- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:43 pm
LINK /
Are Republican governors better for a state’s economy? Fresh evidence offers some tantalizing clues.
Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.
Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.
North Dakota, in the midst of a fracking oil-boom, led the way with 8.4% growth in the final three months of 2013. Rounding out the top five were West Virginia, Wyoming, Louisiana and Nevada.
Only West Virginia, one of the nation’s poorest states, has a Democratic governor among the top 10 states.
The reasons why some states grow faster than others, of course, are varied and complex and often beyond short-term political control.
Most of the top performers are in the South and Southwest, previously underdeveloped regions whose economies have been stoked in part by soaring population growth. Other states like North Dakota have benefited from the fortuitous exploitation of abundant raw materials, primarily oil and gas.
Many of the slowest growing states such as Massachusetts and New York, by contrast, are older and more settled. They are also wealthier than the national average, however, and have higher percentages of residents with college degrees.
Other explanations for the disparity in growth include the level of taxes and regulations. Taxes in the South are lower, there are fewer unions and states in the region are more lightly regulated. So businesses have been keen to set up shop.
Economic legacy is also something that cannot be overlooked. Mississippi has been dominated by Republicans for more than a decade, but the historically poor state has not kept up with most of its Southern brethren.
In any case, the Republican advantage does not appear to be a one-quarter quirk. States led by Republican governors have also fared better since the end of the Great Recession in mid-2009.
Seven of the 10 fastest growing states, including the top seven, were run by Republican governors for all or most of the period from 2010 to 2013.
North Dakota again was No. 1 at 16.7% growth. The state was followed by Texas (7.1%), South Dakota (6.3%), Nebraska (6.3%) and Utah (5.8%).
What do MarketWatch readers think? Are Republicans better for your economy? Or are Democratic states better places to live?
Are Republican governors better for a state’s economy? Fresh evidence offers some tantalizing clues.
Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.
Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.
North Dakota, in the midst of a fracking oil-boom, led the way with 8.4% growth in the final three months of 2013. Rounding out the top five were West Virginia, Wyoming, Louisiana and Nevada.
Only West Virginia, one of the nation’s poorest states, has a Democratic governor among the top 10 states.
The reasons why some states grow faster than others, of course, are varied and complex and often beyond short-term political control.
Most of the top performers are in the South and Southwest, previously underdeveloped regions whose economies have been stoked in part by soaring population growth. Other states like North Dakota have benefited from the fortuitous exploitation of abundant raw materials, primarily oil and gas.
Many of the slowest growing states such as Massachusetts and New York, by contrast, are older and more settled. They are also wealthier than the national average, however, and have higher percentages of residents with college degrees.
Other explanations for the disparity in growth include the level of taxes and regulations. Taxes in the South are lower, there are fewer unions and states in the region are more lightly regulated. So businesses have been keen to set up shop.
Economic legacy is also something that cannot be overlooked. Mississippi has been dominated by Republicans for more than a decade, but the historically poor state has not kept up with most of its Southern brethren.
In any case, the Republican advantage does not appear to be a one-quarter quirk. States led by Republican governors have also fared better since the end of the Great Recession in mid-2009.
Seven of the 10 fastest growing states, including the top seven, were run by Republican governors for all or most of the period from 2010 to 2013.
North Dakota again was No. 1 at 16.7% growth. The state was followed by Texas (7.1%), South Dakota (6.3%), Nebraska (6.3%) and Utah (5.8%).
What do MarketWatch readers think? Are Republicans better for your economy? Or are Democratic states better places to live?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:44 pm to shipshoal
Poli board?
Money board?
Money board?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:45 pm to shipshoal
Ticket exchange board, dipshit.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:46 pm to shipshoal
we already know this. democrats suck arse and steal.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:02 pm to shipshoal
Should I feel bad for "Land Mass" with -3.0, the lowest in the country? Those poor bastards.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:08 pm to shipshoal
quote:
North Dakota, in the midst of a fracking oil-boom, led the way with 8.4% growth in the final three months of 2013.
You could take a chimp from the zoo, sit its arse in the governor's chair and probably get the same result. A shite-arse poor state hits the oil lotto and cashes in--thank all the dead dinosaurs, not the governor.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:14 pm to shipshoal
Makes sense that a Republican voter base would have greater economic success. I wouldn't attribute it to the party in office.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:32 pm to shipshoal
Governors have very little power.
Seriously.
Seriously.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:33 pm to shipshoal
This likely has less to do with the governor elected and more to do with the constituents.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:41 pm to TigerPanzer
quote:
result. A shite-arse poor state hits the oil lotto and cashes in--thank all the dead dinosaurs, not the governor.
If the Bakken was in California you can bet your arse they wouldn't have the same boom
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:45 pm to TheIndulger
quote:
If the Bakken was in California you can bet your arse they wouldn't have the same boom
shite, they'd drill Jerry Brown a new a-hole if he tried to keep them from fracking up the state.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:47 pm to shipshoal
If Louisiana is doing so well why is it projecting a 1.2 billion dollar shortfall next year?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:48 pm to shipshoal
quote:
States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates
Is this a new revelation?
Dems suck
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:53 pm to chryso
quote:
If Louisiana is doing so well why is it projecting a 1.2 billion dollar shortfall next year?
Because they paid for their growth partially in tax incentives to the film and chem industries... which is fine if it works. Mississippi is what happens when that plan doesn't work.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 1:56 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News