Posted on 06/09/2012 9:58:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.
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.