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.
This is just evidence that you all just get giddy everytime negative news comes out about suffering just to score political points.
Those "red states" happen to have almost no economies. When there's not much there, there's not much to collapse. I've lived in areas like that and it has nothing to do with politics.
Nonsense, of course.
Also, we all know the unemployment rate is the last indicator to drop. All the others are inconsistently driving in a very, very positive direction. Soon enough - and no doubt you'll laud credit on Republicans when it does...
You mean like the housing market - which will have foreclosures at 20% this year and in all likelihood go into a double dip?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41249093 (broken link)
Or gas prices, which are well above $3/gallon now?
Or the jobless claims, which are stuck @ 400,000?
Or the abysmal consumer spending? See, one can't really spend unless they have a job and on obama's watch, we have LOST 4 million jobs.
You said red states had no economies, so I pointed out to you that Texas, a red state, saw the most growth in 2010, more than any other state, and in fact higher than several of the other top states combined. More interestingly, Texas accomplished this even though it had significantly lower per capita stimulus funds than other states near the top of the list, which undermines any claim to success of the chief economic program of the administration.
By the way, I said absolutely nothing about taxes.
Actually the "struggling" was the first two years, not three. And there were far more problems during the early 80s. Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, double digit mortgage rates, etc. All of these things had far reaching effects that penetrated housing, autos, airlines, agriculture, virtually all banks, and the longest effect of all, killing the S&L industry. There were also two bubbles that had popped, one in commodities the other in housing.
The only thing that might be less severe was unemployment. Sure it went as high was 10.8%, but remember that when Reagan took office it was already in the high 7% range, where it had been for nearly a year at that point. So unemployment actually went up only 3% and some change.
And finally, Republicans never had a majority in the House in the 80s, and only lost 27 seats. Hardly comparable to the 63 seat loss suffered by Democrats not long ago.
No, it isn't. In late 2009, economists were predicting a huge job boom and strong GDP growth throughout 2010. It quickly faded in the spring and the recovery never materialized. We limped through at 1.6% and 2.6% in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, and actually posted several consecutive months of job losses during the summer.
Facts are pesky little things, aren't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1987
I wouldn't say ND has NO economy. There's quite a bit of oil industry related work there.
You bet there is. And it's all relative isn't it? Each state has very diverse economies from each other, but it really comes down to how well that state is managed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Well, lets see here. North Dakota is big on oil, Nebraska is home to a ton of Fortune 500 companies, including Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway. One of the largest railroad companies in the nation is headquartered in Nebraska, and the state is home to the largest railyard on the planet.
One of the Dakotas (I forget which) is also big on the military, which is a significant contributor to the economy. So all three of those states have industry and fully functional economies. What they did not have, however, was a significant stake in the housing bubble.
No, I see it differently because I like numbers, and statistically the early 80s recession was far worse. Trying having a burst housing bubble, plus dozens of other unrelated economic problems occur all at once. It is a miracle we even recovered as early as 1983.
Unemployment fell from 10.8% to 8.3% in 1983, a 2.5% drop in only 12 months. If we follow that through 1984, we reach 7.3%. This was the largest 2 year drop in the entire BLS data set. For 2010, unemployment fell from 9.7% to 9.4%, yet as recently as November it was 9.8%.
And yes, Republicans were ousted in 1982, but also remember that in those days, Reagan had more support among conservative Democrats than he did among many of his fellow Republicans.
More pesky facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
You honestly interpreted my statement as if they had "NO" economy? Come on. I think it was clear I meant they have small economies, relatively speaking, and aren't very over-extended into new industries that rise and fall with the currents. Farming, oil and military: two are heavily subsidized by the government and don't tend to lose demand, the other is the government.
As future me will say below, Nevada and Arizona had booming construction industries that collapsed and created high unemployment rates. Easy come, easy go. Not so true with the economies of the prairie.
From above, it's all relative. Depends how the state is managed. Look at Calif, a huge economy, but completely mismanaged and corrupted. According to your logic, since they have such a huge economy, they should have full employment (5%), right?
Nevada - a one-note economy - gambling - look how well that's going for them.
The UE rates have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the size of a particular state's economy, but has everything to do with how it is managed and directed by the politicians who run it.
So basically, you just don't want this kind of "news" aired publicly right? That must mean CNBC and any other news organization that airs it is rooting for the economy to go south..some more.
And more to come in all likelihood, considering the state of the states.
ND, NE, SD have the lowest rates in the country. I wonder what these "red" states are doing right.
There will be no bailouts for the states - time to do more with less, time to slash the budgets, time to reform the corrupt, bloated burden of public sector pensions, pay and benefits.
South Dakota receives about $1.53 in Federal spending for every Federal Tax dollar they pay.
North Dakota receives about $1.68 in Federal spending for every Federal Tax dollar they pay.
Nebraska receives about $1.10 in Federal spending for every Federal Tax dollar they pay. Not quite as impressive as ND and SD. However, they also aren't paying for the impact of illegal immigration that the Federal Government has effectively mandated states like California pay for while only sending back about 78¢ for every Federal tax dollar California pays into the system.
From above, it's all relative. Depends how the state is managed. Look at Calif, a huge economy, but completely mismanaged and corrupted. According to your logic, since they have such a huge economy, they should have full employment (5%), right?
Nevada - a one-note economy - gambling - look how well that's going for them.
The UE rates have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the size of a particular state's economy, but has everything to do with how it is managed and directed by the politicians who run it.
So basically, you just don't want this kind of "news" aired publicly right? That must mean CNBC and any other news organization that airs it is rooting for the economy to go south..some more.
I never said anything about what news should or shouldn't be aired publicly. I have no idea what you're talking about. You listed three states and tried to make an argument linking their conservatism to a larger accolade for the ideology you worship. I was simply pointing out that your 3 examples predominantly share similarities of size and relative remoteness rather than ideology.
I guess you'd hate to have someone share the news that liberal Vermont, New Hampshire, and Hawai'i also have pretty darn low unemployment rates. Or how about the high unemployment rates in conservative bastions of South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi, West Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona, and Alabama. Even Texas is only at 8.3% - not exactly a ringing endorsement.
You've also extrapolated an argument from my statement that I never made. I have no idea the logic behind your assertion about California and 5%. California is an entirely different (and in many ways mismanaged) animal, but even that you can't extrapolate. There are many liberal states and regions within states that are the economic engines keeping them afloat - just look at Ann Arbor in Michigan or Seattle or San Francisco.
^^
Over and over again, when I prove Sanrene wrong in a debate, she just ignores it and moves on to another thread. It's happened so many times, and yet never once have I read, "You're right, Bluefly. I was mistaken". Show a little respect!
^^
Over and over again, when I prove Sanrene wrong in a debate, she just ignores it and moves on to another thread. It's happened so many times, and yet never once have I read, "You're right, Bluefly. I was mistaken". Show a little respect!
Why gee, I haven't been on for a while, but still you didn't prove me wrong on anything.
You said this;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
This is just evidence that you all just get giddy everytime negative news comes out about suffering just to score political points.
Those "red states" happen to have almost no economies. When there's not much there, there's not much to collapse. I've lived in areas like that and it has nothing to do with politics.
Also, we all know the unemployment rate is the last indicator to drop. All the others are inconsistently driving in a very, very positive direction. Soon enough - and no doubt you'll laud credit on Republicans when it does...
And you've been proven wrong throughout this thread. They do indeed have economies, some thriving. The point you seemed to be making was because their economies might not be as big as other states, that it was a moot point that these three lead the nation in low UE.
As I said, it's all relative and has nothing to do with the size of the state/economy, but everything to do with how it is managed.
By your "logic", Calif, should be at 5% UE (full), because it is a huge economy in and of itself.
You are also wrong about the UE being the last indicator to drop and also wrong about the "other" indicators driving in a positive direction - see the latest housing, jobless claims and manufacturing orders.
Over and over again? If wishes would only come true.
ND, NE, SD have the lowest rates in the country. I wonder what these "red" states are doing right.
There will be no bailouts for the states - time to do more with less, time to slash the budgets, time to reform the corrupt, bloated burden of public sector pensions, pay and benefits.
I have the feeling it is even worse than the numbers are showing. What about all the people who have given up looking for a job...what about the people who's hours were cut back...I think it is way worse.
I have the feeling it is even worse than the numbers are showing. What about all the people who have given up looking for a job...what about the people who's hours were cut back...I think it is way worse.
Probably going to get even worse, what with the states intending to slash payrolls. It can't be helped - they have for years built up bloated, redundant bureaucracies - time to pay the piper.
Why gee, I haven't been on for a while, but still you didn't prove me wrong on anything.
You said this;
And you've been proven wrong throughout this thread. They do indeed have economies, some thriving. The point you seemed to be making was because their economies might not be as big as other states, that it was a moot point that these three lead the nation in low UE.
As I said, it's all relative and has nothing to do with the size of the state/economy, but everything to do with how it is managed.
By your "logic", Calif, should be at 5% UE (full), because it is a huge economy in and of itself.
You are also wrong about the UE being the last indicator to drop and also wrong about the "other" indicators driving in a positive direction - see the latest housing, jobless claims and manufacturing orders.
Over and over again? If wishes would only come true.
Hhahahahaha. You were so absolutely disproven. You can read the post yourself. Owned. Anyway, people who repped me for that comment pointed out that you'll never admit you're wrong. I guess that's true. Just remember that the wisest people know how much they don't know.
Hhahahahaha. You were so absolutely disproven. You can read the post yourself. Owned. Anyway, people who repped me for that comment pointed out that you'll never admit you're wrong. I guess that's true. Just remember that the wisest people know how much they don't know.
I dare you to point out where. I've posted what you said, showed just how wrong you are. Did you get a load of those other "indicators" you said were all doing perfectly fine? That jobless claim number is sure going in the right direction, isn't it?
Meanwhile, anyone reading through this thread sees where the ownage, as usual is, ALL through the thread.
I just have to ask; Jobless claims rising 51,000 this week is a good thing?
Gas closing in on $3.50/gallon a good thing?
The housing "news" a good thing?
Or didn't you know about any of this stuff?
Can you address any of these "positive" indicators you're so excited about?
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.
