Well, 2nd grade math does also include occasional allusions to politics, probably.
:rolleyes: That bullshit again?!
The problem with that is you are implying that overpriced US production is why we are losing out.
China’s currency issues, US tax policy and drastically low QC and environmental standards overseas put the US at a disadvantage with some jobs. Those aren’t due to high standards of living of US workers, they are out of their hands. Why should the US lower its wages and environmental regulations when we could just ask China to raise their instead? Chinas lower environmental laws save them billions over the US, but they cost them billions in health care, lost productivity and lost resources.
Over the long run lifting the standards of living of people in Russia, China, India, Vietnam, Brazil, etc. is good for all of us. People who used to be subsistence farmers eventually become middle class consumers who buy our goods, as well as scientists and engineers who help solve the world’s biggest problems.
But I don’t agree that wages/benefits for workers is the only reason outsourcing becomes appealing.
Health care alone is a major factor in outsourcing. If the US’s health care system was as efficient as the UKs (only costing 8% of GDP rather than 17%), and was spread more evenly among society it would make the US more appealing to companies. As it stands companies have to pay a huge amount of money for health care. They pay half the medicare tax, they pay employee group premiums and their corporate taxes help fund programs like medicaid.
Making China stop manipulating their currency, making our health care as efficient as the UKs, and encouraging other nations to implement basic human/labor/environmental rights would do a lot to make the US more competitive globally. None of those lower the standard of living of US workers.
The same principles do not, however, apply equally in an industrial or in a post-industrial setting.
Greece’s problem was not spend and spend. It was rampant tax evasion. They would have done much better with a flat consumption tax.
Cite? Both for (1) tax evasion having caused the Greek financial crisis, and for (2) a “flat consumption tax” having a better track record for compliance and/or revenue yield than income tax or whatever Greek taxes you’re talking about.
I know that their problem was rampant tax evasion. That is not in conflict with the fact that the cause of their fiscal woes was low tax revenues combined with high expenditures.
I totally disagree. The red-blue difference between states is so minor compared to other economical factors that one can’t make any confident comparisons.
Explain to me why? The only difference is that in a post-industrial society, more people are knowledge workers instead of industrial or agricultural.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you didn’t check it out. It’s OK, mods are busy, it’s the silly season, etc.
It showed a few things: the most liberal states in the country are screwed financially - California, NY, Vermont. But I’m sure that’s a complete coincidence. Because you’ve taken the time to provide evidence to the contrary. Or not.
Brain, I would have thought that after getting completely owned in this conversation, you’d have piped down.
Interesting chart. But not really relevant to the point I was making. Apparently you wanted to make a different one?
My point is, the more liberal the leadership (and populace?) of the states, it seems the less within their means they tend to live.
Missed the edit window: one more point.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that libs are bad at math, or suck at governing, etc. There’s lots of possible reasons: large populations of urbanites and other poor people may lead to liberal leadership, not the other way around, but all those welfare types tends to rape the budget math. Or maybe liberals (meaning Dems) have no stones when negotiating with their masters, the unions… it’s pretty much beyond question that this was the case in NJ, when Corzine was giving away the store (and banging the chief union negotiator 
, I heard). I hope their new gov has the ability to pull that state (my homestate!) out of the nosedive they were put into by the Democrat administrations and Democrat-dominated legislatures.
I think they can recognize that incoming revenue is less than outgoing expenditures.
We are in deficit now with social security due to the recession and it will resume again in 2014 per the annual report. We will be in a deficit revenue stream for social security on top of the currently 13.8 trillion dollar debt. Fewer working people will be paying a larger bill.
Could be. Aside from texas, the states having the most fiscal problems tend to be blue states. However I don’t know if the problem is low tax revenue or high spending.
None of which makes SS a “Ponzi scheme.” That is the bullshit.
You are grossly devaluing the phrase “owned.” Just sayin’.
The most liberal states are also net losers in terms of federal taxes paid versus federal dollars spent, while the most conservative states are net beneficiaries of the federal budget. Look at your three examples: California gets 78 cents of federal money for each dollar it pays in federal taxes. New York gets 79 cents. Vermont admittedly is a net beneficiary, at $1.08.
The red state budgets are being propped up by federal spending, for all their bitching.
I hope you will accept being owned gracefully, and henceforward work to keep your fellow conservatives from raping the budget math, yes?
Ever going to go back to your ridiculous claims about Germany and Japan post-WWII Mr. Smashy?