Bloomberg: Obama Misreads Message of ‘Live Free or Die’: Amity Shlaes

[Stillers6SB]

Then again, it could all be due to rich people from Massachussetts living in southern New Hampshire to pay lower taxes while using mostly MA public roads and other services, essentially shifting their tax burden onto others.

A lot of ideas may appear to have some merit, but as SellersHappens pointed out, without enough information it's all just :blahblah:

Maybe, but more likely that shoppers from other states are crossing the border into New Hampshire to buy crap tax free, thus stimulating retailers in NH.

>In fact, New Hampshire is the second-highest consumer of alcohol per capita, even though it has laws similar to Washington state, according to a 2003 study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). This includes a state monopoly on liquor and no sales in grocery stores.

I live in NH. I'm not sure exactly what study you are referencing, but there is a good chance that it cites NH as the second-highest selling consumer of alcohol based on total sales volume divided by its population. This makes sense, because here in NH we have extremely cheap liquor compared to its nearby states like MA, ME, VT, RI and NY. We have liquor stores with their own highway exits, so many people buy it in NH as they are passing through. This distorts the figures greatly, and one of the studies on the NIAAA even mentions this

http://westernfrontonline.net/2010062512409/frontline/frontline-privatizing-liquor-sales-will-not-lead-to-increase-in-alcohol-abuse/

One state playing tax games with it's neighboring states. It works for some states; but wouldn't work if every state did it.

[oisn1]

Sorry, I missed where a 20 year depression (New Deal), the subsidization of irresponsible behavior (Great Society), and the devaluation of the money supply (massive spending and inflation) help the economy.

Liberal economic policies don't work; deal with it.

Conservative economic policies don't work; examples include Feudalism and most every economy before the 1900s (high wealth disparity, crushing poverty).

Here's the biggest example I can think of, look at the lives of people before and during the Great Depression (caused by unregulated "free-market" capitalism). Men and women working all day in hazardous conditions for pennies; no vacations and no breaks. Now compare that to the later years up to today and how quality of life has improved. Without liberalism, there is no social net, there are just "bootstraps". Without liberalism, we become another third world country where a big company forces us to make shoes for pennies and we can't complain or they fire us.

Optimistically, a pure liberal economy can work if everybody were perfect and selfless; and everyone would be comfortable and happy (socialism). Optimistically, a pure conservative economy would lead to Walmart and others taking over all distribution, production, etc. and charge whatever they wanted. A few elite rich would have all the wealth and small pittances would be fought for by 95% of the population (olden times).

I hate to be token "middle of the road" guy, but economics needs a mix of both sides. They both spur growth through different means (for example, competition or cooperation) but need the other to balance out. Still, in today's world, the most powerful economies are a balance between conservatism and liberalism (USA, Europe, China, Japan). Just remember that our recession is nothing compared to the daily lives of people in "conservative economies" like Africa.

[mcsluggo]

San Francisco... filled with Californians, in all their glory.

Fresno... also filled with Californians.

SF, liberal as a ribbon fest in Marseilles.

Fresno, conservative as Atila's jockstrap.

San Fransisco, rich and prosperous with high property values, and the use of Merlot to wash feet (since it is not fit to drink).

Fresno, a dump filled with low property values and McDonalds extra value meals.

Liberalism rulse the day!

it is always fun to plot graphs based on one data point, the delta between two non-randomly selected observations... just saying. (and i know it has ALREADY been pointed out, but i LIKE beating dead horses!)