2016 Presidential Election Candidates

[Rlh04d]

So having conservative values make you poor?

17 out of the 22 states with largest budget deficits were Blue States
10 of out 14 states with the smallest budget deficits were Red States

You made the debt point already ;)

My point was, if you're going to generalize that liberal leadership = debt, you'd have to make the same generalization that conservative leadership = poverty.

Broad generalizations are generally bad and don't really help an argument, because they can be used against you easily.

Personally, though, I'd rather have a good income and be in debt than be poor and debt free. On a national scale, that's basically comparing the US to China. We're a tiny bit better off. They might own our debt, but the average person in China still makes peanuts.

[SB Shock]

You made the debt point already ;)

My point was, if you're going to generalize that liberal leadership = debt, you'd have to make the same generalization that conservative leadership = poverty.

Broad generalizations are generally bad and don't really help an argument, because they can be used against you easily.

Personally, though, I'd rather have a good income and be in debt than be poor and debt free. On a national scale, that's basically comparing the US to China. We're a tiny bit better off. They might own our debt, but the average person in China still makes peanuts.

Only if they are not true. I will stand by my contention that governments ran by tax and spend liberals are worse off than fiscally conservative ran governenment who spend within their means.

You can have a good income and still be poor. It is all relative to the cost of living of where you live.

[GoShockers89]

.

[pinstripers]

Detroit is broke, California is broke, NYC is broke, All heavily liberal cesspools. Game over for them. Perhaps they had a higher standard of livin while they were sliding downhill. So what?

[Rlh04d]

Detroit is broke, California is broke, NYC is broke, All heavily liberal cesspools. Game over for them. Perhaps they had a higher standard of livin while they were sliding downhill. So what?

You seriously think California and NYC are at a "game over" point?

That's insane. Detroit is bankrupt. California and NYC are not in the same universe as Detroit. Detroit was an undiversified economy that couldn't plan for or cope with the inevitable change away from manufacturing in the US economy, plus the migration of the big car companies to the suburbs, on top of their poor decisions regarding pensions that they clearly can't fund. One of California's biggest mistakes was giving voters so much power in regards to initiatives that they've used to create unfunded demands on the state government -- but an undiversified economy isn't anywhere in the realm of problems either of those two have.

Also, according to the link that GoShockers just posted, Kansas might qualify as "more broke" than California ... and California's economy is growing, while Kansas' really isn't.

[Rlh04d]

Only if they are not true. I will stand by my contention that governments ran by tax and spend liberals are worse off than fiscally conservative ran governenment who spend within their means.

You can have a good income and still be poor. It is all relative to the cost of living of where you live.

I'm still interested in your explanation for the south, though. Why are the southern states, run by conservatives, clearly worse economies than northern states, run by liberals?

The cost of living argument is fair, so I'll adjust for Purchasing Power Parity, where the numbers are slightly better for Republican states. Of the 24 states that voted for Romney, according to 2008 numbers, five states were in the top 20. Still, seven of the 10 worst states, 15 of the worst 25 ...

Regardless of what statistics you use, states that are run by conservatives and vote for Republican Presidential candidates are clearly poorer than their counterparts. Why?

[SB Shock]

I'm still interested in your explanation for the south, though. Why are the southern states, run by conservatives, clearly worse economies than northern states, run by liberals?

The cost of living argument is fair, so I'll adjust for Purchasing Power Parity, where the numbers are slightly better for Republican states. Of the 24 states that voted for Romney, according to 2008 numbers, five states were in the top 20. Still, seven of the 10 worst states, 15 of the worst 25 ...

Regardless of what statistics you use, states that are run by conservatives and vote for Republican Presidential candidates are clearly poorer than their counterparts. Why?

Type of economy I think might be the answer. The south is agricultural and fishing - not so much manufacturing that you would find in the North. High paying jobs are in tech/financial/manufacturing?

[MoValley John]

Type of economy I think might be the answer. The south is agricultural and fishing - not so much manufacturing that you would find in the North. High paying jobs are in tech/financial/manufacturing?

Agriculture plays a huge role. The funny thing about farmers is because of how they operate and use the tax code, their net incomes are low, yet their annual net worth grows at much faster pace. Not all farmers are successfulat managing income, but most successful ones, are. Most farmers I know try to keep their AGI under $20,000. They are also multi-million Aires. In states with a high percentage of income derived from family farms, you are going to see an artificially low income rate.

[GoShockers89]

.

[MoValley John]

Eh, I am pretty sure the number of farmers in any southern state with a couple million in depreciable equipment and hugely appreciated land is a tiny, tiny slice of the overall population. NE/IA/MN/IL/IN are the states that have witnessed the crop property bubble- it never reached Louisiana/Alabama/Mississippi/Georgia. Nothing goes for $6,000/acre down there, not even close. What you are saying rings true in the corn belt but applies to only the tiniest sliver of pseudo-plantation owners in the Deep South.

I'm not talking about simply land values, but you hit a small piece, depreciation. Farmers, even in the south, live and die by managing equipment and depreciation. Well, live and die may be an extreme way to put it, but farmers live and die by all aspects of their operation. The boom in land values for row crop farms is awesome for those benefitting, but it isn't something the farmer controls or can count on long term. Farmers uses subsidies, crop insurance, futures markets and everything else possible to increase net worth while limiting taxable income. Farmers have their own tax code. Google farm tax code, it will make your head spin.

Anecdotally, I know farmers, that use accounting principles that would make the head bean counters at Enon blush.

[GoShockers89]

.

[Kung Wu]

Here is a list showing which states the most state/local debt per capita: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...nding_2013dZ0D

There are some big surprises, including Kansas at #9 with nearly 20% more KS government debt per person than the average state.

My eyes won't let me get past the fact that the District of Columbia is spending $26,000 per capita and has income of $16,000 per capita. With a population of 500,000. Isn't that a $10,000 x 500,000 shortfall, or am I not reading that right? D.C. loses $5 billion a year with a population of 500,000? Someone educate me on how to read this.

[GoShockers89]

.

[Kung Wu]

Superedit: Where are you getting the $16,000 income per capita from?

Next to the map is a "Switch to revenue".

I clicked that and it was one of the columns.

[Rlh04d]

Type of economy I think might be the answer. The south is agricultural and fishing - not so much manufacturing that you would find in the North. High paying jobs are in tech/financial/manufacturing?

Undoubtedly.

That's not the end of it, though. Why haven't southern states attempted to transition to a non-agricultural economy more?

Texas is a good example on that end. While traditionally a rural economy, Texas has been exploding in higher paying jobs. Obviously the oil there is a significant advantage, but the move towards technology-related fields especially has been incredible for the state. Georgia is another good example of a state that seems to be run well by conservatives, and has been shooting up the list of primary education rankings and economies while maintaining a low debt ratio, and Atlanta is booming. Wyoming is doing well. But why are those the only conservative states I can think of as far as good fiscal leadership goes?

It's not about identifying what a state already it is ... it's making it better. Good fiscal leadership should go beyond simply not incurring a lot of debt and balancing the books -- it should be doing that, but as or more important should be developing an educated and skilled workforce, fostering a friendly business environment, diversifying the economy, and so on. So why are so many southern states struggling to become anything more than what they have traditionally been?