Best-Run States Are Heavily Republican, Study Finds

[UK2K]

I'm sure someone will claim that Investor's Business Daily is biased somehow, but most studies will more or less paint a similar picture.

http://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CapHill55_053116-640x360.jpg

[QUOTE]The report

[FillJackson]

Thanks Mercatus Center!

Thanks David Koch! Thanks Charles Koch!

[UK2K]

Thanks Mercatus Center!

Thanks David Koch! Thanks Charles Koch!

Which of the government provided metrics do you feel doesn't belong in the study?

[QUOTE]This ranking of the 50 states and Puerto Rico is based on their fiscal solvency in five separate cate*gories:

Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?

Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues, or does it have a budget shortfall?

Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?

Service-level solvency. How much

[Dresta]

The conservatively inclined have always been far better at running localities, which is part of the reason why political radicals are so desperate to have everything centralised. They know they don't have the support and backing to change thing from the ground up, so they need to enforce their political and social dogmatisms from the top-down.

It's like this in most places (e.g. in the UK Conservative run boroughs>>>the ones run by Labour, and people most often prefer the former to the latter), and it's no coincidence.

[UK2K]

The conservatively inclined have always been far better at running localities, which is part of the reason why political radicals are so desperate to have everything centralised. They know they don't have the support and backing to change thing from the ground up, so they need to enforce their political and social dogmatisms from the top-down.

It's like this in most places (e.g. in the UK Conservative run boroughs>>>the ones run by Labour, and people most often prefer the former to the latter), and it's no coincidence.

This is evidenced by the net migration patterns (I posted this a little while back):


Net Domestic Immigration:

1-Texas (154,467)

2-Florida (138,546)

3-Arizona (41,975)

4-Colorado (40,318)

5-South Carolina (38,614)

6-North Carolina (36,257)

7-Washington (28,063)

8-Tennessee (24,511)

9-Nevada (23,623)

10-Oregon (22,670)

11-Georgia (22,106)

12-North Dakota (8,974)

13-Idaho (7,694)

14-Delaware (4,790)

15-Montana (4,550)

16-Oklahoma (4,377)

17-Alabama (2,034)

18-New Hampshire (1,117)

19-South Dakota (562)

20-Maine (531)


Net Domestic Outmigration:
1-New York (-153,921)

2-Illinois (-94,956)

3-New Jersey (-55,469)

4-California (-32,090)

5-Pennsylvania (-31,448)

6-Michigan (-28,679)

7-Connecticut (-26,216)

8-Virginia (-20,400)

9-Ohio (-18,243)

10-Massachusetts (-16,354)

11-Maryland (-15,295)

12-New Mexico (--14,154)

13-Kansas (--13,804)

14-Alaska (-10,137)

15-Wisconsin (-9,931)

[andgar923]

So the trend is, the lower the population the easier to pay for shit.

Gotcha.

[~primetime~]

http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/07/30/ad024552-4e68-43ec-9411-c1e3203bb29c/thumbnail/620x350/2f8640d6376cfd5740e3240fb1985586/screen-shot-2014-07-30-at-2-28-06-pm.png


Hillary's hubby did pretty well

[~primetime~]

http://waynedemocrats.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/graph.jpg

[UK2K]

http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/07/30/ad024552-4e68-43ec-9411-c1e3203bb29c/thumbnail/620x350/2f8640d6376cfd5740e3240fb1985586/screen-shot-2014-07-30-at-2-28-06-pm.png


Hillary's hubby did pretty well
Key word was locally but yeah.

[DeuceWallaces]

So the trend is, the lower the population the easier to pay for shit.

Gotcha.

Yeah, big ****ing surprise it's easier to run a place where no one lives.

[DonDadda59]

So the trend is, the lower the population the easier to pay for shit.

Gotcha.

I'm saying. The top 5 States combined have half the population of NYC alone. :lol

And the States that consume the largest share of federal funding (which comes from taxing the Blue States) are Red States.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/10-states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government.html/?a=viewall

These places would be the equivalent of third world countries without federal handouts.

[UK2K]

I'm saying. The top 5 States combined have half the population of NYC alone. :lol

And the States that consume the largest share of federal funding (which comes from taxing the Blue States) are Red States.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/10-states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government.html/?a=viewall

These places would be the equivalent of third world countries without federal handouts.

You should start a thread on it.

Any opinion on the five government provided metrics used to determine their list?

[Thorpesaurous]

Connecticut is a ****ing mess. We just lost a huge tax base as well in General Electric headquarters moving out. And my home town of Stratford recently saw it's biggest tax payer, Sikorsky Aircraft, get sold to Lockheed Martin, which presumably will lead to an eventual move. And our dipshit Governor Malloy, who happens to be a Democrat, is under the impression we can tax our way out of this problem by making increasing the state workforce by making a Boston Great Dig style nightmare of our already nightmarish highways. This from a guy who two years ago almost saw the state get buried because he couldn't make payroll to state employees for plowing, and wound up getting sued by third party plow groups when coming up short with them.


My father has long used the voting strategy of voting Democratic nationally and Republican locally, under the logic that the Fed will flood money into the state, and then the state will stock the cash, and use it in more locally sensible ways. It's a theory that I think makes a lot of sense, although I'm not sure how much evidence there is to support it.

[Nanners]

This is evidenced by the net migration patterns (I posted this a little while back):

Colorado, Oregon and Washington are all in the top 10 for migration and they are 3 of the most liberal states in this country

[DonDadda59]

You should start a thread on it.

Any opinion on the five government provided metrics used to determine their list?

I think it's much easier to remain solvent, balance budgets, etc. when you have a State population of like 700-800K living in rural, undeveloped areas and you receive massive federal subsidies than it is to do so when within your State there are cities with populations in the millions living in densely populated areas with high infrastructure costs.

The State of Alaska is 656,424 square miles of mostly rural nothing with a population of about 737,000 people.

The Borough of Brooklyn is 69.5 square miles with a population of 2.6 million people. There are countless roads, bridges, buildings, subway network, etc that require infrastructure spending, maintenance, etc.

Which one's budget do you think would be easier to manage- the State or the Borough? :confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

Just for some perspective about Bill Clinton...

The end of George H.W. Bush's presidency had better growth than the beginning of Bill Clinton's. The economy went DOWN under Clinton until the republicans later took the house and Newt Gingrich became house speaker.

[andgar923]

I think it's much easier to remain solvent, balance budgets, etc. when you have a State population of like 700-800K living in rural, undeveloped areas and you receive massive federal subsidies than it is to do so when within your State there are cities with populations in the millions living in densely populated areas with high infrastructure costs.

The State of Alaska is 656,424 square miles of mostly rural nothing with a population of about 737,000 people.

The Borough of Brooklyn is 69.5 square miles with a population of 2.6 million people. There are countless roads, bridges, buildings, subway network, etc that require infrastructure spending, maintenance, etc.

Which one's budget do you think would be easier to manage- the State or the Borough? :confusedshrug:

On top of that, the states on the list are mostly universally the same in their views.

It's harder to govern when there's different ideologies, cultures, religions, incomes etc etc.

It's hard enough deciding on where to have the annual company's Christmas dinner when there's 20 different suggestions, let alone run a state like NY that's so vastly multi faceted in every way.

Imagine if there was only 2 people deciding on where to have the annual Christmas dinner, and both people shared the same idea, and there was only 1 option to begin with.

To top it off the company wasn't paying for it, it was the city, all expenses paid.

[DonDadda59]

Just for some perspective about Bill Clinton...

The end of George H.W. Bush's presidency had better growth than the beginning of Bill Clinton's. The economy went DOWN under Clinton until the republicans later took the house and Newt Gingrich became house speaker.

Dawg, the country went through a recession under H Dubya and unemployment was at 7.5%. This followed the deficit doubling-tripling under his predecessor Reagan, which forced Bush I to infamously go back on his 'read my lips... No new taxes' campaign promise.

And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of '93 received 0 Republican votes in the House, and was signed into law before Newt was Speaker.

You know who had a Republican-controlled Congress throughout his whole tenure in office?

http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/6201-744545.jpg

What happened? :confusedshrug:

[Nanners]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Federal-Aid-as-a-Percentage-of-State-Revenue_0.png

red states = welfare states

[Akrazotile]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Federal-Aid-as-a-Percentage-of-State-Revenue_0.png

red states = welfare states


Why do you think AZ, NM, SD are so red with federal funding when other states around them are not?

Answer: Indian Reservations. Native Americans are the poorest people in the country and they basically live on handouts.

Which other states are bright red? Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georigia, Tennessee

Hm.


Tell me more bout dat dere diversity.

[Akrazotile]

Yeah, big ****ing surprise it's easier to run a place where no one lives.


So the more people you add, the harder bureaucracy becomes.

But you want open borders and bigger bureaucracy.


Genius.

[UK2K]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Federal-Aid-as-a-Percentage-of-State-Revenue_0.png

red states = welfare states

Different metric.

Also, you should take this up with your senator, because until you do, Red states will continue to benefit. And start a new thread.

Any opinion on the OP? Or nah?

[Nanners]

Different metric.

Also, you should take this up with your senator, because until you do, Red states will continue to benefit. And start a new thread.

Any opinion on the OP? Or nah?

yeah i have an opinion on the OP

OP is a ******

[FillJackson]

Just for some perspective about Bill Clinton...

The end of George H.W. Bush's presidency had better growth than the beginning of Bill Clinton's. The economy went DOWN under Clinton until the republicans later took the house and Newt Gingrich became house speaker.
As usual, so much wrong.

In 3 years from Jan 1990 until June 1992, unemployment went from 5.4% to points to 7.3% peaking at 7.8% in 1992. During the last two years under Bush 91 and 92 GDP growth averaged 1.625% and only 296,000 new jobs were created.

The first two years under Clinton growth averaged 3.5% and 6.6 million new jobs were created and unemployment had fallen by about 2% in the beginning of 1995 when Gingrich were about to take over the House.

You can say the economy went down under Clinton IF you only compare GDP growth for one year coming out of a downturn under Bush AND you ignore the fact that twice as many new jobs were created in the one year under Clinton.

You cannot say the economy kept going down until Gingrich became Speaker of the House because the year before he came in was a blockbuster year for the economy by any measure. 4.11% growth and 3.85 million new jobs were created, the best year for job creation in the whole decade.

[DukeDelonte13]

the top 5 states in OP's graph..


ALL of their biggest industries are heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Agriculture and Oil +Gas.

[UK2K]

yeah i have an opinion on the OP

OP is a ******

Posters like you are what make this place great. :cheers:

Sucks to suck.

[nathanjizzle]

total population and populations age has alot to do with it, not democrat or republican. idiot.

[UK2K]

total population and populations age has alot to do with it, not democrat or republican. idiot.

:oldlol:


The report — “Ranking the States by Fiscal Condition” — used official government data to measure the states’ ability to pay short-term bills and meet longer-term obligations, such as public pensions or health care costs, using five separate measures.

I didn't make this up, idiot. It's based on five metrics. Now, if you have an issue with one of the metrics included, let me know.

[Jameerthefear]

i wish my republican run state wasn't such a run down disgusting shithole then

i would much rather live in those """"insolvent"""" states

[UK2K]

i wish my republican run state wasn't such a run down disgusting shithole then

i would much rather live in those """"insolvent"""" states

Feel free to move... shouldn't be too hard, lots of people are doing the exact opposite.

CA now owes $175 billion in unfunded liabilities, so you can move there and spend the rest of your life helping to pay it off.

Props to Gov. Brown on balancing a budget, but now even other Democrats are arguing with his idea to 'save' extra money.


Brown persuaded voters to create a new “rainy day fund” that sets aside some surplus revenues as a hedge against future recessions, and his new budget proposes to increase those diversions. But he faces some opposition among fellow Democrats in the Legislature, who want to increase health and welfare spending.


You owe a ton, you bring in a little extra... What do you do?

A) Save it for when times get rough
B) **** it spend that shit

[Jameerthefear]

Feel free to move... shouldn't be too hard, lots of people are doing the exact opposite.

CA now owes $175 billion in unfunded liabilities, so you can move there and spend the rest of your life helping to pay it off.

Props to Gov. Brown on balancing a budget, but now even other Democrats are arguing with his idea to 'save' extra money.



You owe a ton, you bring in a little extra... What do you do?

A) Save it for when times get rough
B) **** it spend that shit
seeing as i'm going to college in this state it's a bit more complicated than that.

[Jameerthefear]

dont see AL on this list
would anyone choose to live in alabama over hawaii?

[DukeDelonte13]

dont see AL on this list
would anyone choose to live in alabama over hawaii?


Sure. You know how expensive it is to live in the middle of the Pacific? Lot's of people would rather own a nice home and then live in an overpriced condo. Especially people with kids.

[Jameerthefear]

Sure. You know how expensive it is to live in the middle of the Pacific? Lot's of people would rather own a nice home and then live in an overpriced condo. Especially people with kids.
hmm i see your point. but still if i'm living in the south there are much better states to live in

[FillJackson]

:oldlol:

I didn't make this up, idiot. It's based on five metrics. Now, if you have an issue with one of the metrics included, let me know.

If you base it on state income or state GDP which affects how easily the state can handle paying it off, Alaska comes out as the state with the most fiscal problems and this is how others report on this problem.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Colorado, Oregon and Washington are all in the top 10 for migration and they are 3 of the most liberal states in this country
Do I really need to point out why this is?

Anyway, shocking that states with more barrels of oil/gas than people living there are rated highly. TN is the only really surprising one.

[Jailblazers7]

The conservatively inclined have always been far better at running localities, which is part of the reason why political radicals are so desperate to have everything centralised. They know they don't have the support and backing to change thing from the ground up, so they need to enforce their political and social dogmatisms from the top-down.

It's like this in most places (e.g. in the UK Conservative run boroughs>>>the ones run by Labour, and people most often prefer the former to the latter), and it's no coincidence.

Don't necessarily disagree here but the top 10 is filled with low population states with an economically valuable resource (or sources). It's not secret that large populations and metros are harder to govern. More people = more infrastructure, etc.

The metrics in general just don't factor in scale at all so of course smaller states are going to score favorably.

[highwhey]

dont see AL on this list
would anyone choose to live in alabama over hawaii?
Hawaii is a paradise but I've been told by people that vacation there every year that everything is ridiculously expensive.

[DeuceWallaces]

Hawaii is a paradise but I've been told by people that vacation there every year that everything is ridiculously expensive.

Maybe in Honolulu, but I spent a couple weeks on the big island and everything was very reasonable. Sure as hell was cheaper than DC, Chicago, or NYC.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Hawaii is a paradise but I've been told by people that vacation there every year that everything is ridiculously expensive.
Traffic is hell

[Hawker]

So the trend is, the lower the population the easier to pay for shit.

Gotcha.

Just as long as you're not using Canada, Australia and other scandinavian countries as a examples of why things will work in the USA because they work there.

[Hawker]

the top 5 states in OP's graph..


ALL of their biggest industries are heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Agriculture and Oil +Gas.

And California has no oil and gas and no agricultural industries? Those industries absolutely have a presence in Cali. (And O&G receives no federal subsidies.)