fate

Anyone writing for "the progressive cynic" is going to be able to cherry-pick stats that "prove" the superiority of liberal policies.

Facts have a liberal bias....

Stephen Colbert.

Its interesting that you resorted to displaying the debt per capita as a way of refuting the information that was presented. Debt per capita has to be balanced against GDP per capita. If a State has an average amount of debt, but a far better than average GDP per capita ... then they can carry the debt better.

But since you are complaining about the use of stats ...which statistics do you think would offer a fair comparison of state's economies? Freemans latest offered a compilation of 7 metrics..

freeman3 wrote:How about these state rankings? http://www.businessinsider.com/state-ec ... 015-2016-1

How about them? I'd say they're a crock based on where they put MA. I suppose MA is fine as long as you live in a tenement in Boston or can afford to live in a distant suburb (as I do). It's expensive to live here and the opportunities for work are not great outside of . . . Boston.

I have not seen any pension reform plan that would affect existing pensions (only going forward). Prior commitments should and will be honored.

Not correct. What they are proposing would radically impact new hires so that the money coming into our fund would be so much less that eventually it would collapse the fund. As I said, they've shelved it for now, but they'll be back.

And we taxed the highest earning Californians through Prop 30 so that adequate money would be spend on k-12 education. That's progressive.

Great! Good job! Tax, tax, tax--it's what CA is really, really good at. And, the best thing is you can raise all kinds of taxes and it has no effect at all.

One of my Diplomacy friends is a city councilman in Northern California. Everyone's a Democrat. Their city is trying to figure out how to make rent affordable. After all, the marketplace will never do that--only the government can.

danivon wrote:So, DF, what is your opinion of the original point - that Louisiana and Kansas are also screwed, but not by liberals?

That it ignores many factors including the way New Orleans has been hosed by corrupt liberal politicians for decades.

Kansas . . . what's in Kansas?

I mean really . . . why not compare all the States with lots of natural resources to those with few? How do you suppose that might turn out?

rickyp wrote:fate

Anyone writing for "the progressive cynic" is going to be able to cherry-pick stats that "prove" the superiority of liberal policies.

Facts have a liberal bias....

Stephen Colbert.

Its interesting that you resorted to displaying the debt per capita as a way of refuting the information that was presented. Debt per capita has to be balanced against GDP per capita. If a State has an average amount of debt, but a far better than average GDP per capita ... then they can carry the debt better.

Or, with good governance . . . they avoid debt.

But since you are complaining about the use of stats ...which statistics do you think would offer a fair comparison of state's economies? Freemans latest offered a compilation of 7 metrics..

Pick one. Gasoline prices in CA are the highest, I believe, in the country. http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppleme ... _by_state/

How about cost of living? http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/24/americas ... l?slide=11

10. Vermont
9. Rhode Island
8. Massachusetts
7. Oregon
6. New Jersey
5. California
4. Alaska
3. New York
2. Connecticut
1. Hawaii

See anything in that list???

And, how many of these cities have been under GOP control? http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/mos ... /?view=all

Fate

Or, with good governance . . . they avoid debt.

Sometimes good governance means taking on debt to invest in the infrastructure required to operate modern efficient economy or to provide safe services... (Like drinking water in Flint)
Sometimes good governance means taking on debt to invest when the economy is in a down turn and investment spending by government can boost the economy while building infrastructure.

And avoiding debt also means the right level of taxation to ensure that infrastructure can be maintained. In Louisiana and Kansas.... that hasn't happened . The results. Decay. Deterioration. And a more expensive bill to account for the neglect...

http://www.govtech.com/fs/Louisiana-In- ... unding.htm

http://www.governing.com/topics/transpo ... -road.html

Education is part of the public infrastructure too. When taxation isn't sufficient to operate a quality educational system you end up with a populace that can't compete in the world economy.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 47152.html

rickyp wrote:Fate

Or, with good governance . . . they avoid debt.

Sometimes good governance means taking on debt to invest in the infrastructure required to operate modern efficient economy or to provide safe services... (Like drinking water in Flint)
Sometimes good governance means taking on debt to invest when the economy is in a down turn and investment spending by government can boost the economy while building infrastructure.

And avoiding debt also means the right level of taxation to ensure that infrastructure can be maintained. In Louisiana and Kansas.... that hasn't happened . The results. Decay. Deterioration. And a more expensive bill to account for the neglect...

http://www.govtech.com/fs/Louisiana-In- ... unding.htm

http://www.governing.com/topics/transpo ... -road.html

Education is part of the public infrastructure too. When taxation isn't sufficient to operate a quality educational system you end up with a populace that can't compete in the world economy.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 47152.html

Link away. I'm not playing--unless you want me to engage in your level of mindlessness. I can start with any blue State, say Illinois. I'll just start raging about how terrible it is, how corrupt it is, how bad for business it is and then start linking. It will be so much fun!

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So, DF, what is your opinion of the original point - that Louisiana and Kansas are also screwed, but not by liberals?

That it ignores many factors including the way New Orleans has been hosed by corrupt liberal politicians for decades.

Well I imagine that a major natural disaster that was allowed to become a tragedy due to negligence at all levels of government and has left the city still some way behind where it was after over a decade is also a factor.

But the question arises due to recent trends since new policies were put in place.

Kansas . . . what's in Kansas?

A bunch of conservatives who have screwed their state, apparently.

I mean really . . . why not compare all the States with lots of natural resources to those with few? How do you suppose that might turn out?

Don't know. But was Kansas failing before these new policies?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Kansas . . . what's in Kansas?

A bunch of conservatives who have screwed their state, apparently.

Since you cannot read adequately, let me fill you in.

It had to do with what follows. I know, I know. They don't teach "context" in schools you attended.

I mean really . . . why not compare all the States with lots of natural resources to those with few? How do you suppose that might turn out?

Don't know. But was Kansas failing before these new policies?

Don't know, but I do know it had a late-term-abortion-loving Democratic governor.

It is facile, not to mention lazy and dumb, to simply compare States' finances without considering natural resources, indigenous industries, etc. One "can" simply make it a left/right thing, but it has much to do with the nature of businesses and resources within a State. For example, Nevada cannot compete with California with regard to growing produce. California cannot compete with Nevada with regard to brothels. Well, I suppose there are other areas where Nevada might have the edge as well, but the point stands: these are dumb comparisons. It would probably take a list of 80 or 100 or more factors to sort out who is doing a better job managing what they have.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Kansas . . . what's in Kansas?

A bunch of conservatives who have screwed their state, apparently.

Since you cannot read adequately, let me fill you in.

It had to do with what follows. I know, I know. They don't teach "context" in schools you attended.

Yeah, but when I ask you a question aiming to get some facts that set the context, all I seem to get is snark.

And irrelevance like below.

I mean really . . . why not compare all the States with lots of natural resources to those with few? How do you suppose that might turn out?

Don't know. But was Kansas failing before these new policies?

Don't know, but I do know it had a late-term-abortion-loving Democratic governor. [/quote]I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that his position on abortion had very little to do with his fiscal policy.

If you think it relevant, please explain. If not, why bring it up?

danivon wrote:I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that his position on abortion had very little to do with his fiscal policy.

If you think it relevant, please explain. If not, why bring it up?

Firstly, it was HER fiscal policy. Shows how much you know about Kansas.

"Kansas...what's in Kansas?" Ouch. Hope you're not planning to run for political office anytime soon in Kansas...

Gotta admit that liberals were pretty smart in hogging most of the states with natural resources, taking the Great Lakes, the Pacific, (a good swath of) the Atlantic. Conservatives got the prairie and the Mississippi...

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that his position on abortion had very little to do with his fiscal policy.

If you think it relevant, please explain. If not, why bring it up?

Firstly, it was HER fiscal policy. Shows how much you know about Kansas.

Educate me then. Provide me some relevant facts, on the economy or the budget. Not just hand-waving.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that his position on abortion had very little to do with his fiscal policy.

If you think it relevant, please explain. If not, why bring it up?

Firstly, it was HER fiscal policy. Shows how much you know about Kansas.

Educate me then. Provide me some relevant facts, on the economy or the budget. Not just hand-waving.

Do it yourself. It's not my job.

Meanwhile, liberals are free to extol the virtues of living in Illinois. Great State, right? How about Chicago? Most peaceful, income-equality friendly city in the country, right?

Well, Fate, you have a point about comparing the performance of States without including all the factors. Which is why i suggested that simply posting debt per capita comparisons was also a bad daa point.

But it is possible to compare Kansas and Louisiana before and after the great experiment of fiscal conservatism. And what it shows is:
Services slashed.
Deficits increased.
Debt increased.
Employment levels not affected.
Infrastructure crumbling.

They aren't exactly demonstrations of an effective set of policies now are they?

rickyp wrote:Well, Fate, you have a point about comparing the performance of States without including all the factors. Which is why i suggested that simply posting debt per capita comparisons was also a bad daa point.

But it is possible to compare Kansas and Louisiana before and after the great experiment of fiscal conservatism. And what it shows is:
Services slashed.
Deficits increased.
Debt increased.
Employment levels not affected.
Infrastructure crumbling.

They aren't exactly demonstrations of an effective set of policies now are they?

This is garbage.

Policies have to be adjusted to the overall economic situation.

For example, Bill Clinton (and John Kasich) love to take credit for balancing the budget and having a theoretical surplus (any surplus when the national debt still exists is pretty theoretical).

However, they were the beneficiaries of the dot-com boom. It was pretty easy to find your way to "zero" when the economy was rolling for reasons unattached to government intervention.

When you paint with a broad brush, you get meaningless results.

Another example: is the economy now doing well? Obama thinks so. Hillary doesn't. Bernie doesn't.

People on the street don't.

Who is right? It depends on how much one wants to dig. Unemployment and inflation have been so jiggered by government as to be meaningless stats.

To really judge how a state is doing, you would have to look at a ton of statistics--and then see how government policies are/are not affecting them. No one in these forums is going to do that. And, when you start appealing to liberal or conservative sources, you're going to get the expected results. Really. I can post right-wing sources that will convince you as much as your ridiculously liberal sources convince me. How about some Heritage Foundation studies? Something from Club for Growth?