autism360
You will not stick to the thread topic and you refuse to discuss the IRS and Census data that was used for these statistics. Conversation ended
You just can't handle an objective response to what the data truly entails, as others have gone to great lengths to post about but you conveniently ignore. You're not even capable of having this conversation because you can't handle anything that doesn't conform to your own extreme ideology.
You just can't handle an objective response to what the data truly entails, as others have gone to great lengths to post about but you conveniently ignore. You're not even capable of having this conversation because you can't handle anything that doesn't conform to your own extreme ideology.
You will not stick to the thread topic and you refuse to discuss the IRS and Census data that was used for these statistics. Conversation ended
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,743 posts, read 23,798,187 times
Reputation: 14640
Quote:
Originally Posted by autism360
You will not stick to the thread topic and you refuse to discuss the IRS and Census data that was used for these statistics. Conversation ended
We are discussing it. You're just not having it because it doesn't confirm to your own extreme ideology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that is laughable
