We have the blueprint for prosperity

[CrusaderFrank]

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



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.

I keep telling you Joe B is not American, does not live in America and has never even visited the USA

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Isnt that teh same graph for global warming?
Yeah, you'd have to prove Texas' economic miracle rests on oil. You can't, so don't even try.
Again, if it were a wasteland of poverty why is it the second-fastest growing economy in the US with companies moving there from Il and CA?
You can't answer that question without defaulting to stupidity and snark.

 

[Navy1960]

Frankly, I have had the pleasure to read most of this thread and while each state has its warts and also has its flowers and Texas as well as California is no exception, it made me take a closer look at Texas which is a state I am very familiar with anyway as a result of spending a bit of time there off and on while associated with various Military activities, as well as many family members who happen to live there. I did find a few surprising things about Texas.

The next big Texas energy boom does not involve tight gas formations in the Barnett Shale, or deepwater oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. While fossil resources continue to draw high interest from energy developers and investors in the Lone Star State, Texas' hottest energy prospect is wind power in West Texas and the Panhandle.

That's where a new surge of wind farm development, estimated at 7,500 megawatts of new generation over the next three years, should convert once-sleepy places like Amarillo, Plainview and Lubbock into renewable energy boomtowns.

When all of that new generation comes online in 2016, West Texas should send nearly 16,000 MW of power to the grid, as much wind energy as the current combined output of the next three largest wind-producing states -- California, Iowa and Illinois.

RENEWABLE ENERGY: New power lines will make Texas the world's 5th-largest wind power producer -- Tuesday, February 25, 2014 -- www.eenews.net


I see that as a big positive for the state of Texas in terms of using a source of domestic energy production that rids this nations need for foreign sources of energy and therefor we no longer have to on overseas actors who use revenue generated from fossil fuels to fund actions against this nation.

Yes Texas has its warts too, near or at the bottom in education, and the largest number of people uninsured in the nation is nothing to brag about, however, it stands to reason if your population is the 2nd largest in the nation your going to be at or near the top in some of these less than stellar areas and it gives the people and Govt. of Texas something to improve upon.

I am of the opinion that any state that does well regardless of what that state is and regardless of what party is in power in that state is a positive for the whole nation, not just that state alone, after all it is the United States of America and we should be all in this together.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Frankly, I have had the pleasure to read most of this thread and while each state has its warts and also has its flowers and Texas as well as California is no exception, it made me take a closer look at Texas which is a state I am very familiar with anyway as a result of spending a bit of time there off and on while associated with various Military activities, as well as many family members who happen to live there. I did find a few surprising things about Texas.

The next big Texas energy boom does not involve tight gas formations in the Barnett Shale, or deepwater oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. While fossil resources continue to draw high interest from energy developers and investors in the Lone Star State, Texas' hottest energy prospect is wind power in West Texas and the Panhandle.

That's where a new surge of wind farm development, estimated at 7,500 megawatts of new generation over the next three years, should convert once-sleepy places like Amarillo, Plainview and Lubbock into renewable energy boomtowns.

When all of that new generation comes online in 2016, West Texas should send nearly 16,000 MW of power to the grid, as much wind energy as the current combined output of the next three largest wind-producing states -- California, Iowa and Illinois.

RENEWABLE ENERGY: New power lines will make Texas the world's 5th-largest wind power producer -- Tuesday, February 25, 2014 -- www.eenews.net


I see that as a big positive for the state of Texas in terms of using a source of domestic energy production that rids this nations need for foreign sources of energy and therefor we no longer have to on overseas actors who use revenue generated from fossil fuels to fund actions against this nation.

Yes Texas has its warts too, near or at the bottom in education, and the largest number of people uninsured in the nation is nothing to brag about, however, it stands to reason if your population is the 2nd largest in the nation your going to be at or near the top in some of these less than stellar areas and it gives the people and Govt. of Texas something to improve upon.

I am of the opinion that any state that does well regardless of what that state is and regardless of what party is in power in that state is a positive for the whole nation, not just that state alone, after all it is the United States of America and we should be all in this together.

You have to take the uninsured stats with a grain of salt. Most are immigrants who work here a few years while sending all their money back to mexico so they can move back and live high on the hog.
Think the Texas economy is good now? Think how good it would be if those immigrants spent that money in Texas.

 

[Paperman299]

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.

Isnt that teh same graph for global warming?
Yeah, you'd have to prove Texas' economic miracle rests on oil. You can't, so don't even try.
Again, if it were a wasteland of poverty why is it the second-fastest growing economy in the US with companies moving there from Il and CA?
You can't answer that question without defaulting to stupidity and snark.

Weren't you just complaining that those on the left have short memories on this board? And yet how many times have I plainly stated I'm not making a case that Texas is a "wasteland of poverty?" I guess it's easier to argue with an imaginary cardboard cut-out whose opinion is the polar opposite of yours.

The funny thing is, between us, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who actually likes Texas, who has memories there and who knows folks there. That's why I've been speaking abuot the state with respect (and sidenote, other liberals who've been letting themselves get pushed into tearing down Texas to get at some con posters' inane positions can fucking chill), rather than using it as a club with which to attack others who don't share his ideology.

Anyway, as if to make sure you 100% misstated my case, you left out the other factors I've gone over, such as Texas's exploding population (which, geez, is in the very post you just quoted!) and Governor Perry actively luring companies into his state with tax concessions and sometimes just outright paying them. I've provided some half dozen sources, and ironically for someone who complains liberals don't care about facts, I'm pretty sure you haven't clicked one of them. As to the oil boom, the historic impact isn't even a point of contention:

The Eagle Ford Shale (EFS) is quite possibly the largest single economic development in the history of the state of Texas and ranks as the largest oil & gas development in the world based on capital invested. Almost $30 billion will be spent developing the play in 2013.

Why you are even still denying the impact of this event is beyond me, except that it doesn't square with the narrative you came into this thread with and refuse to give up. The same reason, I expect, you've ignored or dismissed all the data I've posted here, while countering with none of your own. At least HereWeGoAgain has brought personal experience to the table. And with not a fraction of the unfounded arrogance.

You've spent ten pages saying nothing. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

 

[The Rabbi]

All states pretty much offer incentives. New York has a huge program to lure businesses. Texas is no different.
What makes Texas different is a very limited government and a commitment to freedom. I think the Texas legislature meets the fewest number of days of any legislature.
Companies recognize that government cannot create prosperity, but they can create conditions for it to flourish. Those are low taxes and low regulation. Which is what Texas has done.
Illinoiis, Maryland, California haven't figure this out yet. As a result their economies are in the toilet and businesses are fleeing for safer harbors.

 

[Paperman299]

Is this an honest-to-God reasoned argument without so much as a bite of snark at the end?

Now we are cooking with gas.

Companies recognize that government cannot create prosperity, but they can create conditions for it to flourish.

Yes. Exactly. But does Texas's current increase in GDP validate the conditions of the Texan government? And is it actually a "blueprint" other states can copy and expect the same result? In a nutshell, I don't think so, because it looks to me like the factors most responsible for that good economic fortune are things that are outside the government's control to create.

Yes, other states also want to lure in businesses. But few have governors who've been aggressive enough to run commercials in other states. I won't fault Perry for selling his state hard, but neither will I accept the story that companies are moving to Texas purely out of attraction to its government's policies, which is the narrative I feel I'm being sold.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is this an honest-to-God reasoned argument without so much as a bite of snark at the end?

Now we are cooking with gas.

Companies recognize that government cannot create prosperity, but they can create conditions for it to flourish.

Yes. Exactly. But does Texas's current increase in GDP validate the conditions of the Texan government? And is it actually a "blueprint" other states can copy and expect the same result? In a nutshell, I don't think so, because it looks to me like the factors most responsible for that good economic fortune are things that are outside the government's control to create.

Yes, other states also want to lure in businesses. But few have governors who've been aggressive enough to run commercials in other states. I won't fault Perry for selling his state hard, but neither will I accept the story that companies are moving to Texas purely out of attraction to its government's policies, which is the narrative I feel I'm being sold.

Texas has always had a good economy. And I see adds from NY trying to entice business on a regular basis. Their offer is no taxes for ten years on new business.
Which sucks because thats about the time a company really becomes profitable.
Imagine that.

 

[Harry Dresden]

All states pretty much offer incentives. New York has a huge program to lure businesses. Texas is no different.
What makes Texas different is a very limited government and a commitment to freedom. I think the Texas legislature meets the fewest number of days of any legislature.
Companies recognize that government cannot create prosperity, but they can create conditions for it to flourish. Those are low taxes and low regulation. Which is what Texas has done.
Illinoiis, Maryland, California haven't figure this out yet. As a result their economies are in the toilet and businesses are fleeing for safer harbors.

California used to have it figured out.....the greed of the Politicians of the last 25 years did the State in....

 

[The Rabbi]

Is this an honest-to-God reasoned argument without so much as a bite of snark at the end?

Now we are cooking with gas.

Companies recognize that government cannot create prosperity, but they can create conditions for it to flourish.

Yes. Exactly. But does Texas's current increase in GDP validate the conditions of the Texan government? And is it actually a "blueprint" other states can copy and expect the same result? In a nutshell, I don't think so, because it looks to me like the factors most responsible for that good economic fortune are things that are outside the government's control to create.

Yes, other states also want to lure in businesses. But few have governors who've been aggressive enough to run commercials in other states. I won't fault Perry for selling his state hard, but neither will I accept the story that companies are moving to Texas purely out of attraction to its government's policies, which is the narrative I feel I'm being sold.

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.

 

[P@triot]

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

This coming from the guy who said that LBJ balanced the budget, that there was no national debt before Ronald Reagan, and that 'ole Slick Willy balanced the budget...

 

[P@triot]

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.

So the fact that free market flawlessly balances itself means "nothing bad ever happens" in your mind?!? Yeah, there were recessions. And they quickly faded every time and were replaced by periods of flourishing prosperity junior. That's what balance means...

Honestly Joseph, talking to you is like talking to someone slower than a retard - but much more hilarious.

 

[P@triot]

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

Speaking of "retard", lets recap for laughs, shall we junior?

Post #136

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

I proved how retarder you are with this post when I pointed out that on the day Reagan was sworn into office, the national debt stood at nearly $1 trillion.

Post #156

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.

I proved how retarder you are with this post when I posted links that proved the national debt increased every year under both Clinton and LBJ.

Just curious how it feels being my personal bitch on USMB? I prove you wrong every time you post (but that's what happens when ass hats like you lie).

 

[P@triot]

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.

I love when zeke loses her mind because she can no longer dispute the facts. She just babbles out of frustration and makes lots of animal noises...

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

I love when zeke loses her mind because she can no longer dispute the facts. She just babbles out of frustration and makes lots of animal noises...

Zeke is a girl?.....so its really Zekarina?.....

 

[Chris]

The real blueprint for prosperity.....

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Texas is growing solely because of the energy field, and, yes, it benefits only the upper 50%.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Texas is growing solely because of the energy field, and, yes, it benefits only the upper 50%.

So no jobs are created by these oil companies? Thats amazing!! How do they get anything done?
I mean it's got to be a real bitch driving the trucks,running the refineries,machining all those parts,selling the tools to the machine shops who make those parts,running the rigs,running the gas stations,flying the helicopters out to the rigs,taking the boats out to the rigs...man those guys must be beat at the end of the day.
And thats just scratching the surface.
What a dumb fuck you are snarky.

 

[JoeB131]

Is this an honest-to-God reasoned argument without so much as a bite of snark at the end?

Now we are cooking with gas.

Companies recognize that government cannot create prosperity, but they can create conditions for it to flourish.

Yes. Exactly. But does Texas's current increase in GDP validate the conditions of the Texan government? And is it actually a "blueprint" other states can copy and expect the same result? In a nutshell, I don't think so, because it looks to me like the factors most responsible for that good economic fortune are things that are outside the government's control to create.

Yes, other states also want to lure in businesses. But few have governors who've been aggressive enough to run commercials in other states. I won't fault Perry for selling his state hard, but neither will I accept the story that companies are moving to Texas purely out of attraction to its government's policies, which is the narrative I feel I'm being sold.

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.

ACtually, Wisconsin is still pretty much what it was before Johny Walker or whatever his name is took over. Kind of a rural shithole that depends on tourist dollars from Illinois.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I proved how retarder you are with this post when I posted links that proved the national debt increased every year under both Clinton and LBJ.

Just curious how it feels being my personal bitch on USMB? I prove you wrong every time you post (but that's what happens when ass hats like you lie).

NO, we posted Surpluses in 1999, 2000 and 1969.

But really, guy, why don't you address the man point, that Reagan ran up twice as much debt as his 39 predecessors combined, and set the stage for huge deficits to this very day?