We have the blueprint for prosperity

[candycorn]

Pop Quiz Answer: the top picture creates a workforce which buys more cars.

Someone needs to engineer, manufacture, and install all of those "robots" genius. Those are much higher paying jobs than the minimum wage assembly line worker.

Add that to the fact that more automobiles can be manufactured faster and better with the "robots" - causing the price of the automobiles to plummet - and the answer is the to picture creates a workforce that buys more cars.

Top Picture: higher salaries with lower priced automobiles
Bottom Picture: lower salaries with higher priced automobiles

(Only a liberal would struggle with something this simple)

Auto assembly line workers made minimum wage? Wrong.
The price of cars has plummeted? Wrong.
Texas is a nice place to live?

Three strikes...you're out.

Please post where he said they made min wage. He didnt.

"than the minimum wage assembly line worker". Does your homosexuality keep you from reading?

The price of cars is roughly the same adjusted for inflation as it was 40 years ago. Yet the cars last twice as long. That is a lower price effectively.
Two strikes

So you agree the price has not plummeted in any way, shape, or form. Does your homosexuality keep you from looking in the dictionary?

Texas is a nice place to live. That's why businesses are relocating there in droves.
Three strikes
You're stupid.

Texas is a shit-hole. Try to resist the urge to violate it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Auto assembly line workers made minimum wage? Wrong.
The price of cars has plummeted? Wrong.
Texas is a nice place to live?

Three strikes...you're out.

Please post where he said they made min wage. He didnt.

"than the minimum wage assembly line worker". Does your homosexuality keep you from reading?

The price of cars is roughly the same adjusted for inflation as it was 40 years ago. Yet the cars last twice as long. That is a lower price effectively.
Two strikes

So you agree the price has not plummeted in any way, shape, or form. Does your homosexuality keep you from looking in the dictionary?

Texas is a nice place to live. That's why businesses are relocating there in droves.
Three strikes
You're stupid.

Texas is a shit-hole. Try to resist the urge to violate it.

OK, you are too stupid to understand what "price" means. We get it.
You couldn't find Texas on a map with both hands.

 

[P@triot]

Texas is a shit-hole. Try to resist the urge to violate it.

Sweetie, Detroit is the "shit-hole". The liberal utopia is a "shit-hole" of poverty, misery, and crime. In other words, what liberalism always results in.

Meanwhile, Texas is flourishing with jobs, wealth, and prosperity.

 

[The Rabbi]

Texas is a shit-hole. Try to resist the urge to violate it.

Sweetie, Detroit is the "shit-hole". The liberal utopia is a "shit-hole" of poverty, misery, and crime. In other words, what liberalism always results in.

Meanwhile, Texas is flourishing with jobs, wealth, and prosperity.

She's right. Houston's mayor is a carpet muncher. The place s going to hell.

 

[P@triot]

The price of cars has plummeted? Wrong.

Sweetie...I know you're a liberal high school drop-out who thinks that doing ecstasy at "raves" at the age of 35 is still "cool" and so your brain is a bit fried, but surely even you can realize (when educated conservatives such as me explain it to you) that the cost of an automobile manufactured manually is exponentially higher than the cost of an automobile manufactured via automation.

In typical liberal high school drop-out get high fashion, you're trying to compare the cost of an automobile from 1920 to today (hint: everything today is more expensive than 1920 - including water sweetie).

So yes, the price automation has caused the cost of automobiles to plummet compared to what they would be if manufactured manually today.

Tell me, how stupid do you feel right now sweetie...?

 

[P@triot]

Texas is a shit-hole. Try to resist the urge to violate it.

Sweetie, Detroit is the "shit-hole". The liberal utopia is a "shit-hole" of poverty, misery, and crime. In other words, what liberalism always results in.

Meanwhile, Texas is flourishing with jobs, wealth, and prosperity.

She's right. Houston's mayor is a carpet muncher. The place s going to hell.

Only liberals like candycorn could consider a prosperous thriving economy a "shit-hole" (because they are scared to death if people realize conservative policies end in prosperity, she'll have her government handouts taken away and she'll have to actually work for a living to support herself ).

 

[P@triot]

Pop quiz:, which of these workforces buys more cars?

Pop Quiz Answer: the top picture creates a workforce which buys more cars.

Someone needs to engineer, manufacture, and install all of those "robots" genius. Those are much higher paying jobs than the minimum wage assembly line worker.

Add that to the fact that more automobiles can be manufactured faster and better with the "robots" - causing the price of the automobiles to plummet - and the answer is the to picture creates a workforce that buys more cars.

Top Picture: higher salaries with lower priced automobiles
Bottom Picture: lower salaries with higher priced automobiles

(Only a liberal would struggle with something this simple)

The problem with your math is that there are fewer of those high paying jobs, so less people who can afford an automobile.

In fact,t he only reason why autos are "affordable" is because we have a whole banking system propping it up with car loans.

Again, guy, the economy will always "work" for the rich. It's making it work for the rest of us that's the trick.

Joe - your credibility is completely shot brother. I have proved you lied on nearly every post you've made on this thread. I listed some of the most successful/iconic companies in U.S. history and all of them were built out of garages or dorm rooms by people with no money (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dell, Facebook, Disney, Amazon, Harley-Davidson). That proves the economy works for the poor and middle-class, which in turn proves you are lying once again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sweetie, Detroit is the "shit-hole". The liberal utopia is a "shit-hole" of poverty, misery, and crime. In other words, what liberalism always results in.

Meanwhile, Texas is flourishing with jobs, wealth, and prosperity.

She's right. Houston's mayor is a carpet muncher. The place s going to hell.

Only liberals like candycorn could consider a prosperous thriving economy a "shit-hole" (because they are scared to death if people realize conservative policies end in prosperity, she'll have her government handouts taken away and she'll have to actually work for a living to support herself ).

But they dont have a high minimum wage, guaranteed health care, free contraceptives, hate speech codes, and gay marriage! What kind of place could that be other than a shit hole??

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I would say you're missing the larger trend. For instance, 9 of the 10 poorest states (whether by per-person income, median household income, or by median family income) are Republican states. These are states with the sort of low-taxation, regulation-light policies you're talking about. Two of them, Kentucky and Utah, are on the business-advocacy group the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's list of the top 10 states for low business taxes and regulations.

If these policies are a straight-up "blueprint for prosperity," why aren't they working everywhere? Hell, it's mostly Southern states in the last quintile in Gallup's most recent well-being study. Of course, this isn't strictly an economic indicator, but the "prosperity" and well-being are definitely linked - just look at North Dakota, which has leaped 19 places in rank to become #1 (just to remind you what a good oil boom can do!).

As to those liberal states you mentioned, well, let's take New York: should they deregulate their financial markets, which are the core of the NYC economy? Deregulation and failure of regulators concerning financial markets are both cited as primary reasons for the 2008 economic crash.

In short: there is no blueprint for prosperity, no simple ideological bent which can lead us to the Promised Land. Lower taxes and fewer regulations can be a good thing, but they're far from being the hammer that's gonna smash every economic nail.

When you say poor,what is that based on? Income?
Like I said earlier,a person on min wage in Houston can rent an all bills paid apartment for $600 bucks a month. While their counter part in NY or LA would need several room mates.
So who's better off?

That's a fair point, and I would even say cost-of-living needs to be a bigger part of these comparative datasets. But in this case, it's just not enough of a mitigating factor.

For instance, that Gallup link I posted is a quality-of-life study, not just a straight weighing of wages. If the low cost of living in Southern states is making up for lower wages, why are those states ranking so low when rated against factors like depression and psychological fulfillment?

I can give you a more straightforward example: those 10 poorest states also have high unemployment relative to other states, as well as higher population percentages without health insurance.

The health insurance issue is directly related to immigration.
As far as people being unhappy? I find that hard to believe,people in Texas are the friendliest you'll meet anywhere in the world.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Joe - your credibility is completely shot brother. I have proved you lied on nearly every post you've made on this thread. I listed some of the most successful/iconic companies in U.S. history and all of them were built out of garages or dorm rooms by people with no money (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dell, Facebook, Disney, Amazon, Harley-Davidson). That proves the economy works for the poor and middle-class, which in turn proves you are lying once again.

Poodle, don't have a meltdown.

For most working people, the economy has sucked since we let you Repukes start fucking with it.

The economy doesn't work for most of us.

 

[P@triot]

Joe - your credibility is completely shot brother. I have proved you lied on nearly every post you've made on this thread. I listed some of the most successful/iconic companies in U.S. history and all of them were built out of garages or dorm rooms by people with no money (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dell, Facebook, Disney, Amazon, Harley-Davidson). That proves the economy works for the poor and middle-class, which in turn proves you are lying once again.

Poodle, don't have a meltdown.

For most working people, the economy has sucked since we let you Repukes start fucking with it.

The economy doesn't work for most of us.

Well duh...you keep voting for Dumbocrats. As long as you continue to vote for people who want to bog down the nation with unfathomable debt, prevent the masses from rising up to ensure their own power, and who punish success, you will continue to get an economy that doesn't function very well.

Warren Buffett said it best in 2010: "money will always flow toward opportunity". Well, devastating taxes, crushing regulations, and "evil 1%" rhetoric is the exact opposite of opportunity chief.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe - your credibility is completely shot brother. I have proved you lied on nearly every post you've made on this thread. I listed some of the most successful/iconic companies in U.S. history and all of them were built out of garages or dorm rooms by people with no money (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dell, Facebook, Disney, Amazon, Harley-Davidson). That proves the economy works for the poor and middle-class, which in turn proves you are lying once again.

Poodle, don't have a meltdown.

For most working people, the economy has sucked since we let you Repukes start fucking with it.

The economy doesn't work for most of us.

Well duh...you keep voting for Dumbocrats. As long as you continue to vote for people who want to bog down the nation with unfathomable debt, prevent the masses from rising up to ensure their own power, and who punish success, you will continue to get an economy that doesn't function very well.

Warren Buffett said it best in 2010: "money will always flow toward opportunity". Well, devastating taxes, crushing regulations, and "evil 1%" rhetoric is the exact opposite of opportunity chief.

Uh, duh, we did what you guys said for 30 years.

The economy got worse for most of us.

Or are we supposed to believe that Obama was going to fix everything you guys have been fucking up since Reagan.

Incidently, I voted for Republicans right until you nominated a fucking MOrmon Cultist.

Then we were done.

 

[Paperman299]

Well, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Nebraska pretty much copied the Texas approach of lower taxes, less regulation and their economies are booming.
Illinois, California, Maryland and New York went the opposite way, higher taxes and more regulation, and their economies are poor.
QED.

I would say you're missing the larger trend. For instance, 9 of the 10 poorest states (whether by per-person income, median household income, or by median family income) are Republican states. These are states with the sort of low-taxation, regulation-light policies you're talking about. Two of them, Kentucky and Utah, are on the business-advocacy group the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's list of the top 10 states for low business taxes and regulations.

If these policies are a straight-up "blueprint for prosperity," why aren't they working everywhere? Hell, it's mostly Southern states in the last quintile in Gallup's most recent well-being study. Of course, this isn't strictly an economic indicator, but the "prosperity" and well-being are definitely linked - just look at North Dakota, which has leaped 19 places in rank to become #1 (just to remind you what a good oil boom can do!).

As to those liberal states you mentioned, well, let's take New York: should they deregulate their financial markets, which are the core of the NYC economy? Deregulation and failure of regulators concerning financial markets are both cited as primary reasons for the 2008 economic crash.

In short: there is no blueprint for prosperity, no simple ideological bent which can lead us to the Promised Land. Lower taxes and fewer regulations can be a good thing, but they're far from being the hammer that's gonna smash every economic nail.

Can you find the error in your post?
No, because you're stupid.

lol, whatever.

 

[The Rabbi]

I would say you're missing the larger trend. For instance, 9 of the 10 poorest states (whether by per-person income, median household income, or by median family income) are Republican states. These are states with the sort of low-taxation, regulation-light policies you're talking about. Two of them, Kentucky and Utah, are on the business-advocacy group the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's list of the top 10 states for low business taxes and regulations.

If these policies are a straight-up "blueprint for prosperity," why aren't they working everywhere? Hell, it's mostly Southern states in the last quintile in Gallup's most recent well-being study. Of course, this isn't strictly an economic indicator, but the "prosperity" and well-being are definitely linked - just look at North Dakota, which has leaped 19 places in rank to become #1 (just to remind you what a good oil boom can do!).

As to those liberal states you mentioned, well, let's take New York: should they deregulate their financial markets, which are the core of the NYC economy? Deregulation and failure of regulators concerning financial markets are both cited as primary reasons for the 2008 economic crash.

In short: there is no blueprint for prosperity, no simple ideological bent which can lead us to the Promised Land. Lower taxes and fewer regulations can be a good thing, but they're far from being the hammer that's gonna smash every economic nail.

Can you find the error in your post?
No, because you're stupid.

lol, whatever.

Answer: No.
Here's a hint. Poorer states have been poorer probably forever, certainly since 1865. It is irrelevant. What is relevant is the level of growth. And the red states are growing faster than the blue ones. Fact.

 

[Paperman299]

Joe - your credibility is completely shot brother. I have proved you lied on nearly every post you've made on this thread. I listed some of the most successful/iconic companies in U.S. history and all of them were built out of garages or dorm rooms by people with no money (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dell, Facebook, Disney, Amazon, Harley-Davidson). That proves the economy works for the poor and middle-class, which in turn proves you are lying once again.

Poodle, don't have a meltdown.

For most working people, the economy has sucked since we let you Repukes start fucking with it.

The economy doesn't work for most of us.

Well duh...you keep voting for Dumbocrats. As long as you continue to vote for people who want to bog down the nation with unfathomable debt, prevent the masses from rising up to ensure their own power, and who punish success, you will continue to get an economy that doesn't function very well.

Warren Buffett said it best in 2010: "money will always flow toward opportunity". Well, devastating taxes, crushing regulations, and "evil 1%" rhetoric is the exact opposite of opportunity chief.

Unfathomable debt? Debt comes from deficit, and Obama's cut the deficit in half from where Bush left the budget (who began with a surplus, no less).

Keeping down the masses? It's not Democrats pushing restrictive Voter ID laws, which would stop no voter fraud but prevent scores from voting

Punishing success? Pure rhetoric. Romney pays 13% in taxes on his capital gains. Warren Buffet is actually in favor of increasing taxes on capital gains.

In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent — and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.

Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation’s economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.

 

[The Rabbi]

Poodle, don't have a meltdown.

For most working people, the economy has sucked since we let you Repukes start fucking with it.

The economy doesn't work for most of us.

Well duh...you keep voting for Dumbocrats. As long as you continue to vote for people who want to bog down the nation with unfathomable debt, prevent the masses from rising up to ensure their own power, and who punish success, you will continue to get an economy that doesn't function very well.

Warren Buffett said it best in 2010: "money will always flow toward opportunity". Well, devastating taxes, crushing regulations, and "evil 1%" rhetoric is the exact opposite of opportunity chief.

Unfathomable debt? Debt comes from deficit, and Obama's cut the deficit in half from where Bush left the budget (who began with a surplus, no less).

Keeping down the masses? It's not Democrats pushing restrictive Voter ID laws, which would stop no voter fraud but prevent scores from voting

Punishing success? Pure rhetoric. Romney pays 13% in taxes on his capital gains. Warren Buffet is actually in favor of increasing taxes on capital gains.

]

Debt when Obama took office-$10 Trillion.
Current debt: $17 Trillion.
Obama hasn't cut shit. Spending has increased every single year he has been in office.

 

[Paperman299]

Well duh...you keep voting for Dumbocrats. As long as you continue to vote for people who want to bog down the nation with unfathomable debt, prevent the masses from rising up to ensure their own power, and who punish success, you will continue to get an economy that doesn't function very well.

Warren Buffett said it best in 2010: "money will always flow toward opportunity". Well, devastating taxes, crushing regulations, and "evil 1%" rhetoric is the exact opposite of opportunity chief.

Unfathomable debt? Debt comes from deficit, and Obama's cut the deficit in half from where Bush left the budget (who began with a surplus, no less).

Keeping down the masses? It's not Democrats pushing restrictive Voter ID laws, which would stop no voter fraud but prevent scores from voting

Punishing success? Pure rhetoric. Romney pays 13% in taxes on his capital gains. Warren Buffet is actually in favor of increasing taxes on capital gains.

]

Debt when Obama took office-$10 Trillion.
Current debt: $17 Trillion.
Obama hasn't cut shit. Spending has increased every single year he has been in office.

So I guess you agree with me about Voter ID and the Buffet Rule?

Your numbers for the debt are the right numbers, and yet your post is completely wrong. The deficit has decreased nearly every year Obama has been in office, and has never been as high as the last budget Bush left him with.

Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 billion
FY 2014*: $649 billion
FY 2013: $680 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion

As to your other post, just go back in the thread and read what I already posted about population growth creating raw job growth but not necessarily prosperity. For instance, unemployment is dropping in those poorest states, but essentially at the same rate as the national average.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unfathomable debt? Debt comes from deficit, and Obama's cut the deficit in half from where Bush left the budget (who began with a surplus, no less).

Keeping down the masses? It's not Democrats pushing restrictive Voter ID laws, which would stop no voter fraud but prevent scores from voting

Punishing success? Pure rhetoric. Romney pays 13% in taxes on his capital gains. Warren Buffet is actually in favor of increasing taxes on capital gains.

]

Debt when Obama took office-$10 Trillion.
Current debt: $17 Trillion.
Obama hasn't cut shit. Spending has increased every single year he has been in office.

So I guess you agree with me about Voter ID and the Buffet Rule?

Your numbers for the debt are the right numbers, and yet your post is completely wrong. The deficit has decreased nearly every year Obama has been in office, and has never been as high as the last budget Bush left him with.

Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 billion
FY 2014*: $649 billion
FY 2013: $680 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion

As to your other post, just go back in the thread and read what I already posted about population growth creating raw job growth but not necessarily prosperity. For instance, unemployment is dropping in those poorest states, but essentially at the same rate as the national average.

I dont know wtf you're babbling about.
The deficit is higher now than at pre-recession levels. That means the deficit is higher under Obama than it was under Bush.
You've been thoroughly disgraced and taken to the wood shed. I'd quit whiel I was behind if I were you.

 

[Paperman299]

Debt when Obama took office-$10 Trillion.
Current debt: $17 Trillion.
Obama hasn't cut shit. Spending has increased every single year he has been in office.

So I guess you agree with me about Voter ID and the Buffet Rule?

Your numbers for the debt are the right numbers, and yet your post is completely wrong. The deficit has decreased nearly every year Obama has been in office, and has never been as high as the last budget Bush left him with.

Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 billion
FY 2014*: $649 billion
FY 2013: $680 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion

As to your other post, just go back in the thread and read what I already posted about population growth creating raw job growth but not necessarily prosperity. For instance, unemployment is dropping in those poorest states, but essentially at the same rate as the national average.

I dont know wtf you're babbling about.
The deficit is higher now than at pre-recession levels. That means the deficit is higher under Obama than it was under Bush.
You've been thoroughly disgraced and taken to the wood shed. I'd quit whiel I was behind if I were you.

You've got nothing to crow about. You've yet to post something that didn't hurt the OP's point. The fact that you clearly don't know the difference between the debt and the deficit makes this sort of sad.

Go google those terms, and then try and come back and finagle an explanation as to how your last two posts make sense. I'd say I was looking forward to it, but this is getting sort of pitiful.

 

[The Rabbi]

So I guess you agree with me about Voter ID and the Buffet Rule?

Your numbers for the debt are the right numbers, and yet your post is completely wrong. The deficit has decreased nearly every year Obama has been in office, and has never been as high as the last budget Bush left him with.



As to your other post, just go back in the thread and read what I already posted about population growth creating raw job growth but not necessarily prosperity. For instance, unemployment is dropping in those poorest states, but essentially at the same rate as the national average.

I dont know wtf you're babbling about.
The deficit is higher now than at pre-recession levels. That means the deficit is higher under Obama than it was under Bush.
You've been thoroughly disgraced and taken to the wood shed. I'd quit whiel I was behind if I were you.

You've got nothing to crow about. You've yet to post something that didn't hurt the OP's point. The fact that you clearly don't know the difference between the debt and the deficit makes this sort of sad.

Go google those terms, and then try and come back and finagle an explanation as to how your last two posts make sense. I'd say I was looking forward to it, but this is getting sort of pitiful.

I made it pretty plain. Debt: UP! Deficit: down from heightened levels of recession but still higher than pre recession Bush levels.
If you can't understand this, get an adult to explain it to you.