If it’s about GDP, and/or the contribution by state & local governments, where is that mentioned in the original post?

Now, having avoided backing up your original assertion with reference information of any sort, you appear to be saying that librul states/cities/cantons/sleeper cells contributed most to the shrinking GDP.

So you are saying that those librul local governments were the most effective at cutting spending in recent years?

Nothing could be more self-evidently far from the truth.

1) Call me when anyone you know builds a road anywhere except from the road in front of their property to their front door/garage/barn. Just one example.

Which, self-evidently, brings us to:

2) Government organizations, for what they deliver, measured either by transactions per employee or clients/citizens per employee, are BY FAR more efficient and effective than corporations. Because they are actually watched by elected officials and citizens for how they spend. (Intelligence sector not included, per Republican fear-mongers (look in the mirror, honey.))
And because their profit is not measured in bonuses paid to executives at the end of the quarter, but by whether the bridge is up, or the sewer still whole, 50 years from now.

This isn’t about growth rates, so I don’t understand why you’re bringing it up? It’s about the contribution of state/local governments to GDP.

Even better would be a national map showing which cities/counties most contributed to the shrinking government share of GDP.

And again, dollars to doughnuts, my guess is that it’s predominantly the liberal states, the liberal urban areas, etc.

If your boss comes to you and tells you that you are going to take a pay cut you will struglle. Uness you make significantly more than you need to live, which state governments do not.

We know that “liberal” states are net-payers in the tax game — that New York pays for Alabama. So on the one hand, any stimulus funding has to be a shift from “liberal” to “conservative” states, and on the other hand any lack of stimulus will cause a short-fall primarily in “conservative” states, while allowing “liberal” states to offset local short-falls with a reduced federal burden.

We know that what is unsustainable, by simple historical fact, are the economic and cultural policies of “conservative” states, by the very fact that they’ve been kept afloat for generations by “liberal” states.

It’s unfortunate that reality undermines your religious position. Pick a more sensible one.

Looking at 2010 (the most-recent year with actual figures), the states with the highest growth rates were North Dakota, New York, Indiana, Massachusetts and Virginia. At the top, there seems to be a pretty even distribution of “Red” and “Blue” states. (Bottom 5 growth rates, however: Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, Oklahoma, Montana.) We can cherry-pick states to attempt to prove whatever point.

Yes, California and Illinois had low growth rates, while Texas did better than both of them – on growth rate. However, California – due to the size of its economy – contributed more to our national growth than Texas did.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/compare_state_spending_2010bZ0a

Alas, such information will not be accepted by ideology-powered filters.

On your last point,you are literally saying that our servicenen, policemen, librarians, etc. do not earn their funds. That is a lie.

As you see at end of that chart, real st/loc spending fell in recent years, even as the economy grew.

Don’t forget that although most states nominally have balanced budget amendments, there are all sorts of creative accounting tricks that states use to shift money around and run effective deficits. Some liberal bastions like Illinois and California have been contorting their budgets for decades, and when the recession hit they were not able to continue the charade.

Put the blame squarely where it belongs, the liberals across America that refuse to implement sustainable fiscal policies.