We have the blueprint for prosperity

[The Rabbi]

That's the thing. You debunk some claim, like "Bush lied us into war" and then 5 threads later the same people are still making the same claim.
Libs never learn.

 

[P@triot]

Now for taxing REAL rich people.

Um, when we taxed them at 70%, you know, before that fuck-up Reagan, we had balanced budgets, we had steady growth.

When Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, the national debt stood at a staggering $994 billion. That is your idea of a "balanced budget"?!?

Now let's look at the last (and only) time there was no national debt. None. Stood at $0.00. The year was 1835. Andrew Jackson was president. And there was no federal income tax. None (that didn't happen until Abraham Lincoln implemented it to pay for the Civil War). But there was also none of the liberal nonsense that has collapsed this nation with debt - no Social Security. No Welfare. No Medicaid. No Medicare. No Obamacare. None of the stuff that has caused the debt in America). And you can't blame the military junior, because we had a military.

Once again, I prove you are a mountain of misinformation and lies. You claim we had "balanced budgets" before Reagan when in fact we had nearly $1 trillion in debt and when we actually did have a balanced budget - it was before we had the bullshit nonsense that you love: taxes and socialism.

Hot damn it feels good to own you with facts!!!

 

[P@triot]

That's the thing. You debunk some claim, like "Bush lied us into war" and then 5 threads later the same people are still making the same claim.
Libs never learn.

Well they are liberals. If they didn't lie, they wouldn't be able to make an argument. They would have to admit defeat. Lying is a requirement for entry into the libtard club.

 

[Paperman299]

Personally, I think prosperity is having a good business environment even if you don't have the governor's ear, and having proper funding for the school your kid goes to. But what do I know, I'm just a liberal who makes things up, right?

Yes, you are.
10 Best States for Starting a Business | Entrepreneur.com

Texas: The Lone Star State has more than 2.2 million small-businesses accounting for more than half of its private sector jobs. Also, since 2009, Texas has ramped up its STEM workforce by 34,000, primarily in the computer and IT fields.

So you shy away from all my points save one, and you counter U.S. Census Bureau data with...a magazine article?

First, 34,000 jobs in a state of 25 million is not impressive. It's not even a blip. And for someone who's jabbing the left for having a short memory, it's surprising you're arguing a point that wouldn't have held up four or five pages ago on this very thread. I'll re-post to remind you:

Meanwhile, the share of the Texas economy produced by the information, communications, and technology sectors is 27 percent smaller than it was in 1998

That's what 34,000 jobs over 4 or so years gets you.

And to repeat myself again, Texas is nearly dead last for share of the population that owns their own businesses. Does that make it a desolate, radioactive wasteland? No, of course not. But your position isn't that Texas is "pretty nice," you're selling it as an economic utopia driven by conservative policies. That just doesn't square with the facts.

 

[RoadVirus]

California and New York are the most powerful economies in the country.

You better see a shrink about your delusions.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Psst...where did I say I was "rich"? Please cite the post number or you prove once again that you are a liar. I've never given any indication of my wealth one way or another except to say that I am gainfully employed.

Yes, I'm sure you are doing a fine job of bagging those groceries. Sneering at the single mother when she whips out her LINK card.

[
Second, there was a deficit before Reagan. You just proved again that you are a liar.

Uh, yeah, this is where i suspect you are about 25 and spend too much time reading Ayn Rand.

In 200+ years of history up to Ronnie Raygun, the entire national debt was less than 1 trillion. Then between Reagan's tax cuts for rich people and his $600 Toilet Seats at the Pentagon, he managed to triple that to 3 Trillion. When his buddies on Wall Street got done looting the S&L's and crashing the market when he left, it bounced up to 5 Trillion before we threw Bush Sr. out on his can.

[
Finally, I've already proven time and time again that everyone except for the poor pays more than their "fair share" and that to get us to pay our "fair share", you would need to drastically cut taxes junior. Straight from the Congressional Budget Office: the top 1% in America earns 13% of the wealth but pays 22.3% of all taxes. Oops... Game over junior.

(Psst....notice the orange bar <taxes paid>, exceeds the grey bar <income earned>, in every group until the last two?!? )

1) The top 1% owns 43% of the wealth.
2) The top 20% owns 87% of the wealth.
3) Income Tax is not the only tax collected. Working folks get hit harder by Medicare and Social Security Taxes because they are capped after 100K.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Personally, I think prosperity is having a good business environment even if you don't have the governor's ear, and having proper funding for the school your kid goes to. But what do I know, I'm just a liberal who makes things up, right?

Yes, you are.
10 Best States for Starting a Business | Entrepreneur.com

So you shy away from all my points save one, and you counter U.S. Census Bureau data with...a magazine article?

First, 34,000 jobs in a state of 25 million is not impressive. It's not even a blip. And for someone who's jabbing the left for having a short memory, it's surprising you're arguing a point that wouldn't have held up four or five pages ago on this very thread. I'll re-post to remind you:

Meanwhile, the share of the Texas economy produced by the information, communications, and technology sectors is 27 percent smaller than it was in 1998

That's what 34,000 jobs over 4 or so years gets you.

And to repeat myself again, Texas is nearly dead last for share of the population that owns their own businesses. Does that make it a desolate, radioactive wasteland? No, of course not. But your position isn't that Texas is "pretty nice," you're selling it as an economic utopia driven by conservative policies. That just doesn't square with the facts.

I'm here to tell you you're full of shit and have obviously never lived here.
Everything is cheaper here and the pay scale in Houston is above the national average. I wont say the same for small towns and there are lots of them,but that can be said about small towns across the country.
So given the buying power for that income you get a hell of a lot more for your money.

 

[Paperman299]

So you shy away from all my points save one, and you counter U.S. Census Bureau data with...a magazine article?

First, 34,000 jobs in a state of 25 million is not impressive. It's not even a blip. And for someone who's jabbing the left for having a short memory, it's surprising you're arguing a point that wouldn't have held up four or five pages ago on this very thread. I'll re-post to remind you:

Meanwhile, the share of the Texas economy produced by the information, communications, and technology sectors is 27 percent smaller than it was in 1998

That's what 34,000 jobs over 4 or so years gets you.

And to repeat myself again, Texas is nearly dead last for share of the population that owns their own businesses. Does that make it a desolate, radioactive wasteland? No, of course not. But your position isn't that Texas is "pretty nice," you're selling it as an economic utopia driven by conservative policies. That just doesn't square with the facts.

I'm here to tell you you're full of shit and have obviously never lived here.
Everything is cheaper here and the pay scale in Houston is above the national average. I wont say the same for small towns and there are lots of them,but that can be said about small towns across the country.
So given the buying power for that income you get a hell of a lot more for your money.

Cool. I'm not gonna dispute any of that. But I also don't see how it's disputed anything I've said.

I don't know how many times, or how many ways, I need to say it: Texas is a good place to live. I partly grew up there. I'm just north of you now, in Oklahoma; if all the posters in this thread got in their cars and drove to your house, I'm guessing I'd get there first.

But the OP is making a case way, way beyond "it's pretty nice" in saying Texas's current economic policies are a literal "blueprint" for the rest of the nation. Texas's government simply does not know something other legislatures don't; even Houston, in particular, is having its fair share of troubles. So should other state governments be copying Texas's "blueprint?" I just don't see any strong evidence for that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you shy away from all my points save one, and you counter U.S. Census Bureau data with...a magazine article?

First, 34,000 jobs in a state of 25 million is not impressive. It's not even a blip. And for someone who's jabbing the left for having a short memory, it's surprising you're arguing a point that wouldn't have held up four or five pages ago on this very thread. I'll re-post to remind you:



That's what 34,000 jobs over 4 or so years gets you.

And to repeat myself again, Texas is nearly dead last for share of the population that owns their own businesses. Does that make it a desolate, radioactive wasteland? No, of course not. But your position isn't that Texas is "pretty nice," you're selling it as an economic utopia driven by conservative policies. That just doesn't square with the facts.

I'm here to tell you you're full of shit and have obviously never lived here.
Everything is cheaper here and the pay scale in Houston is above the national average. I wont say the same for small towns and there are lots of them,but that can be said about small towns across the country.
So given the buying power for that income you get a hell of a lot more for your money.

Cool. I'm not gonna dispute any of that. But I also don't see how it's disputed anything I've said.

I don't know how many times, or how many ways, I need to say it: Texas is a good place to live. I partly grew up there. I'm just north of you now, in Oklahoma; if all the posters in this thread got in their cars and drove to your house, I'm guessing I'd get there first.

But the OP is making a case way, way beyond "it's pretty nice" in saying Texas's current economic policies are a literal "blueprint" for the rest of the nation. Texas's government simply does not know something other legislatures don't; even Houston, in particular, is having its fair share of troubles. So should other state governments be copying Texas's "blueprint?" I just don't see any strong evidence for that.

Fair enough. But you cant deny Texas economic growth is better then the rest of the nations. How do you account for it? We're obviously doing something right down here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have the blueprint for prosperity

You have the blueprint for minimum wage jobs, poor access to healthcare, reckless environmental policies, and an education system hostile to facts and the truth.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

We have the blueprint for prosperity

You have the blueprint for minimum wage jobs, poor access to healthcare, reckless environmental policies, and an education system hostile to facts and the truth.

Sounds like you got us confused with detroit.
And even though you're full of crap about wages,you can get an apartment with all bills paid for $600 bucks. Making it possible to afford housing even if you do work for min wage. So who has it better? The guy who can afford housing at min wage,or the guy who needs three room mates to afford housing at min wage?

 

[P@triot]

Uh, yeah, this is where i suspect you are about 25 and spend too much time reading Ayn Rand.

Too late junior... You already said we had "balanced" budgets before Ronald Reagan, when in fact the nation was nearly $1 trillion in debt.

Furthermore, the last time we actually did have a balanced budget, we had no federal taxes, no Social Security, no welfare, no food stamps, no Medicare, no Medicaid, and no Obamacare.

I think you're slowly realizing that the policies you have been supporting create poverty, debt, and misery. The facts are indisputable.

 

[Paperman299]

Cool. I'm not gonna dispute any of that. But I also don't see how it's disputed anything I've said.

I don't know how many times, or how many ways, I need to say it: Texas is a good place to live. I partly grew up there. I'm just north of you now, in Oklahoma; if all the posters in this thread got in their cars and drove to your house, I'm guessing I'd get there first.

But the OP is making a case way, way beyond "it's pretty nice" in saying Texas's current economic policies are a literal "blueprint" for the rest of the nation. Texas's government simply does not know something other legislatures don't; even Houston, in particular, is having its fair share of troubles. So should other state governments be copying Texas's "blueprint?" I just don't see any strong evidence for that.

Fair enough. But you cant deny Texas economic growth is better then the rest of the nations. How do you account for it? We're obviously doing something right down here.

I account for it, first and foremost, by the Eagle Ford shale. Like North Dakota, you've suddenly got access to difficult-to-reach reserves of resources thanks to new technologies (ie, hydrofracking and horizontal drilling).

This has given Texas a new oil and gas boom, similar to the one in North Dakota that has been creating up to 2,000 millionaires a year.

I would also factor in your rapid population growth. Since 1980, your population's exploded: it increased 76% by 2010. Domestic net migration is negligible, and international immigration is a factor, but from what I can tell you're...you're just having so many babies! And your GDP increases as the size of your economy increases.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The rich states, California, New York, etc...are paying Texas' tax bill.

And the people of Texas are paying the price for conservative values with low wages and no healthcare.

Slavery means 100% employment.

California is bankrupt.
New York is bankrupt.
How are they "rich"??

California is the largest economy in the country with a balanced budget thanks to a new Democratic governor.

And New York is not bankrupt.

to use Jerry Brown&#8217;s own words, California has a &#8220;wall of debt,&#8221; which doesn&#8217;t include unfunded pension and medical liability &#8211; and that wall of debt is NOT included in the budget. The total amount of that debt is somewhere in the $27 billion range and includes over $10 billion owed to the federal government. That money was used to fund California&#8217;s Unemployment Insurance Fund, and California seems to have no plan to pay it back &#8211; a sort of &#8220;reverse&#8221; unfunded mandate, if you will.

The fact that California began borrowing that money in 2009 demonstrates the fallacy of the prior claims of balanced budgets. The fact that it is kept off budget, like the other debt mentioned above, demonstrates the fallacy of the 2013-14 budget.

Of course, California has far greater debts than that. One study showed that California governments are over $1 trillion in debt. Most of that is in the form of unfunded pension and medical liabilities owed to state employees. California&#8217;s Legislative Analyst told Brown and the Democrat-run legislature to increase the contributions to the state&#8217;s teacher&#8217;s pension fund by a paltry $4.5 billion to address its announced $73 billion short fall.

The new budget, which includes a call for an increase in spending of 26.2% over the next four years, ignores the Legislative Analyst&#8217;s advice. Keep in mind that the main public employee retirement fund is said to be underfunded by $329 billion and that the unfunded medical benefit deficit is said to be $64 billion in the red. The latter figure, according to Brown, is expected to grow 59% in the next four years.


If you ignore all that, then California has close to a balanced budget. I say &#8220;close&#8221; because, in fact, the so-called balanced budget steals (sorry &#8211; &#8220;borrows&#8221 $500 million from the State&#8217;s cap-and-trade environmental emission reduction program. Brown&#8217;s budget does that even with the recently passed, retroactive tax increase that produced higher-than-expected revenues.

Jerry Brown Stands Atop California's Collapsing House Of Cards - Forbes

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Cool. I'm not gonna dispute any of that. But I also don't see how it's disputed anything I've said.

I don't know how many times, or how many ways, I need to say it: Texas is a good place to live. I partly grew up there. I'm just north of you now, in Oklahoma; if all the posters in this thread got in their cars and drove to your house, I'm guessing I'd get there first.

But the OP is making a case way, way beyond "it's pretty nice" in saying Texas's current economic policies are a literal "blueprint" for the rest of the nation. Texas's government simply does not know something other legislatures don't; even Houston, in particular, is having its fair share of troubles. So should other state governments be copying Texas's "blueprint?" I just don't see any strong evidence for that.

Fair enough. But you cant deny Texas economic growth is better then the rest of the nations. How do you account for it? We're obviously doing something right down here.

I account for it, first and foremost, by the Eagle Ford shale. Like North Dakota, you've suddenly got access to difficult-to-reach reserves of resources thanks to new technologies (ie, hydrofracking and horizontal drilling).

This has given Texas a new oil and gas boom, similar to the one in North Dakota that has been creating up to 2,000 millionaires a year.

I would also factor in your rapid population growth. Since 1980, your population's exploded: it increased 76% by 2010. Domestic net migration is negligible, and international immigration is a factor, but from what I can tell you're...you're just having so many babies! And your GDP increases as the size of your economy increases.

I've lived here all my life and other then three weeks in the eighties I've always had a job until I recently retired. The Texas economy is nothing new. As far as our population goes you can attribute it to immigrants from south of the border who pop out kids at a prodigious rate and the immigration of yankees looking for jobs.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, yeah, this is where i suspect you are about 25 and spend too much time reading Ayn Rand.

Too late junior... You already said we had "balanced" budgets before Ronald Reagan, when in fact the nation was nearly $1 trillion in debt.

Furthermore, the last time we actually did have a balanced budget, we had no federal taxes, no Social Security, no welfare, no food stamps, no Medicare, no Medicaid, and no Obamacare.

I think you're slowly realizing that the policies you have been supporting create poverty, debt, and misery. The facts are indisputable.

Um, no, the last time we had a balanced budget was under Clinton.

The last time before that was under LBJ when we had a Space Program and were fighting a war and a Great Society.

The only fact that is indisputable is that your supply side, Laffer Curve the Market will work it out doesn't work and never will.

Reagan created more debt in two terms than all 39 of his predecessors combined.

 

[P@triot]

Uh, yeah, this is where i suspect you are about 25 and spend too much time reading Ayn Rand.

Too late junior... You already said we had "balanced" budgets before Ronald Reagan, when in fact the nation was nearly $1 trillion in debt.

Furthermore, the last time we actually did have a balanced budget, we had no federal taxes, no Social Security, no welfare, no food stamps, no Medicare, no Medicaid, and no Obamacare.

I think you're slowly realizing that the policies you have been supporting create poverty, debt, and misery. The facts are indisputable.

Um, no, the last time we had a balanced budget was under Clinton.

Watching you flailing around on the ground in a sea of misinformation and fallacies is hilarious. First you claim we had "balanced budgets" before Ronald Reagan, when in fact the national debt stood at nearly $1 trillion. Now you claim we had a "balanced budget" under Bill Clinton, when in fact the national debt increased every year under 'ole Slick Willy. You have a remarkable definition of "balanced".

PresidentialDebt.org - United States US National Debt by President since 1976

The last time before that was under LBJ when we had a Space Program and were fighting a war and a Great Society.

Again, and as always, you don't have a fuck'n clue what you are talking about. You literally just make shit up to defend your parasite ways. The national debt increased every year under LBJ as well.

Lyndon Johnson:
Start of presidency 1963: US National Debt $306 billion
End of presidency 1969: US National Debt $353 billion
LBJ had a lot of issues to deal with in his time in office, particularly in 1968. Fiscally Johnson had to find a way to fund the Vietnam conflict and his Great Society reforms all while anti-war demonstrations, inner city riots and violence in Chicago during the Democratic convention stood in his way. Americans did not want tax increases but an economic collapse was destined if Johnson's plea for a 10% tax surcharge was enacted. Congressional conservatives wanted cuts to domestic spending instead of the surcharge but Johnson said failure to pass a tax surcharge would mean “a major world political defeat for the United States,” and LBJ got what he wanted against 79% of Americans wishes. US National Debt grew by $21 billion in 1968 alone, closing out Johnson's presidency on a very sour note.

Presidents and Their Debt: From FDR To Obama

The fact is, the last time we had a balanced budget was 1835 - when we had no federal income tax, no social security, no medicare, no Medicaid, no welfare, no obamacare - none of the imbecil, unconstitutional liberal parasite policies you crave. The facts are indisputable junior, and they prove you are wrong.

The only fact that is indisputable is that your supply side, Laffer Curve the Market will work it out doesn't work and never will.

Another sentence from JoeB, another lie. History has proven that the free market flawlessly balances itself. It is only when government intercedes (which it hasn't stopped doing since Woodrow Wilson in the early 1900's) that our economy fails.

Reagan created more debt in two terms than all 39 of his predecessors combined.

Obama created more debt in his first 3 years than all U.S. presidents in history combined created in their first term.

Once again you have been thoroughly owned with facts. Do you have any idea how juvenile it is to come here and just make shit up? Of all of your posts in which you have humiliated yourself, this one is at the top.

 

[zeke]

The ole rotty poodle dog. A self professed legend in his own small mind. Woof woof.

Are you not truly glad that Obama was elected. That gave you someone to blame the Bush disaster on.
If it had been a rethug elected after Bush, what would you have done then? Blamed Clinton? LMAO.

You know what dog. If Repubs were so great you'd a thought you could win the White House. Oh well.
Woofwoof. Who you gonna blame? I know, lets blame lame stream media. Yea, that't the ticket. The media is in the bag for Obama. Yep. Winner winner chicken dinner. A legend in his own small mind. That's a rotty for ya. Woofwoof.

 

[JoeB131]

Poodle, it must be nice to live in your own reality where you dont have to be good at math or history.

Another sentence from JoeB, another lie. History has proven that the free market flawlessly balances itself. It is only when government intercedes (which it hasn't stopped doing since Woodrow Wilson in the early 1900's) that our economy fails.

Did you know we had recessions before Woodrow, guy? Except back then, they were called "Panics".

and they usually turned out to be pretty bad.

The reason why government started stepping in was because most of these panics were leading to riots in the street.

Look up "Haymarket Riot" some time.

Honestly, Poodle, talking to you is like talking to some kind of retard.

 

[JoeB131]

The ole rotty poodle dog. A self professed legend in his own small mind. Woof woof.

Are you not truly glad that Obama was elected. That gave you someone to blame the Bush disaster on.
If it had been a rethug elected after Bush, what would you have done then? Blamed Clinton? LMAO.

You know what dog. If Repubs were so great you'd a thought you could win the White House. Oh well.
Woofwoof. Who you gonna blame? I know, lets blame lame stream media. Yea, that't the ticket. The media is in the bag for Obama. Yep. Winner winner chicken dinner. A legend in his own small mind. That's a rotty for ya. Woofwoof.

Naw, he's going to blame Acorn and voter fraud and welfare.