Posted on 06/09/2012 9:58:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“Most of the 10 poorest states are Republican” is a quote of CNN’s Jack Cafferty. It appeared in his “Cafferty File” blog last September 22, and was accompanied by the opinion, this is “something the GOP can’t be too comfortable with.” Indeed, in an election year, you can bet that Democrats will try to make hay with those data.
My previous column made the case that Democratic Party policies have induced the impoverishment of America’s poorest cities. Turnabout is fair play. If Republican policies have led to the economic stagnation of entire states, whereas Democrats are only responsible for ruining cities, then the Dems might have the stronger campaign talking point. Let’s examine the 10 poorest states to see if Republicans are to blame for their relative economic standing.
The poorest states, based on per capita income, are, from first to last: Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina. Of these, exactly half—Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, and West Virginia—have Democratic governors and three have Democratic majorities in the lower house of their legislature, so these state governments can hardly be classified as completely Republican. On the other hand, only North Carolina voted for Obama in 2008, so in that sense, these states may be leaning Republican.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Looking at the list of the 10 poorest states, all except Montana are east of the Mississippi River. That means they are older states. Those nine also happen to be concentrated in the South. This is significant: They were all slaveholding states. They focused on producing commodities, whereas the northern states produced more value-added goods, more manufactured goods, more capital-intensive goods.
In short, those nine erstwhile slaveholding states have been lagging behind the northern states economically for two centuries. Just because one generation of leaning Republican has not eliminated a disparity that was entrenched for centuries, it is not an indictment of Republicans.
The more important factor is not the economic ranking of states at a point in time, but the overall trends. An important article by John Merline compared the economic performance of blue states and red states during the presidency of Barack Obama. The trend of economic indicators clearly favors Republican states.
Democratic states have experienced lower growth in both jobs and income in the last few years. Home prices have fallen further in blue states, and their unemployment rates are higher.
In other words, a dynamic economic analysis of the states casts a far more favorable light on Republican states than static analysis. Since real life is dynamic, not static, Republicans can make the stronger case about which party is best suited to lead the way to greater prosperity.
I very much disagree with article, and I will use a real life simple analogy. Who is versus appears poorest among a hardworking frugal indiviudal versus one who runs up a big credit card bill?
This simplistic comparison based on raw income levels is worthless. The question has to consider the cost of living too, among other factors. I moved from Colorado to Alabama and found my standard of living increased dramatically even though my income actually decreased a bit.
Let’s face it, if we look at individuals and not States, the more successful people tend to be Republicans while losers tend to be Democrats. There are exceptions, of course. The Democratic leadership is extremely rich, but the Democratic base is full of poor bastards who are played by the elites and are envious of their more successful neighbors.
In this years Primary Election Mr. Barack Obama (incumbent) beat an unknown by a whopping 53% to 47% in Arkansas. When I say unknown, I mean unknown. Republicans just can’t seem to find good conservative candidates for the state elections that (1)resonate with the people or (2) don’t have a lot of baggage. I think many Arkansans are seeing the light. I look for a strong Romney vote this year.
Classic Cafferty ... how to lie with “statistics”
Per capita income shouldn’t be the standard, given the wide variations in cost of living. Purchasing power is what money and income is all about.
And furthermore, why not compare by counties, wouldn’t you get a better idea usually a more accurate measurement? Or doesn’t that fit this jackass’ agenda?
If that information persuaded even 10 people to change the way they vote - or think - I would be surprised.
When Jack was merely a local New York newscaster, he was bearable. After that, he became unbearable. End of story.
The biggest problem with the media (a problem Jack epitomizes) is a key problem they share with academia - they are so full of themselves.
If you are fighting for your survival, you don’t ask your enemy to lead you.
PO STATE PING
Agree ... Common sense says states shouldn’t be “rich”.... They should be efficent, frugal an competent with a stable emergency fund.
If this presstitute gauges success in such a manner his opinion is moot.
At this point, given the article was authored almost nine months ago by liberal moron, who gives two craps?!?
The median household income for New York City is $50,285.
I'll go out on a limb here -- by virtually every measurable parameter, someone can live a lot better on $50,285 in Mississippi than someone can live on $50,285 in New York City.
I also betcha it costs an employer a lot more to attract an employee in New York City than it does in Mississippi.
of course, if one wants to go down the road “of the ___ poorest ______,” we could proceed to the 10 poorest, 20, 30, 40, even 50 poorest cities and examine their political leanings.
Jack Acidly...
Folks around here don't have much money at all but hey, we wouldn't know what to do with it if we did.
-houeto.
I would what this would look like if you defined a “poor” state by state government deficits and debts. I’ll sure you see a big difference as to which party has the “poorer” states.
Welcome to America’s best kept secret.
I will be joining you both in a couple of weeks.
I’ll bet those same states were among the poorest back when they used to vote Democrat too.
In short, those nine erstwhile slaveholding states have been lagging behind the northern states economically for two centuries. Just because one generation of leaning Republican has not eliminated a disparity that was entrenched for centuries, it is not an indictment of Republicans.
Exactly my line of thinking and you said it well.
What about southern cities vs. northern cities? Just my observation but the larger cities in the south seem to fare better than comparable sized northern ones. I'm thinking of D./F.W., Atlanta, Houston et al. Are these cities run by democrats?
All we have to do to see the utter failure of liberal policies concerning cities is look at Detroit.
Same here, houeto, except it’s deer, turkey, and all the fresh veggies we can raise. Who would want to live in any of those dying cities up east?
In short, those nine erstwhile slaveholding states have been lagging behind the northern states economically for two centuries. Just because one generation of leaning Republican has not eliminated a disparity that was entrenched for centuries, it is not an indictment of Republicans.
Exactly my line of thinking and you said it well.
What about southern cities vs. northern cities? Just my observation but the larger cities in the south seem to fare better than comparable sized northern ones. I'm thinking of D./F.W., Atlanta, Houston et al. Are these cities run by democrats?
All we have to do to see the utter failure of liberal policies concerning cities is look at Detroit.
Purchasing power is what money and income is all about.”
We just returned to Texas from a few days to the Mississippi gulf area. Since we always stay where we can cook most of our meals, a trip to the grocery story was at the top of the list. Groceries were a whole lot less expensive than in Texas as was the gas. I was really amazed and our vacation dollars went a whole lot farther than expected. Beaches were also a whole lot cleaner and not crowded at all. We certainly are going back.
I think you should blame Jefferson Davis (D-MS) for the problems of the South.
let’s see...
the left loves big govt and big govt contracts
the left has been in control of the purse strings since 2006
do ya think maybe, juuuust maybe, there have been more federal contracts awarded to dem states ... or more big money state level contracts awarded in dem states... knowing full well the fedgov will back any short fall the state may have financially
this is how the liberal states drain the conservative states. not entirely through direct federal contracts, but through radical over spending at the state and local levels
knowing the fedgov will demand mores taxes from those of us in less liberal states... draining us to support themselves
in florida, where state revenues come directly from sales and property taxes, an increase in federal taxes directly impacts the state revenues possible... as it reduces the amount spent at the local level.
and of course, those tax increases are used to support places like detroit, CA, NY and MA
But your points are valid. Slavery made some individuals rich but meant that the economic development of those states did not match the North--there was little manufacturing. The war devastated parts of the South, and after the war Confederate money was worthless, so the area became a debtor region and incomes were generally much lower than in the North.
I heard someone talking today about his family's experiences. They had a farm in Tennessee during the war and although their house wasn't burned, most of what they had of value was taken by Union troops including their farm animals and food supplies. He said that he is often asked how they did during the Depression and he said that during the Depression they were still recovering from Reconstruction. He is old enough to remember the Depression.
This is BS... it what you can buy with your income...some one figured Upstate New York was poorer than Mississippi...they made more money but they had nothing left after taxes..
Lets add the debt in.
California, NY, NJ, MA, MI, IL - these are all bankrupt and will have huge tax bills coming for their citizens. They have pensions that they cannot pay so they will take from workers to pay it.
Without the irresponsibility in the Dem leadership concerning muni unions and spending, there is only half of a conversation.
The article is flawed.
Do they take into account cost of living? Money goes a LOT further in those states.
>I think you should blame Jefferson Davis (D-MS) for the problems of the South.<
Ever heard the term, “Sunbelt”? Putting North Carolina, for example, in a group of “poorest states” works if you’ve never been there.
If the King of England hadn't made them buy slaves, there wouldn't have been a problem.
The planter elite brought on the war because they were afraid that the election of a "Black Republican" threatened the long-term viability of slavery. Jefferson Davis was a member of that elite but just one man and far from the worst. Slavery was well entrenched in the South before he was born, and the Revolutionary era politicians in the South who thought that slavery was evil were afraid to try to do anything about it, because it would be political suicide to try.
The planter elite were sort of like the union bosses of their day. Get what's good for themselves and to hell with everyone else.
The real question is where do democrats think all them people who are too poor to live under their high taxes and regulations?
That is right our Conservative and more free States.
Yet anther reason Yankee poor and middle class would find it advantageous to move south. Thus inflating our ratio of poor to rich and lowering our per-captia income.
Congratulations-where are you moving to? I’m just outside of Montgomery.
“I think you should blame Jefferson Davis (D-MS) for the problems of the South.”
That is probably the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard on this forum.
Jeff Davis was not even responsible for the Southern Independence movement, he was just elected president of the Southern Confederacy.
A case could be made that he was responsible for inability of the Southern Confederacy to hold back the Imperial hordes. But it seems highly unlikely any could do much better against such odds.
The author is right thou the devastation of the south, utter destruction of the south (economic base included) and subsequent Federal trade and monetary policy’s which favored industrial over agrarian economic activity served to impoverish the south. The trend of Federal policy was in this direction before the war(that is what led to the war) and after the war with the South striped of its political power and enslaved to the north. Protectionist and inflationary national banking policys became a mainstay.
Money became more constrated in the urban, manufacturing north and it became even harder for the now devastated agrarian southern economy to make a profit.
Thank you. The wife, kids, and I are moving to Huntsville. Tough moving from where I am, since my extended family is here, but it was a really good opportunity, and I have heard and seen nothing but positives about AL and Huntsville. Well, except for tornadoes...
>>>>Jack Acidly...<<<<
How ‘bout Jack Assheadly?
No joke. Even in super-lean 2011 Montana had a freaking budget SURPLUS thanks to its tight-fisted Republican legislature.
(The governor is a Democrat and a blooming idiot—I repeat myself—but that is about to change.)
Good lord, Montana has oil, coal, gold, silver, platinum, palladium, timber, water, fine cropland and better rangeland, hearty people (the locals anyway) and endless miles of wide-open country...and this Jackass wants to tell me that New York or Illinois is rich and Montana poor?
Sure. Good. I’ll help him spread the word.
I was going for the whole (D-MS) thing. The economics of south is not a problem caused by the modern Republican party nor by Jeff Davis.
If true, it still doesn’t bother me. I couldn’t ask for a better quality of life or more freedom in this nation at this stage of history than I have in my home state (MS). Let the negative stereotypes keep on rolling, at least it’s guaranteed to keep liberal carpetbaggers from wanting to move here and “improve” the place with all their liberal values. I heard all this mess when we were being threatened if we voted to keep our flag(MS), we still voted to keep it and life is still good.
The most broke states are Illinois, California and New York - All run by the Dummycrats.
All these states except WV are poor for one reason and that poverty is not broad based but limited to one or two particular groups
Which drags down the whole states numbers
Same effect as crime rates and bastard kids
I mean really folks....are y'all just that damned scared to speak the truth?
Montana has a buttload of poor Indians on reservations and West Virginia has been in and out of coal depressions as one big single industry state with little “easy” land forever
Democrats don't help but that is as much a symptom as a cause
There are almost no GOP run major cities anywhere anymore...not even Dallas....which runs much better than say Memphis....both Dem cities
Ditto.
This is what the truth gets you. It’s enough to scare most folks into silence.
As I remember it the Virginia effort to stop slavery was three generations earlier — it was Queen Anne that prevented it.
Jefferson may have desired to cite that long past in incident but it was Patrick Henry that raised it in speeches.
“In short, those nine erstwhile slaveholding states have been lagging behind the northern states economically for two centuries. “
Not exactly. The South was the wealthiest section of the country until the Civil War. There was no Marshall Plan to rebuild the damage inflicted by the war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.