Not trying to slam Arkansas but it alone with Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and a few others have always remained in fiscal ruin. It isn't due to the citizens who are able bodied and willing.
This is my biggest arguement against neo-conservative fiscal policies. Their states have always been poor, which to me is an issue of leadership and direction, not an issue of the residents themselves other than they continue to vote in the same type of politicians every time. Your thoughts on this... AND (without insults) please offer a counter explanation as I am open for discussion.
2007-12-21 03:07:04 · 18 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
RitchWil (below) I agree with some of your response as to where some of the problem may be found. Yet I still say it takes leadership and direction to address problems. Someone or something lists goals and lays out a way to achieve them.
Iraq is a good example. The troops have aleays been there. Rumsfeld's leadership caused the problems. Petreus leadership is resolving the problem. Your thoughts.
2007-12-21 03:32:04 · update #1
- always been there - (above)
2007-12-21 03:32:36 · update #2
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the economic conditions in Arkansas are the result of Republican policy rather than the lack of education and productivity of the people?
Chi, where do you get this crap? I bet you believe that presidents Bush and Clinton actually created all those jobs during their presidency. No, Chi, people and businesses created those jobs. Politicians, whether democrat or republican do not create jobs.
As to your question, the reason that Arkansas is close to being a third world country is the same as it would be in a real third world country. The level and quality of education ranks somewhere near 49 out of 50. When your populous is relatively uneducated, it's difficult to build a strong economy. And that level of education is the fault of the people, not the government, just as is the case in the inner cities where they have decent schools and a populous that does not respect education.
So, tell me, what democrat fiscal policies would turn this around? Those fiscal policies have worked so well in the inner cities, I guess they'll do wonders in places like Arkansas, huh?
2007-12-21 03:21:03 · answer #1 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Those states you list have never been wealthy. Traditionally they have been among the poorest states. Since the end of the Civil War much of the South has been that way. They take very few steps to recover. Georgia is one of the few states, under Jimmy Carter as Governor, that has made any progress toward improving their financial situation. Florida with the theme parks seems to do okay too but the others continue down the same path as they always have. Both Clinton and Huckabee did try and bring Arkansas up but the people of the state have to want to do it. They apparently are happy with things the way they are.
2007-12-21 11:17:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Their are some pockets in the south that are dirt poor, there's no money in the town or county and there's none coming in. It is my understanding this is the case entirely because of the civil war, it drained the resources in that area and when they lost no effort was made to rebuild it. Only by some action like a factory opening in a region (Spring Hill TN's Saturn plant is a good example this) can create the spurred growth, and it's been very slow to happen in all areas.
Disclaimer: I'm not so sure how accurate my answer is.
2007-12-21 14:14:52 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is funny. You point out that they are voting the same type of politicans, but then you try to blame it on neo-conservative policies. Clinton's fiscal policies as governor were pretty liberal, and so have Huckabee's been. Now, Huckabee has not been as liberal as Clinton was, and Arkansas has improved some.
Huckabee is not fiscally conservative enough for Arkansas, and he is not fiscally conservative enough for the US.
poet1...ROFLMAO. Arkansas was doing OKAY. Not great, but okay when Clinton took over. HE CRUSHED IT. Their economy went into the toilet. Huckabee has brought it back ot OKAY. As for the US economy, he was handed a VERY prosperous economy, and did pretty well with it for a while, but when the dot.com bubble burst, he had no ideas of his own to keep it up, and handed Bush a recession.
2007-12-21 11:14:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because of Clinton and Huckabee. And was there one who resigned as well? I am no Huckabee fan and more & less I wanna know. More pardons than Carter & Clinton? His religious zeal which is personal choice. Period?!
Imagine Hillary was deemed un electable in Arkansas?! The Clinton library was built by?? Money is not an issue from what I can tell in Arkansas. Religion became one. I don't want repeats of either in the White House. Joe Lieberman is McCains choice so far... I can live with that.
2007-12-21 11:15:17 · answer #5 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"have always remained in fiscal ruin". Without some sort of time frame reference, I have to conclude you mean "since the beginning". You might also include KY and IN. Indiana is in fiscal ruin, but it has to do more with people not wanting to stay there once educated, and a vicious cycle of boring employers who are outdated about employment practices (with some exceptions). You can't put it on politics, EXCEPT to say that these aren't population powerhouses prone to weilding lots of power. Montana is the same, but people don't spend on government as much, and therefore have less... er... ruin.
2007-12-21 12:09:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't say fiscal ruin, but the southern states do seem to have lower per capita income and general overall poverty not seen in other regions of the country.
I think you make some valid points. I'd like to see what others say. This could be a lively discussion.
2007-12-21 11:16:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Arkansas remain in economic ruin because the Walton family's bleeding it dry.
Billions go to Bentonville, but never gets distributed in the rest of the state because the Waltons prefer to remain on Forbes' top ten list of the wealthiest Americans. -RKO- 12/21/07
2007-12-21 11:17:04 · answer #8 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it's actually just the Delta Region. NW Arkansas is one of the richest areas in our nation. Little Rock/central is doing pretty good. Southern Arkansas is average, NE Arkansas has a lot of Agriculture land.. but is doing pretty well... and the Delta.. especially the east central and southeastern areas, are the ones that need the most help. There are plans in the works from current Governor Beebe to bring industry to those areas to help them progress.
2007-12-21 11:11:25 · answer #9 · answered by pip 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Actually, your case would be more of an argument against federal liberal policies, wouldn't it?
If LBJ's "Great Society" was supposed to create equality and elevate everyone, wouldn't it be true that the social programs created by this philosophy elevate the people in these states? And if this were the case, wouldn't the incomes of people in these states catch up with the incomes of people in other states?
2007-12-21 11:34:22 · answer #10 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋