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.
I am pretty sure you know for a fact why bill gates chose Washington state over supposedly such a pro-business conservative states as Alabama and Louisiana. Humor me, please.
haha, Microsoft, while headquarters out of Washington, actually distributes their software through Nevada, a red state, thus disproving your theories about them choosing a blue state because its so liberal, completely wrong.
They do so, in order to avoid billions in tax obligations, thus proving they chose a blue tax and spend state theories that you are pushing, is garbage.
Its ironic you choose some of the most active companies that avoid taxes, to push your economic theories that companies are so successful because they choose high tax areas..
Almost as laughable as your claims that California is so successful because they spend so much on education, when as it turns out, its not really as successful as you claim, (33% of the nations welfare recipients live there) nor do they really spend that much on education, considering they spend less than the national average per student.
He was born in WA state and made it the home of Microsoft long before it was a liberal state. Microsoft grew when WA was a red state, and now the liberal hypocrites give Microsoft tax cuts to keep them here.
Even funnier is the Washington Senate Caucuses has 23 Republicans and 2 Democrats..
and the breakdown of the Senate is 25 Republicans and 23 Democrats
Got it. Industrial revolution hit California but not Alabama hence Apple and Google headquarters there.
1) California built up its wealth as a Republican state. Go look at your history. What has happened since it turned blue has been skyrocketing unfunded liabilities. The economic status of California has gone down under Democrat rule from where it was under Republicans. From 1950 up until Bill Clinton, the Democrats only won 1 election. Just one. From 1950 until the very tail end of the century the one and only Democrat to win California was LBJ. It was a red state every other time for almost half a century. Since turning blue, it has tumbled into debt.
2) Your flippant comment does not refute the point I made - that the polices you credit with creating the prosperity for liberal states did not exist until those states were already wealthier than the other states, so it is a literal impossibility for Democrat rule to account for those states' wealth. A sarcastic remark might make you feel good, but it does not substitute for a valid argument.
Microsoft, a high tech company, relies on highly educated and spilled talent, and that talent is overwhelmingly... liberal. The great universities of liberal Cali and Northeast produce huge number of highly skilled workers . For some reason Alabama or Louisiana do Not.
So a blue, high tax state like WA is actually more convenient for Microsoft than Alabama? How is that even possible?
The tech talent is being imported, not home grown.
Microsoft, a high tech company, relies on highly educated and spilled talent, and that talent is overwhelmingly... liberal. The great universities of liberal Cali and Northeast produce huge number of highly skilled workers . For some reason Alabama or Louisiana do Not.
The talent isnt because they spend the money on education, they spend less than the nations average on education.
I wonder how much of that talent is imported.
Microsoft was imported after all, it didnt originate there..
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeniVidiVici
So a blue, high tax state like WA is actually more convenient for Microsoft than Alabama? How is that even possible?
What part of their sales channels run out of Nevada, which is a red state, are you not understanding?
They are AVOIDING taxes, not choosing to distribute out of Washington for the very reason you just sighted, HIGH TAXES..
So it's really the liberal states who are more dependent on the federal government?
I got an idea.....
Give all that power back to the individual states. Then they can depend on each individual states government and not the centralized federal government to split it up and spend it.
It can stay in your state.
The talent isnt because they spend the money on education, they spend less than the nations average on education.
I wonder how much of that talent is imported.
Microsoft was imported after all, it didnt originate there..
What part of their sales channels run out of Nevada, which is a red state, are you not understanding?
They are AVOIDING taxes, not choosing to distribute out of Washington for the very reason you just sighted, HIGH TAXES..
Why don't you just admit that you have never spent a minute in either Oregon, California, or Washington and don't have a clue about life outside of your home state.
If you look at the election results by county for the 2012 election, you'll find that many of the poorest counties in the states that you speak of voted for Hussein, some by as much as 80%. Looking at a state as a whole doesn't give you a very in-depth level of analysis.
Than states like Alabama or Louisiana can simply shut down.
Odd how these so-called "progressive" types often malign the states that have the largest black populations in the country, and talk about how superior the whitest states in the union are to these black states. Odd indeed.
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.
