A great article ... Republican states, cities are losing fast in productivity and in every aspects of the Economy. Figs 1 and 2 are eye popping.  
One simple reason for this: Republicans just talk and fight against almost anything that's good for this country. Dems do the actual work and innovations; and wealth creation - much much more tghan R's. And Moscow Mitch and others talk about not wanting to 'bail-out' blue states.

the stimulus money going to states is NOT being doled out on a straight pro-rata basis based on population.  The blue states are getting more because they are more in debt due to decades of Democratic mismanagement.  The figures don't lie.  

New York is a major blue state. And it balances its budget every year.

END OF MESSAGE

pension liability in the Billions.  That's where the stimulus money is going.  I will defer to your claim that NY is not like other blue states.  I think their oppressive taxation would be the reason they can balance their budget.    Did they balance the budget by defunding  the police, or by not wasting money on climate change bullshit like other  Blue states?

The NY budget was balanced with even cuts across the board. So while that does mean the police lost some money, so did everyone else. Fortunately, Joe's stimulus plan gave us some funding back. But considering NY contributes FAR more to Federal tax receipts than it takes, it was just SOME of our money coming back to us.
One thing about Cuomo; despite his proclivity for sexual harassment, he's always been fiscally sound.

defer to you on New York because I don't live there.  Do you want a pint of blood, too?  Lol

VERY
he's dumbest anywhere he goes

For reasons unknown, the OP brings up an article that’s 2 1/2 years old (September 10, 2019) and which has questionable conclusions. And yes, I did bother to read the article with all its graphs, etc., and my conclusion is that the authors overlooked a number of other factors that entered into the results.

However, I find it interesting that someone has nothing better to do than to scour old news and then present it as if it happened yesterday. Even more interesting is that this same poster when he was called on a previous post about the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally that was 7 months old responded to his critics and I quote: “Man!!! (are you?) You guys need a life - digging up on apost (sic) 7 months ago! e “
I guess his point, if there is one, is that it’s OK to present old news but not OK to criticize that same old news because of the fact it’s old. Sorry, but that’s a bunch of crap. Can we have a second round of voting?

the "voters" got it right last week when he was voted the stupidest poster on this board.  Trust the voters!!!

First, learn how to count. You say "an article that’s 2 1/2 years old (September 10, 2019)" - Is it? Count again!!! And, you call other people stupid? Just FYI today's date is 4/1/2021.

Second, these are macro studies that analyze decade(s) of data/ trends etc. In this particular paper they have reported numbers from about 2008 to 2018 - as they are available. That article is by no means 'old' or irrelevant. This is possibly the latest analysis available on its topic.

Third, you say "which has questionable conclusions. And yes, I did bother to read the article with all its graphs, etc., and my conclusion is that the authors overlooked a number of other factors that entered into the results. " Great that you read and let's discuss where you do not agree. BTW there has never been any serious paper written that has no limitations. One can always argue like you did "authors overlooked a number of other factors that entered into the results" - about 90% papers published in top journals and outlets. So that criticism is opportunistic but not surprising or nothing new.

Fourth, fact that you read it here first from my OP proves it is NOT old to YOU.

Fifth, You say "I guess his point, if there is one, is that it’s OK to present old news but not OK to criticize that same old news because of the fact it’s old." You are comparing apples and oranges! You are comparing a study that is reporting decade's of macro-economic trend versus a post by me about a ultra-short term (weeks) phenomenon of virus spread - which changed every few months so much so it made your party and your savvier look like buffoons.

Finally, you can call me whatever you want because you are pissed at me because I called you out correctly - as a righty masquerading as a 'balanced' poster! But I am not the one who is stupid. Look again. At least I know how to count.  

In the final analysis, I am happy for you coming out of the closet and showing your real color - of being a righty hack! I am glad I was able to help you.  

Just a friendly advice: when a somewhat intelligent person like you joins a group of dumbs (Cuck etc) - he or she becomes dumb too over time because of the company he keeps. Be careful.

END OF MESSAGE

on your two and half year old article because you don't have a clue what's going on this past week?  Nice.  Nice and stupid, that is.  You're the gift that keeps on giving.   A new laugh everyday.  We are all laughing AT you, not WITH you.  

So, red states roughly contributes 20 some % to the national GDP. Blue states contribute the rest! So who are more valuable for this country?
Here are some ironies: Mitch and other righties always threatening 'We do not want to bailout blue sates' - how empty that is! Liars!

Just for fun consider this: if we distributed which party would have how many seats in the senate by how much their states contribute to this country's wealth. Let's assume a generous 25% GDP contribution from the red states. This means 75 Dems and 25 Republicunts in the senate. This country will run so well and shine forever!

-- Modified on 4/5/2021 8:20:45 PM

END OF MESSAGE