According to the commercial from the Montana Food Bank Network our state of Montana has the highest povery rate in the northwestern United States.

So..I keep wondering how it is that our state is a Republican state for the most part.

Can anyone explain to me why people who are struggling to survive are voting for Republican policies which by and large are detrimental to their own lives?

Because the Democratic Peoples Republic of California is a prime example of what we dont want.

Not everyone has your view that the republican policies are the cause of poverty. In fact some people just plain choose to live in poverty.

Can anyone explain to me why people who are struggling to survive are voting for Republican policies which by and large are detrimental to their own lives?

Kasey, please enlighten us on how not living beyond your means is detrimental. In your circuitous attempt to answer, you will probably swerve into the reason why.

Because the Democratic Peoples Republic of California is a prime example of what we dont want.

So what, precisely, do you find objectionable about California and how it's run?

Gee, Richard. Sounds to me like people who accept food stamps or welfare are living beyond their means. Starve, dirt farmers!

In a way Buck you are correct. However, such programs were intended to be a hand up, not a hand out. Policy that trap people into dependance, IMO are not a good thing.

Kacey, I have wondered that myself.

SS66, sounds like you hate jews with that SS thing you got going on. Isn't California being run into the ground by a Republican govenator.

Can anyone explain to me why people who are struggling to survive are voting for Republican policies which by and large are detrimental to their own lives?

God, Guns, and Gays

To answer Kacey's question, I offer two theories:

1. Many of the poor are displaced/unemployed natural resource workers (miners, loggers, roustabouts, etc.) and their descendants who believe that the Democrats have sided too often with the environmental groups to stop development and natural resource extraction. There is a certain element of truth to this.

2. Many of the poor are uneducated, some are quite stupid, and consequently are gullible enough to swallow the conservative blogger/FOX News agenda.

1. Many of the poor are displaced/unemployed natural resource workers (miners, loggers, roustabouts, etc.) and their descendants who believe that the Democrats have sided too often with the environmental groups to stop development and natural resource extraction. There is a certain element of truth to this.

2. Many of the poor are uneducated, some are quite stupid, and consequently are gullible enough to swallow the conservative blogger/FOX News agenda.

Theory #1 is spot on and absolutely true.

Theory #2 has some truth to it as well, but also points to a need that opposite perspective has in educating the poor as to how their economic policies function.

Can anyone explain to me why people who are struggling to survive are voting for Republican policies which by and large are detrimental to their own lives?

Which policies are you referring to?

Polarizing issues...gun control and abortion keep people voting Republican. Which is what the republican party for years have used to continue to get poor uneducated people to vote for them.

The republicans have had many opportunities to ban abortion, but they won't because they know that if they did, a lot of people would quit voting for them.

As far as gun control...what a crock of poop...no one has tried to take my guns away.

Most extractive industries in Montana tend to be unsustainable over the medium term. They can blame the environmentalists today while there's still some habitat, or they can blame themselves in a generation or two down the line when the trees are gone or the superfund site is well and truly established. Either way, they'll bitch eventually.

What's the cycle time for a tree harvest in Montana vs say, Alabama? 2x? Minimum? Suddenly, you're not so much "harvesting" trees as "mining" them, with no real thought for what happens when the "vein" plays out.

I remember walking into Little Caesars many years ago before the Presidential election. The clerk was talking with another person about how BUSH was going to make her life better with his tax cuts. I just stood there waiting for my pizza as this conversation continued. When I paid for my pizza I said to the clerk that Little Caesar must be paying way more than I thought. She asked me what I meant. I told her that in order for her to benefit from Bush's tax cuts she would have to be earning hundreds of thousands a year. She truly did not realize that.

Too many people are like sheep. Someone says something, it sounds good, so believe it without investigating whether it's true. Saddens me.

Perhaps she benefited by having a job.

Maybe if the Little Caesars was in Indonesia.

And gays. Don't forget that Republicans will make gay people disappear.

So, how many jobs were created during the eight years of the bush presidency, while all these tax cuts were in place?

Here's my basic test for rube-ness: If you believe that the correct response to both an economic boom and an economic bust is lowering taxes, and you're not already in the highest tax bracket, then you're a rube.

Or a toady.

Brady, to me "SS" means Super Sport, as in a muscle car.

Bridgier...saving the environment is great, but the real reason there are less mining or logging jobs available is because technology advances in the industry require less people to do the same/more work. Environmentalists have little to do with the decline of jobs in the industries.

True Jeff- as in Silver with a black roof.

Environmentalists have little to do with the decline of jobs in the industries.

So if people believe #1, it's actually an example of #2?

I'll buy that.

Environmentalists have little to do with the decline of jobs in the industries.

Not true. I live in a town full of people that are waiting for approval of Environmental Impact Statements so they can go back to work. Those EIS's are being held up by out of state environmental groups. My ability land new work has been impacted by this issue.

They other day Peabody Energy held a job fair to fill 25 temporary positions and had 600 applicants show up.

waiting for approval of Environmental Impact Statements so they can go back to work

Goddammit, back in my Pappy's day, they didn't need any Environmental Impact Studies to dig the Berkley By-God-Be-Dammed Pit, now did they?

Richard wrote:

They other day Peabody Energy held a job fair to fill 25 temporary positions and had 600 applicants show up.

How many of those 600 applicants do you think could pass a piss test?

Set an over/under.

Goddammit, back in my Pappy's day, they didn't need any Environmental Impact Studies to dig the Berkley By-God-Be-Dammed Pit, now did they?

That sort of proves the point of this whole exercise.

I told her that in order for her to benefit from Bush's tax cuts she would have to be earning hundreds of thousands a year. She truly did not realize that.

I'd say most people don't realize that since it wasn't/isn't true.

Richard, of those 600 how many of those were local? Take a look at Williston and the number of out of region/out of state people in the area. People are migrating to possible jobs not away from enviromental regulation. Talk to any 'old timer' and you will here of the many 'boom-bust' cycles in any extractive industry.

All 600 live here in Gillette.

You can't expand a coal mine without a lease, and you can't get a lease without an EIS. There are environmental groups in Washington State and in New Mexico that currently have the EIS process stalled. Really has very little to do with boom-bust cycles.

So, how many jobs were created during the eight years of the bush presidency, while all these tax cuts were in place?

Obviously quite a few. Since your memory is apparently fading maybe you would like to look at your 401K statements. We had a booming economy until the last two years of Bush. Then what happened, oh ya the democratic party took over the house and senate and here we are.

I told her that in order for her to benefit from Bush's tax cuts she would have to be earning hundreds of thousands a year. She truly did not realize that.

Too many people are like sheep.

Bush cut the lowest tax bracket by 1/3, he only lowered the highest by 4% so explain to me how you have to be making hundreds of thousands to benefit. Granted the gal at Little Caesars probably didn't make enough to pay taxes in the first place unless she was the owner.

Let's say that Little Caesars employee was a single mom making 25k a year.

http://www.foxnews.com/po...ts-affect/

A single parent of one child earning $25,000 would see his tax liability rise by $955, decreasing his tax refund of $1,856 to just more than $900. A low-income family of five earning a total of $45,000 would see their taxes increase by $2,538, equating to a total tax liability of $1,028.

But Kelly, what I really can't understand is if you thought there were no lower-and-middle class tax breaks in the Bush tax cuts, why do you think Democrats are trying to strike a deal to continue them? Why would they bargain to continue tax breaks you say don't exist?

Steve, I think your thought process is a'little' flawed. You're telling me it all went to hell in last 2 years of Bush's term? You Sir, have no idea of what you speak!
That was the beginning of our 'gridlock' fostered by a party sore about getting called out on their BS. And I'm not talking 'D' here.

But Kelly, what I really can't understand is if you thought there were no lower-and-middle class tax breaks in the Bush tax cuts, why do you think Democrats are trying to strike a deal to continue them?

All I said was, "God, Guns, and Gays."

Welcome to the club, Kelly.

For the Rickenhawk's sake maybe Kelly should start a new thread entitled Montana + TCP should not equal Republican!

Richard wrote:

They other day Peabody Energy held a job fair to fill 25 temporary positions and had 600 applicants show up.

I'm sure you can forgive me, Richard, for being a bit skeptical of any anecdotes you share on this site.

Something about 11 girls and a vaccine.

And as someone else stated, why don't these 600 people get off their lazy asses and drive up to the Baaken. Ain't that far. Plenty of jobs up there, and not just in the oil services industry.

ND unemployment rate currently 2.8%, and it has to be lower than that in the oil patch.

http://www.gillettenewsre...news01.txt

Thanks, Richard.

Sorry I should have said Kacey

Mr. Peabody's coal train may haul Gillette away, but no one is going to mistake Gillette for Paradise.

Bruce,

It must be nice to live in a world where facts have no meaning . How can there be a gridlock when one party controls both the house and senate? This is getting off subject and I am sure has been hashed over time and again so I won't waste much time explaining.

You would have us believe that through 6 years of economic growth, Bush was undermining the economy for failure, Really?

As most economists will agree the economic crisis we face today started with the housing crunch. The origin of the housing crunch was of course federally backed loans through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. These risky loans were backed by the federal government then repackaged into derivatives and in a domino effect later lead to the financial market collapse.

Bush, and don't get me wrong, Bush is not my idea of the ultimate president by any means, tried to run that train (Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac) off the track before it crashed into the economy. But your heroes Barney Frank and Chris Dodd would have nothing to do with that and blocked Bush's efforts to avoid such a crisis.

Do you know why Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota were not hit by the housing crunch? Thank your local banker. Small bank chains were not compelled to make these loans like the large bank chains.

Enough digression. Back to the subject.

The reason Montana has a high poverty level is its hostile attitude to incoming industry. High property tax and costs of doing business in Montana keep would be investors from creating high paying jobs in this wonderful state. Environmentalists have some affect and are not high on my list but lets face it nobody wants to breath brown air.

Surrounding states embrace emerging industries, offer lower costs through tax incentives and less government red tape.

How can there be a gridlock when one party controls both the house and senate?

Because it takes 60 votes to get past the party of no!

Montana is rated in the top ten states for good business climate.

http://www.taxfoundation...p59_es.pdf

I'm getting the feeling that Steve Z. really doesn't know what he's talking about.

This was my first clue to that, Bridgier:

Steve Z wrote:

So, how many jobs were created during the eight years of the bush presidency, while all these tax cuts were in place?

Obviously quite a few.

Sorry David,

When Bush took office the unemployment rate was 4.0%. Six years later, before the housing crunch, unemployment was at 4.4% About 100,000 new jobs are needed every month just to maintain a constant unemployment level. That means that several million jobs were created during that six year period. Nearly 7 1/2 years through Bush the unemployment level was still below 5%. The last 8 months is when all went to hell in a hand basket. At the end of that 8 year period unemployment was at 7.4%. Therefore there were big job losses in the last 8 months of Bush, but there was good economic growth and new jobs for years prior to that event. I think it is safe to say that tax rates alone do not control unemployment figures. There are many other factors such as terror attacks, economic bubbles and business compliance policy that affect economic and job growth.

Steve, can we agree that looking at the "jobs created" statistic is a dubious measure of a president's success or lack thereof? It's like Rick's Hauser's "Law" graph in that it fails to take into account a lot of other factors.

But if you want to focus on that statistic:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record.

http://blogs.wsj.com/econ...on-record/

David,

My intent was not to defend Bush's success or lack there of as a president. My position is that tax cuts do help economic growth which in turn supports job growth. There cannot be an expanding economy with out an expanding job market. The table in your link is useful in looking at an eight year term as one period, but as I mentioned job loss under Bush really only happened in the last eight months of his term. As the table shows there were still three million new jobs created even after the job losses in the last eight months. That supports my claim that millions of new jobs were created. Although that is a relatively small number there were many other factors as you pointed out that affect the job market.

Business compliance policy? If we didn't know they were cooking the books, everything would still be okay.

So ignoring the disastrous last 8 months of Bush's presidency, tax cuts are obviously good.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (12/18/2010)]

Tax cuts did not induce the disastrous last 8 months of Bush.

Steve, I think you are proposing that tax cuts during the G.W. Bush administration were the reason for job creation during his presidency. I believe that his job creation, even in his first term (so, factoring out your "the Democrats killed the economy in Bush's last 2 years" hypotheses) was average to lackluster. What is your basis for stating with such certainty that tax cuts equals job creation? It appears that other presidents created as many or more jobs. And do you ignore the impact those tax cuts have had on the budget defecit, the national debt, and the long term impact that servicing that debt will have? What are your thoughts? Do you think the country is better off today than 10 years ago?

Didn't say that, at all. It sounds like you'd prefer to think the last 1/2 year wasn't precipitated by the first 7 1/2, though.

No David, what I said was that tax cuts spur economic growth. Economic growth spurs job creation, can't have one without the other. I think we agree that many other variables affect the economy. My position with Bush was in response to a previous post that suggested there was not job growth during Bush's 8 year term when in fact there was. We agree there were 3 million new jobs created. I also illustrated that with the exception of the last 8 months job growth was not bad. There were around 6 million jobs created in the first 6 years of Bush unfortunately nearly half of them went away in the last 2 years. Nobody anywhere has suggested that tax cuts are the end all of economic woes. It is just one tool. If you are hungry eating a french fry won't fill you up but it will help. There are simply too many other variables, but tax cuts do spur economic growth and therefore job growth. That is my position on tax cuts. Even President Obama agrees with this line of thought. I don't believe I made the argument that tax cuts were the underlying reason for all the job growth under Bush Jr. Are we better off now than 10 years ago? I think not. But no correlation can be drawn between tax rates and where we are in the economy due to the vast number of outside influences.

As for budget deficits, increasing economic growth, and therefore job growth adds tax payers. The additional tax payers can actually increase the amount of tax revenue at a lower tax rate. It stands to reason that more productive people equals more tax revenue. We also have a government that has numbed itself of accountability and common sense. Out of control spending has to stop. Republican or Democrat it is business as usual in Washington. I do not think revenue is the problem, I think the out of control spending is the problem.

[This message has been edited by Steve Z (12/18/2010)]

Steve, what we are 'reaping' right now is the costs directly associated with the Bush era policies. That, my friend, is reality. Its sad that your pinnical of presidential achievement is G W Bush. Really sad..

No Bruce what is sad is conclusions people jump to, and not logical ones I might add. I support the idea that tax cuts spur economic growth, as does nearly every educated economist. The conclusion made by some readers is that I support Bush, or praise his success as a president. That is not correct. A previous post suggests there was no job growth during Bush, that is not correct. Truth is I hate supporting Bush, but agree with some of his policies and believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you have followed all my posts, not just the ones in this thread, you will find that I have also defended Clinton policy.

David Schott wrote:

Steve, I think you are proposing that tax cuts during the G.W. Bush administration were the reason for job creation during his presidency

To which Steve Z wrote:

No David, what I said was that tax cuts spur economic growth. Economic growth spurs job creation...

Do you see what you're saying?

Then you say that we need to offset tax cuts with cuts in spending to be fiscally smart. What does cutting spending beget? Layoffs. Enough to offset the theoretical job creation that lower taxes gives us? Don't know.

Even if, as you like to propose, during the last two years of his presidency the Democratically controlled congress hadn't destroyed the effect of G.W. Bush's economic brilliance, Bush's job creation would have been average at best.

Steve, how does the federal tax burden of recent years compare to the federal tax burden over the prior 30 or 40 years? Are Americans currently strapped with one of the highest, lowest, or an average federal tax burden?

Just sayin

That does it! I have lived in California for 16 years! If you have any doubt about why we're in trouble, ask the "Govenator"! They impeached Gov. Gray Davis (Democrat) years ago, after he increased our DMV fees, then they put in Arnold. He promptly gave us a rebate! The money has to come from somewhere! Maybe now that we have more Democrats in charge, things will get better. I know next to nothing about politics, but here in California, we need some Democrats in office!

Yes!!!!

Glad to see that you agree with yourself Dale .

California's problems didn't come from the Democrats or the Republicans. It started many years ago with a citizens' initiative that capped property taxes. As you sow, so shall you reap.

Steve, Steve, I have not seen a compelling argument from you to support your conclusions. Again I say; I sure hope that GWB is not your example of peak presidential performance.

As an aside: Just this morning, on the radio, heard an interview with Reagans treasury secetary (I believe) stating that any current economic stimilus we put in place will have greater positive impact in China than here (given our spending habits)

Something to think about...

David,

Steve, I think you are proposing that tax cuts during the G.W. Bush administration were THE reason for job creation during his presidency

What you said was THE reason, what I said is A reason. I never claimed THE reason for job growth during Bush Jr. was solely due to tax cuts. Maybe that was just a typo and not your intent, but it does change the meaning significantly. I merely made the comment that jobs WERE created. I also would not be caught calling him a brilliant economist. Tax cuts spur economic growth, period. Lower interest rates spur economic growth, period. In fact they work very much the same if you look at interest as a tax on borrowed money. Many other variables, as I have already said, affect economic growth. Further, economic growth cannot be sustained with out job growth, period. Take of that what you will. I have not heard a compelling argument to refute my position.

It really doesn't matter how strapped people are by the federal tax. The fact remains that lowering taxes spurs the economy. (It does have an effect on how much the economy increases, but never the less the economy will grow.)

Bruce,

The fact that I agree with some Bush Jr. policy in no way indicates my opinion of his overall presidency, successful or not. Don't worry he is not in my top 10 presidential icons list.

The conclusions you guys come up with are similar to saying McDonald's food causes obesity therefore all obese people eat at McDonald's. I on the other hand have made no conclusions, only stated fact. If you don't agree, prove me wrong and I will happily concede. Well maybe not happily, but I will concede.

Just sayin

Tax cuts spur economic growth, period.

Name one time in history where tax cuts spurred economic growth?

Steve, lets say for arguments sake that you are correct. Do you think that tax cuts for the poor and middle class would spur more economic growth than tax cuts for billionaires?

Just askin.

Steve Z wrote:

The conclusions you guys come up with are similar to saying McDonald's food causes obesity therefore all obese people eat at McDonald's. I on the other hand have made no conclusions, only stated fact.

Steve Z wrote:

We had a booming economy until the last two years of Bush. Then what happened, oh ya the democratic party took over the house and senate and here we are.

Steve is right.

California's problems didn't come from the Democrats or the Republicans. It started many years ago with a citizens' initiative that capped property taxes. As you sow, so shall you reap.

Yup, as someone who lived in CA during the meltdown, the people of California did that to themselves with the system where people can vote programs into existence without funding them and then make it nearly impossible to raise taxes to pay for the stuff they voted in.

If there's one person who was NOT to blame for CA's financial troubles, it's Schwarzenegger, who seriously tried as hard as he could to reform the state's finances, first with the legislature, then with the people via the initiative system and found no one who would work with him. It was only after repeatedly trying and completely failing to get any reform that he decided to give the people what they wanted and started a bunch of global warming stuff and infrastructure projects that finished off the budget completely. It's really unfair that people blame Arnold for this when the whole dang state was running toward the cliff and he was the only person trying to stop them before finally getting carried along with the tide.

Levi:

That's a very cogent analysis.

Prop 13 + Supermajority required to raise revenue == budget difficulties.

Econ 101,

Proof positive. I am a little rusty because I haven't had to explain basic economics since college, but here goes.

GDP=C+I+G+nE where GDP= Gross Domestic Product C= Consumption I= Investment and nE= net Exports ( Exports-Imports)

So if C goes up, all else remaining the same, GDP must also go up.

To further explain you need to understand consumption. Consumption is made up of two parts: Autonomous spending (Spending that will occur no matter what, food clothing, shelter, etc.) and Marginal Propensity to spend or disposable income, depending on which school of thought you subscribe to. As disposable income goes up Consumption goes up. Under Keynesian theory As disposable income goes up only a portion of that increase is spent on consumption and a portion on savings. Either way as long as the money is not burried in the back yard or hidden under a mattress it still goes into the economy. Banks loan a portion of the savings out which in turn is spent. A portion of the spent money is saved and subsequently loaned out and on and on. The key to focus on is that consumption goes up.

Now, unless you are willing to ignore the laws of mathematics, When taxes are reduced disposable income increases therefore consumption increases and gdp must also then increase. Argument over, case closed, Good Night!

Steve Z wrote:
We had a booming economy until the last two years of Bush. Then what happened, oh ya the democratic party took over the house and senate and here we are.

David,

My investment portfolio was up 51% in the first 7 years of Bush. But then maybe I just made better investment decisions than most. Understanding economics will do that for you.

Easy, stomach. Easy...

How much was it down the last two years, Steve? If you understood economics, you would have known the growth was unsustainable. Am I wrong?

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (12/21/2010)]

Steve Z, Miles City's Warren Buffett.

Steve Z, Miles City's Warren Buffett.

Only more modest.

Buck,

What makes you think I didn't see the crash coming? Luckily our local bankers and business owners saw it too. But in all fairness, and because I am so modest, I did not see the big picture if you will, in that I didn't predict how far the crash would eventually spread.

Hahahahahahaha. Our local bankers and business owners saw it coming, that's why they didn't invest their big bucks. Hahahahahahaha.

No, that is why we were not hit as hard as most of the country. I have no idea if they invested or not, and I bet you don't either.

The reason we weren't hit as hard as the rest of the country is because we are POOR, already. People who never had any money don't miss it much when it's gone.

So the recession only hit rich people in the cities?

Well, the dirt farmers felt the effect when people stopped buying dirt.

Work on some comprehension, Steve. "Weren't hit as hard" - Say it twice.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (12/21/2010)]

Sorry Buck

Dude...It's DaleLynn

Thanks for that!