Political Roundtable/Black hole of doom Part Deux

[hands11]

"We've gone to 50th in education and number one in gonorrhea, and that's the accomplishments of an all Republican government."

-- Dick Harpootlian, former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, explaining why he's running again for his old position.

Love this guy's attitude, but the Democrats generally don't do too well in states where the average person thinks evolution is a liberal conspiracy to kill God.

South Carolina is the lone exception. If you make a list of states with the worst economies, worst unemployment, worst debt, the top of the list is a who's who of blue states.

And I find it kind of funny that the states that are Red that vote Republican have bought the talking point... they want to redistribute wealth. Why do I find it funny ? Because the Red states take back more money from the Fed then they give. They are actually getting their money from the Blue states.

But like the auto industry, we couldn't let our farms fail. They needed to support oil once upon a time. Complain about social programs that won't die? How about the oil and farm subsidies.

And there several Red states that get more representation than they should in the Senate. ND and SD get way more voice then they should.

And if they don't break up these huge corporate farms, our food supply could crumble. There is no diversity anymore. One seed and you can't even own you own seed because with the genetic alterations came patients. And the Bee are dieing. Corporate farms need broken up just like the Telcom industry did back in the 70/80s and we need to get back to diversification of seed.

Bring back the small farmer.

One of our biggest problems is to many people don't know Civics and they bought into the Reagan lie. I hate Reagan for infecting this country with his one liner to get elected. Maybe the greatest cancer he gave this country is when he said.. Government isn't the solution. It is the problem. It is a close tie between that one " They are taking to much of your money " Well, the government, our constitution, etc is what makes American the great country it is. It's our Government that is different. Government is the solution to a ton of stuff and it can do some things more efficient than the for profit market can. Not everything for many things.

[hands11]

The top 5 states for lowest unemployment:
1 NORTH DAKOTA 3.7 - Deep Red
2 NEBRASKA 4.3 - Deep Red
3 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.8 - Red
4 NEW HAMPSHIRE 5.4 - Purple
5 VERMONT 5.6 - Deep Blue

Bottom 5 states in lowest unemployment:
46 MICHIGAN 10.4 - Blue
48 RHODE ISLAND 11.2 - Deep Blue
49 FLORIDA 11.5 - Purple
50 CALIFORNIA 12.2 - Deep Blue
51 NEVADA 13.6 - Purple

Color designations based on this chart. Chart shows the average margin of victory in the last four presidential elections. I counted the 0-5 states as purple:

1 NORTH DAKOTA 3.7 - Deep Red
2 NEBRASKA 4.3 - Deep Red
3 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.8 - Red

Total population. 124

Can we just merge those three places together already make them one state.

[Spence]

NATE: All those states with low unemployment are small states. Every single one. Those are not industrial states that have suffered from trade imbalances. It's got nothing to do with who runs them. If every single state with low unemployment, whether red or blue, is small, I'd call that the determining factor. So would any objective observer, I suspect.

Also, you need to have another look at how you are judging this. Florida, in terms of state politics, is not a purple state, it is deep red. The GOP has dominated state govt for many years and a criminal was elected governor of the state last year mainly because he had an R next to his name on the ballot. How Florida votes in presidential elections is irrelevant. You're arguing that red states are governed better. Well, Florida and Nevada are examples of states where the GOP runs the state govt and the state is in the crapper. Trying to hold President Obama responsible for state budget decisions in Tallahassee is, I think any reasonable person would agree, patently absurd. I know you are aware of the differences between state and federal governments so your confusion is, well, confusing.

SEVERN: A lot of that population growth has to do with the fact that red states tend to be on the border with Mexico or closer to it. I can't speak for the Idaho population growth, but if you ask any state legislator in Texas, Arizona or Nevada, they'll tell you it is migrants from Latin America trying to find jobs in the USA.

In any case, you're making the same mistake Nate is making. Michigan, for example, was governed by a Republican, John Engler, from 1993-2001. Many of the states you mentioned have had or currently have Republicans either splitting control of state government or more. It's silly to say that Democrats have been running a state government just because the state voted for John Kerry or Barack Obama. Many of the states that vote for the presidential candidate of one party are actually controlled by the other party. Red and Blue divides are simply not that clean. This isn't an arguable point, it's a true fact. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Again, we're seeing people move from colder states to warmer states. As they move they bring their politics with them, which is why President Obama won states like North Carolina and Virginia, which hadn't voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1964. The more these formerly deep red states attract ethnic minorities and other liberal snowbirds, the happier I become because all the available evidence is that internal migration is making formerly red states far less red. I was talking to a friend who works for a Republican Senator last week and he told me his boss thinks Texas will vote for a Democrat for President in 2016, at the latest, because his party can't win the minority votes he needs. I'm perfectly content to see the GOP become the preserve of angry and embittered white people who think the wrong side won the Civil War.

[Severn Hoos]

Spence - again, I'll be glad to concede the point. I agree that the divide is not so clean, though I do think there are some cultural issues that go beyond party. (For example, Democrats in Georgia may be more "conservative" than Republicans in Vermont, but you get the picture.) Right now, there is unquestionably a shift from the Northeast (and to some extent, CA) to the South & West. The reasons I've heard posited are primarily weather and immigration. Rarely do you hear political & business climate listed as an issue, but I do think it plays a significant role.

But as you point out, lots of factors play in. Ensign was Gov for those 8 years, but how many of them were the Legislature controlled by Dems? (Actual question, don't know the answer) How many changes could he make to the workings and culture of the state - just as having a nominal Democrat in GA or UT wouldn't change the foundational nature of the state.

All of which means that it's not so easy as listing a stack ranking of states - whether it be population, education, median income, etc. - to score a political point.

Besides, Texas won't vote for a Democrat for President in 2016 since they'll be back to an independent Republic by then.

[nate33]

NATE: All those states with low unemployment are small states. Every single one. Those are not industrial states that have suffered from trade imbalances. It's got nothing to do with who runs them. If every single state with low unemployment, whether red or blue, is small, I'd call that the determining factor. So would any objective observer, I suspect.

The political tendencies of Republican and Democrat state politicians don't line up with the tendencies of federal politicians. There are extremely liberal state Republicans and very conservative state Democrats. Using national elections gives us a better idea of the actual policy desires of the voting population within a state.

And I wasn't the one who started this argument of using a state's performance to indict a political party.

[Severn Hoos]

Nevada [45.2%], a state where Republicans have dominated state government.

You've mentioned this twice, which piqued my inner Inigo Montoya.

Since 1990, the Democrats have held the majority in the Nevada Assembly for every session except one, when there was an even split. Right now, it is 2:1 Democrat controlled, as it has been for most of the past decade.

From 2000-2006, the State Senate was controlled by Republicans (most years it was a 12-9 split), but the Dems have had the majority from 2007-present, including the current session.

Since 2000, the Governors have all been Republicans, but the 16 years prior to that the Governors were both Democrats.

You can check out the data at the link below, go to report #411.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... tions.html

I don't think it would qualify as domination when you don't control either house of the Legislature, one of which has a veto-proof majority...

[Zonkerbl]

"We've gone to 50th in education and number one in gonorrhea, and that's the accomplishments of an all Republican government."

-- Dick Harpootlian, former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, explaining why he's running again for his old position.

Love this guy's attitude, but the Democrats generally don't do too well in states where the average person thinks evolution is a liberal conspiracy to kill God.

South Carolina is the lone exception. If you make a list of states with the worst economies, worst unemployment, worst debt, the top of the list is a who's who of blue states.

Heheh, Nate, come on, you know that correlation does not imply causality. Make a list of states with the highest percentage of urban population and they're all blue states. Urban areas have all the problems you listed, and people trust Democrats to solve them. I'd hate to see what a Tea Partier's proposed solution to urban decay would be. Nuke it til it glows probably. Geeze, imagine Michelle Bachman as the Superintendent of DC public schools. SHUDDER!!!!

[nate33]

Fair enough. Correlation does not imply causation. Where were you when Spence used South Carolina to indict Republicans?

[dobrojim]

Or, you could look at which states people actually want to live in, since it's becoming easier and easier to vote with your feet.

What do you base that conclusion on? It seems to me that at times
of very high unemployment, that mobility is more difficult since
in order to move, you need a job where you're going. I guess OTOH,
one could suggest that an unemployed person is a good candidate
for someone who might soon move since there is much less to
tie them to any specific location, especially if they just got
foreclosed on.

[hands11]

Or, you could look at which states people actually want to live in, since it's becoming easier and easier to vote with your feet.

The top 10 states in percentage population growth, 2000-2010:

1. Nevada
2. Arizona
3. Utah
4. Idaho
5. Texas
6. North Carolina
7. Georgia
8. Florida
9. Colorado
10. South Carolina


And the bottom 10:

41. Pennsylvania
42. Illinois
43. Massachusetts
44. Vermont
45. West Virginia
46. New York
47. Ohio
48. Louisiana
49. Rhode Island
50. Michigan

I don't have a color-coded map, but I think I do see a pattern in there somewhere.

Yeah, it people with money looking to buy housing and land cheaper mostly where it is warm. Buy house in 2000 for $300,000. Sell house in 2006 for $650,000. By big house with pool and archerage in NC for cash profit for $300,000. Done deal. You own your house.

Let see those numbers in a small time from. Say year by year for 2009 and 2010. I would speculate they look different.

[Severn Hoos]

Or, you could look at which states people actually want to live in, since it's becoming easier and easier to vote with your feet.

What do you base that conclusion on? It seems to me that at times
of very high unemployment, that mobility is more difficult since
in order to move, you need a job where you're going. I guess OTOH,
one could suggest that an unemployed person is a good candidate
for someone who might soon move since there is much less to
tie them to any specific location, especially if they just got
foreclosed on.

jim, I think those are both reasonable speculations, each moving the needle in opposite directions. I do think it's easier to move now than in the past (telecommuting, fewer jobs are tied to manufacturing or farming which require immediate geographic proximity, almost everyone has a car and can at least drive somewhere else). Nothing concrete to base it on, just pure observation/speculation.

But one factor that I think is missed is - people do go where the jobs are. If firms move out of CA or NY because of their tax codes or from MI to set up shop in a less union-dominated environment, then those jobs will go with them. Or if a firm sets up in FL (no income tax), they know they can offer a certain percent lower salary, and people still take the job because the net takehome pay is higher than if they lived in a state w/ income tax. (As we saw in some of the NBA negotiations, although I haven't heard that assigned as the deciding factor, it has been listed as a factor.)

And not just those specific jobs, but as people flood into the newer markets, all kinds of other jobs - particularly construction and service - pop up to support them.

So yeah, I do think business climate plays a pretty big role. My hunch is that it's more significant than the actual climate, although I don't know how you would prove it.

[hands11]

NATE: All those states with low unemployment are small states. Every single one. Those are not industrial states that have suffered from trade imbalances. It's got nothing to do with who runs them. If every single state with low unemployment, whether red or blue, is small, I'd call that the determining factor. So would any objective observer, I suspect.

The political tendencies of Republican and Democrat state politicians don't line up with the tendencies of federal politicians. There are extremely liberal state Republicans and very conservative state Democrats. Using national elections gives us a better idea of the actual policy desires of the voting population within a state.

And I wasn't the one who started this argument of using a state's performance to indict a political party.

That is sometimes true and sometimes not. There were some moderate Republicans and some conservative Democrats over the course of history and even as recent as prior to this last mid term election. Not so much anymore.

[hands11]

Or, you could look at which states people actually want to live in, since it's becoming easier and easier to vote with your feet.

What do you base that conclusion on? It seems to me that at times
of very high unemployment, that mobility is more difficult since
in order to move, you need a job where you're going. I guess OTOH,
one could suggest that an unemployed person is a good candidate
for someone who might soon move since there is much less to
tie them to any specific location, especially if they just got
foreclosed on.

Well yeah. Real easy to move if you just got foreclosed on. I'm sure renting a place or buying another is real easy for those people. And the one that are upside down in their homes can't move easy either. My brother just went through his when he lost his job in Florida. Lucky for him, he actually still owned a second property back in Virginia where we wanted to move back because the market is stronger in this area.

Good thing both parties where pushing home ownership so much.

How about this for common sense?

End the mortgage deductions for people personal homes. That is all part of overvaluing properties.
End property taxes for personal homes. You can keep them for commercial properties I guess.
Collect the money you need for the state with state taxes

End the child credits
Tax people who sent their kids to public schools
Don't tax those who want to send them elsewhere

It makes no sense to me that a renter with kids is not contributing to the funding of those schools and it makes no sense that someone that owns a house with no kids is.

It also makes no sense to give those that get mortgages for their own a tax write off. This only inflates the house prices and put more money in the banks pockets instead of the government.

The workforce would actually be more mobile is they rented instead of owned.

[Wizardspride]

Donald Trump was just interviewed on CNN by Suzanne Malveaux and it's official: He's lost his mind.



MUST SEE INTERVIEW!





http://www.cnn.com/video/?utm_source...ma.citizen.cnn

[Severn Hoos]

How about this for common sense?

End the mortgage deductions for people personal homes. That is all part of overvaluing properties.
End property taxes for personal homes. You can keep them for commercial properties I guess.
Collect the money you need for the state with state taxes

End the child credits
Tax people who sent their kids to public schools
Don't tax those who want to send them elsewhere

It makes no sense to me that a renter with kids is not contributing to the funding of those schools and it makes no sense that someone that owns a house with no kids is.

It also makes no sense to give those that get mortgages for their own a tax write off. This only inflates the house prices and put more money in the banks pockets instead of the government.

The workforce would actually be more mobile is they rented instead of owned.

Hmm, interesting set of proposals, hands. Kinda all over the map politically - enough to make everyone happy, or enough to tick everyone off, depending on how you look at it.

First, ending mortgage deductions AND property tax: Not so realistic, since one is Federal and the other state/local. Probably a decent trade for homeowners, but my hunch is that it would result in a net reduction in tax revenue. Wonder if it'd be an easy find to compare the two totals. Still - you could end the Federal deduction and have no guarantee that the states cooperate, so not sure I'd want to take that risk personally.

"Collect the money you need for the state with state taxes" I assume you mean ending transfers from Federal to state governments? I know it's popular to say that Red states take more from the fed. govt than they pay in, but I bet you'd find a lot of support for that proposal among the knuckle-dragging tea party crowd. I'd sign up for it.

"End the child credits - Tax people who sent their kids to public schools - Don't tax those who want to send them elsewhere"

Hmm, is that a school choice proposal? Again, you'd have lots of support from the Right on that one. I do get tax credits for my 4 kids, but then I don't feel bad about claiming them, if only because we're helping to keep the inverted pyramid Ponzi scheme they call Social Security going. (That's a joke, folks. Sort of.) Now, having said that - there's a pretty compelling argument (via Milton Friedman) that educating children has a significant positive neighborhood effect, and thus justifies asking (i.e., compelling) all members of society to contribute to their education.

But you touch on a different point, in that it's a positive effect for all members, not just homeowners. OF course, renters still end up paying taxes via higher rents if the Landlord has to pay the taxes anyway, so ultimately it's a wash. What really doesn't make sense in that argument, however, is that the benefit is not limited to children educated via the Public schools. Society benefits just as much if that child is educated in a private school as in a public school, maybe more. And especially if that child can receive a better education at lower expense, there's no rationale for not allowing - and even encouraging - school choice.

I agree that the government shouldn't be blindly encouraging home ownership for its own sake, but you almost sound like you'd prefer the government to discourage home ownership. Don't think I'd go there, but definitely don't want to see any more of quasi-governmental agencies helping people get into homes that they can't afford....

[dobrojim]

OF course, renters still end up paying taxes via higher rents if the Landlord has to pay the taxes anyway, so ultimately it's a wash.

sev,

this strikes me as similar to those who attempt to argue that
if baseball had a salary cap, then tickets wouldn't cost so much.

Personally I don't buy it.

Prices (and rents) are set so as to maximize revenue. The
underlying costs don't factor in. An owner will always
charge as much as s/he can for a property. A baseball owner
will always try to maximize his/her revenue in how they price
tickets. What they pay to maintain the product is another
battle. That's at its most basic level. Of course there are
underlying complexities which come into play to various degrees.

[nate33]

Donald Trump was just interviewed on CNN by Suzanne Malveaux and it's official: He's lost his mind.



MUST SEE INTERVIEW!





http://www.cnn.com/video/?utm_source...ma.citizen.cnn

It's really a fascinating situation. Trump isn't a GOP insider, he's not part of the Tea Party, and he doesn't travel in the circles of other conservative leaders and opinion makers. He's is a fairly popular and successful guy with an independent reputation. He has a lot to lose if he gets labeled as a "birther" yet he is still leading the charge.

I just don't see a cynical political angle. His base is independents. He'll never really capture the core of the conservative voting block. If he comes out two weeks from now and declares, "I've researched this to the best of my ability and have concluded that Obama was in fact born in the U.S.", he'll still have discredited himself among independents and moderate liberals. If he concludes that Obama wasn't born in the U.S., it's unlikely that he'll ever truly prove it and will have discredited himself among independents and moderate liberals without really ingratiating himself to conservatives.

Basically, I think the guy honestly believes this. It's the only explanation for what he is doing.

I haven't really followed this issue. Is what he is saving about the Certificate of Live Birth true? Can you not even get a driver's license with one? And what was that comment he made (not in that video) about Obama spending $2M in legal fees to prevent his birth certificate from being released? Is that true? And if so, what is the justification?

[nate33]

OF course, renters still end up paying taxes via higher rents if the Landlord has to pay the taxes anyway, so ultimately it's a wash.

sev,

this strikes me as similar to those who attempt to argue that
if baseball had a salary cap, then tickets wouldn't cost so much.

Personally I don't buy it.

Prices (and rents) are set so as to maximize revenue. The
underlying costs don't factor in. An owner will always
charge as much as s/he can for a property. A baseball owner
will always try to maximize his/her revenue in how they price
tickets. What they pay to maintain the product is another
battle. That's at its most basic level. Of course there are
underlying complexities which come into play to various degrees.

C'mon dobro, that's utter nonsense. Rents are set to maximize revenue, but they're set within the confines of a competitive market of apartment owners. If profit margins are big, new apartment owners enter the business and drive down rents. If profit margins are too small (or non existent), apartment owners get out of the business, and the reduction in supply increases rents. Ultimately, rents are based on underlying costs plus a competitive profit margin (competitive with any other business of commensurate risk).

Tax increases are always passed off to the consumer. There may be some delay in how quickly rents will go up, but they'll go up eventually.

[Wizardspride]

Basically, I think the guy honestly believes this. It's the only explanation for what he is doing.

I haven't really followed this issue. Is what he is saving about the Certificate of Live Birth true? Can you not even get a driver's license with one? And what was that comment he made (not in that video) about Obama spending $2M in legal fees to prevent his birth certificate from being released? Is that true? And if so, what is the justification?

1.)NO...it's not true. I got my Maryland driver's license with COLB.

2.)No, Obama did not spend 2mil to keep his birth certificate from being released. This rumor was started in the conservative blogosphere during the 2008 campaign.

[nate33]

Thanks Wizardspride. Like I said, I haven't followed the issue very closely.