| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
How'd That Work Out |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 10/21/08 9:44:27 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question is, what did voting for Bush do for WV?
The only reason Carnacki asks that question is because to a raging liberal there can be no answer other than "Bush is Hitler".
The thing is, WV is better off in a lot of ways. Coal prices are through the roof. Like it or not, coal is what runs the state's economy. The amount of tax money the state takes from coal companies is outrageous, but in the end it pays for all the social programs you insist upon.
Right now, coal prices are so high that non-union miners are making significantly more money than union miners (because the union negotiates a "fair" wage instead of letting the market decide.) That's gotta smart.
The key indicator is unemployment rate. West Virginia's unemployment rate is now well below the national average. In fact, it has steadily fallen during the Bush administration, from a high of 11.5% during the Clinton years to the current rate of 4.1%.
I'm not saying everything is perfect in the Mountain State, but West Virginians have fared pretty well economically during Bush's two terms in office.
I wonder how things would have gone under Gore or Kerry? The unions would have been stronger, taking more of the worker's money and costing jobs. Taxes on individuals would have been higher, so there would be less take-home pay. The coal industry would have been penalized through higher taxation and more regulation, which would lead to fewer jobs and less energy production. Lower energy production would mean less income for the state, and higher energy prices for everyone.
Before assuming an answer to the question, it might be a good idea to actually look at how things turned out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
| | < "Obama Sent the Wrong Ad" | | "Gun Show Question" > |
|
|
|
|
