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.
Inflation was already high and rising when Carter took office. Perhaps you've never heard of Whip Inflation Now from 1974, 2 years before Carter was elected.
1977-78 were two of the most booming years of the 20th Century. They compare with 1983-84 and any two years in the late 90's. I provided the stats in the thread. They are hard to beat.
It is a fact that nearly every red state is a net taker from Federal funds - so when they mouth off about "low taxes" and "welfare bums" the irony is that they are the bums, and the only reason their taxes are so low is that somebody else (blue states) is footing the bill.
There are also hardly any red states with truly healthy economies, and once you factor out the blue parts of the red states, or red states with almost no people (which can function at extremely low economic levels), you're left with the painfully obvious realization that red state politics generally doesn't work.
It is a fact that nearly every red state is a net taker from Federal funds - so when they mouth off about "low taxes" and "welfare bums" the irony is that they are the bums, and the only reason their taxes are so low is that somebody else (blue states) is footing the bill.
There are also hardly any red states with truly healthy economies, and once you factor out the blue parts of the red states, or red states with almost no people (which can function at extremely low economic levels), you're left with the painfully obvious realization that red state politics generally doesn't work.
California takes more from the federal coffers than it gives back
One key economic difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin is in the industry mix of the two states. Per recent census data, the share of employed residents working in manufacturing is 13.5% in Minnesota and 18.4% in Wisconsin. Minnesota has comparably more employment in other sectors, including finance/insurance/real estate (7.2% vs. 6.1%), professional/scientific/management services (9.8% vs. 8.1%), and education/health services (24.8% vs. 23.3%). There is no significant difference in public administration or agriculture employment between the two states.
Wisconsin's economic base is overall more concentrated in lower growth sectors than Minnesota's, and that likely explains some of the difference in the relative performance of the two states. This is more likely a product of the long term historic trajectory of the two states rather than a result of policies by their respective governments. Wisconsin's largest urban center of Milwaukee is to some extent overshadowed by massive Chicago across the state line, while the Twin Cities are indisputably the key urban hub of the Upper Midwest with no close competitors. This dynamic has likely resulted in a stronger development of a more advanced, white collar, high skilled economy in Minnesota.
As far as the political context is concerned, Trump carried Wisconsin by 0.8% and Clinton won Minnesota by 1.5%. Neither candidate earned a majority of the vote in the two states and the results suggest that both had an electorate that was almost equally divided. Wisconsin isn't an Oklahoma or West Virginia, and Minnesota isn't a California or Massachusetts either. They are both purple states with a tradition of high voter participation and a wide variety of viewpoints. Remember before 2010, Minnesota had a Republican governor (Pawlenty) and Wisconsin had a Democratic governor (Doyle), but their relative economic difference that exists today was still present.
Looking at these numbers, Wisconsin has about 40% more people in manufacturing than MN.
The others are not comparable to that. Finance/RE, MN has about 20% more. Professional/scientific/management, MN also has about 20% more. Education/health services, MN has about 7% more, fairly insignificant, especially since it's a large number in both states.
too bad the ''fact check''' did look at all the data
California GETS more money than it puts in....
your article...and the original from wallet? never takes in consideration of the FEDERAL land, national parks, subsidies to cali colleges and military bases
all your national guard troops and facilities.....paid for by the federal government
all the military bases (32 of them), and the 40 thousand federal troops....paid for by the federal government.......and all those Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors who work there...spend FEDERAL MONEY IN CALIFORNIA
all the defense contractors.... (55 billion worth)
the 28 national parks, and its federal employees (which you receive federal monies for)
36 national natural landmarks (for which you receive federal money for upkeep)....
145 national historic landmarks(for which you receive federal money for upkeep...
9 wild and scenic rivers...managed and paid by the national parks service....paid for by the federal government
******45% of all California LAND IS FEDERAL OWNED******... 45 million acres are federally owned...in otherwords California owns just over half of its self
then there is the money Cali OWES the federal government....California borrowed $10 billion from the federal government to shore up its recession-battered Unemployment Insurance Fund. Even though the state’s economy is doing ok, it still owes the feds about $8 billion.
California is paying interest on the loan, an estimated $174.5 million this year, according to a new report from the state Employment Development Department, and the balance is shrinking only because in lieu of direct payments, the Department of Labor has raised taxes on employers.
not to mention all the 'other' federal agencies that have FEDERAL employees in California....200,000 FEDERAL employees (most making atleast 60k)...all that FEDERAL incomes and revenue that the FEDERAL government GIVES your state...these employees SPEND money in your state
when you look at federal money going to California...they get BILLIONS more, than they pay into the federal coffers
Looking at these numbers, Wisconsin has about 40% more people in manufacturing than MN.
The others are not comparable to that. Finance/RE, MN has about 20% more. Professional/scientific/management, MN also has about 20% more. Education/health services, MN has about 7% more, fairly insignificant, especially since it's a large number in both states.
The three categories where MN has a higher concentration of employment than WI are all more "white collar" and tend to employ more college graduates. They are also generally less vulnerable to economic cycles than is true of manufacturing. Adding finance/real estate + professional service + education/health care together, MN has 41.8% while WI has 37.5%. Given just under 3 million employed residents in each state (per the same Census data set), that 4.3% difference is about 100,000 persons.
I think the key point is that the two states have different economic structures, and Minnesota's is more favorable in terms of promoting a prosperous, opportunity rich environment for its residents. I don't think the political party that happens to be in power at this moment (which in either state could change after this year's midterms) necessarily has much to do with that. There are also plenty of metrics where Wisconsin looks pretty good compared to many other states across the country, both blue and red ones in fact.
The budgets of land owned by the federal government is included in federal outlays. The national parks service, the military, etc., are all part of the federal budget.
You have no idea what you're talking 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.
