Uh Oh! The Proggies Won’t Like This: Study Finds Red States More Prosperous Than Blue States!!!

A study has found out something that proggies and unions are not going to like:

Red States Are More Prosperous Than Blue States

Some of the highlights:

GDP in lower taxed Red states grew 20% more than Blue states with higher tax rates.

Population Growth 4x higher

And the low tax rates didn’t exactly break the budgets of the Red states that embraced them either.  Those jurisdictions actually realized substantially larger increases in the growth of state and local tax revenue than did their more confiscatory counterparts.

Tax policy was not the only measure of comparison.  The authors of the study also compared and contrasted the performances of right-to-work states with states where union membership is compulsory. The results (not surprising, but proggies would call it “unexpected”): GDP growth was more than 10 percentage points higher in right-to-work states.

These results have been the trend for some time.  Yet, proggies will continue to deny despite the evidence shown in this study as well as others.  Their ideological beliefs are not the golden goose as they have been touting for some time.


Another study says the same:


Poor ideological proggy drones, the evidence is mounting against you and your ideals and your dumbed down talking points.

64 thoughts on “Uh Oh! The Proggies Won’t Like This: Study Finds Red States More Prosperous Than Blue States!!!

  1. neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 1:41 pm

    gee ya think?

    I thought all the blue urban centers like detroit, LA, NO, NYC etc, had all the money.

    OH Wait……..

    that is all the WELFARE and OPM ….(money)……..silly me.

    • Majordomo Pain May 3, 2012 / 1:52 pm

      So this means that the economic policy of President Obama is working?

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 2:19 pm

        moredumbo pain

        Ooh Nooo it is working as planned……

        The Cloward Piven Strategy: In The News: November 2011

        Cloward Piven StrategyRobert Stacy McCain, in The American Spectator gives us the following words of wisdom:

        “Obama’s invocation of “the American people” and their “frustrations” might permit some other conspiracy theorists to suggest — with far better evidence — that the protesters camped in Zuccotti Park are part of a deliberate effort by the president and his party to undermine the free enterprise system. Several conservative commentators have interpreted “Occupy Wall Street” in light of Saul Alinsky’s radical maxim: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.” Others see the anti-capitalist mobs in the context of the “Cloward Piven Strategy” to foment a crisis that would bring about a socialist revolution.

      • Majordomo Pain May 3, 2012 / 2:21 pm

        Have you always been this full of fear?

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 2:24 pm

        yeah, especially when I was in the jungle killing communists….

        “fear” LOL

      • Majordomo Pain May 3, 2012 / 2:25 pm

        That is odd considering killing is one of the greatest sins of all that you take so much pride in it.

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 2:32 pm


        kiling an enemy of humanity is self defense.

        murdering a child in the womb, and systems like communism, islam, nazi ‘s is what you cretins are all about flat out killers.

      • Green Mountain Boy...Who now lives in Bushburg..:P May 3, 2012 / 2:32 pm

        “That is odd considering killing is one of the greatest sins of all that you take so much pride in it.”

        No. MURDERING is the greatest sin not killing. Once again the corporal is wrong.

      • Amazona May 3, 2012 / 2:39 pm

        major pain, the only way this could indicate any degree of success of the so-called “economic policy” of Obama would be if those states were more prosperous now than they were when he took office.

        Feel like explaining that “economic policy” and how it contributes to economic growth and prosperity? Some historical references to its success would be helpful. That shouldn’t be too hard, as it is the same “economic policy” that the Left has been depending on for decades. There is plenty of historical evidence of its contributions to the quality of life in the countries where it has been implemented, and it will be easy for you to compare it to the same parameters of prosperity and personal liberty of the only nation to ever be governed by the Constitution of the United States of America, back when we WERE governed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 2:42 pm


        like hitler?

        I thought she was more like the private algore.
        but certainty not like the rambone JFnK (who was in viet nam)
        or like barry the great……killer of obama….er osama.
        hard to keep the muzzis names straight.

  2. Cluster May 4, 2012 / 8:51 am

    If just a few more people would give up – Obama might get that unemployment rate below 8%.


    And yet on the Obama News Networknthis morning (MSNBC), the loyalists were longing for the days of manufacturing union jobs. Evidently, liberals want people to be either unemployed (which is a great way to stimulate the economy according to Pelosi) or to be working in some hard labor, unionized manufacturing job with little chance for advancement. Curious isn’t it?

    • Retired Spook May 4, 2012 / 9:02 am


      I’ll bet you money that they’ll have the UE rate manipulated down to 7.2% (the point above which no president has been re-elected since FDR) by October. And the millions of people who are STILL unemployed but just not counted at that point will be saying “please don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining”. A few of them may be masochistic enough to give BHOzo another chance, but I’d venture not very many.

    • tiredoflibbs May 4, 2012 / 9:07 am

      Sure cluster and the mindless drones of the dumbed down proggy electorate will regurgitate the talking points that obAMATEUR is responsible for the 8.1% while WILLFULLY ignoring the fact that the number is false. The calculus does not include the people who have fallen out of the workforce because they have given up looking for work! Meaning, their jobs have been eliminated or have left the country for more favorable waters due to the pathetic policies of this marxist pResident.

      The labor participation rate is the lowest it has been in decades. There are over 1 million fewer people who are looking for work because they can’t find a job. That translates to over 1 million jobs that are no longer there! Is that something to brag about?

      The obAMATEUR administration will lie and spin it so they can….

      … and the mindless proggy drones will regurgitate those same lies.

      Who will be first?

  3. Retired Spook May 4, 2012 / 8:56 am

    Meanwhile, that pesky “free speech” provision of the Constitution is creating a hissy fit among the Lefties.

    The comments following the post are pretty funny too.

    • Amazona May 4, 2012 / 9:52 am

      Thanks for another example of how frantic the Left is becoming.

      I particularly loved the careful way Lefties are guided by their minders. When they are told to listen to Rush so they can then harass and blackmail his sponsors, they realize there is a potential problem in exposing those lemmings to conservative ideas, so they try to head that off by encouraging them to listen in GROUPS, so they will have the support of the collective in fighting off the insidious messages of free market, Constitutional government, Obama administration corruption, and the other facts that might confuse them.

      “If you listen as a group it is actually really empowering…………….

      Just make sure that you take some time to talk about why certain things he says are wrong or messed up with your group, and that can actually be super, super empowering to do that,” she continued.”

    • Cluster May 4, 2012 / 11:45 am

      Liberals really are a sad and pathetic group. And Obama is a small and petty man – it is time to relegate all of these weak minded, regressive morons to the ash heap of history.

      • tiredoflibbs May 4, 2012 / 11:55 am

        “obAMATEUR is a small and petty man”

        Absolutely, he attacked the Supreme Court when they returned a decision affirming free speech in campaigns. He attacked them during the hearings about his “health plan”. He attacks his opponents constantly with lies, spin and virtiol. He comes unglued when dare to ask him questions that he has to really think about and puts him in negative light based on his prior actions.

        What is funny, is that the mindless proggy drones here get their panties in a wad over what we supposedly do and their pResident does it constantly and yet they do not acknowledge the fact that he does. They just typically and predictably look the other way.

  4. Retired Spook May 4, 2012 / 9:22 am

    And here’s what HOPE looks like in 2012. SAD, REALLY SAD!

    • Amazona May 4, 2012 / 10:02 am

      But at least the rabidly radical Left is finally out of the closet and opening up about their goals for American futures. The dreariness of their dreams and agendas ought to start to wake people up.

      Tiny house, limited-range electric car, food limited to what is produced locally, government-designed lighting and toilets and whatever else they want to impose on us for our own good, family replaced by the State, God-based religion replaced by State-based belief systems, jobs controlled by the collective, income restricted according to what the collective decides it is “fair” to keep no matter how hard you work, etc.

      Theirs is a bleak and dreary future, but on the bright side, there are hundreds of millions of acres of untouched wilderness, accessible only to those strong enough to hike many miles to get into them, and a burgeoning population of snail darters to brighten those otherwise dim days. (Dim also because electricity costs have “skyrocketed” and power is rationed.)

    • Cluster May 4, 2012 / 12:25 pm

      Wow. The Life of Julia sets the women’s movement back 50 years. I find it offensive and extremely condescending how little faith democrats and Obama have in women.

      Evidently Obama believes that without a strong presence in their life, women would be unable to cope.

      GTFO 2012!!

      • Amazona May 4, 2012 / 9:14 pm

        Between Julia and the Flake describing a third-year law student at a prestigious university melting into a bewildered puddle of hopelessness and confusion at learning that she would have to pay for a product at a drugstore, recently the Left has done its level best to undo a century or so of progress for women.

        See why I refer to the movement as REgressive?

  5. JACO May 4, 2012 / 11:59 am

    Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

    • tiredoflibbs May 4, 2012 / 2:27 pm

      Apparently, taco you do not understand the calculus for said rates.

      Understanding the calculus shows that data can easily “look” differently than the way it is. Just like obAMATEUR’s unemployment numbers, the face value of the number itself looks good, but if you dig deep into the calculus then the actual truth is revealed – the same with the “rates” you refer to.

      Now it would be interesting for you to provide the link to what Mark said so I can see it in full context – I searched for it, but could not find it. I searched for the quote, but only your post pops up. Since you have it so handy would you please post it?

      • Retired Spook May 4, 2012 / 2:51 pm

        Tired, it was actually a quote from Grover Norquist and John Lott Jr. that Mark repeated in his post “Obama’s Stimulus: Nothing but a Democrat Slush Fund” on April 23rd.

        JACO made the wrong assumption about what the quote implied. All the quote was referring to was that the stimulus money went to states that didn’t need it due to political considerations. It didn’t imply anything other than the money went to Democrat-controlled states that we’re better off economically rather than GOP controlled states that were better off economically. It’s called “spin”, and JACO is somewhat “spin” challenged.

      • JACO May 4, 2012 / 5:22 pm

        Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

      • JACO May 4, 2012 / 5:23 pm

        Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 4, 2012 / 8:20 pm

        Wow, taco is just chock full of proggy dumbed down talking points.

        Angry at the calculus….
        Republican Govs receiving stimulus checks….

        where have we heard this before…. so many drones so many regurgitated talking points.

        Sorry to burst your bubble there taco, I did search for it. I searched the quote you posted and only your post came up. I can search back a few years. I have always known the unemployment figure was inaccurate. The only problem (for you) is that the labor participation rate is dropping more than the “job creating” rate. Economists have noted this that unemployment seems to be dropping, job creation is dropping and labor participation is dropping – these are not the trends if you want to tout that “we are in a recovery”.

        During Bush, that was not the case. We had positive job creation, a steady labor participation rate and lowering unemployment – trends you want to have. The proggy answer to these positive numbers you will recall is that “Bush is not creating real jobs – most of them are hamburger flipper jobs”.

        Nice try wally.

      • Amazona May 4, 2012 / 9:18 pm

        I wouldn’t call jaco’s comments “spin” as much as clueless.

        More money went to blue states that showed less need than to red states with equal need—that is, not so much. This is not whining that the red states didn’t get enough, just noticing the political nature of the disbursement of the money.

        And the fact that some blue states were not as seriously impoverished as some other blue states is hardly a statement that blue states are doing better than red states.

        If there is any spinning, it is jaco’s brain cell whipping around in all that space, trying to make sense of what is said.

      • Retired Spook May 4, 2012 / 11:57 pm

        So you reject the money, then complain that you didn’t get enough of said money? Interesting.

        A trifecta of lies in 16 words — impressive. I didn’t reject any money; never complained that I didn’t get enough, and it’s not very interesting.

      • JACO May 5, 2012 / 3:07 am

        Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

      • JACO May 5, 2012 / 3:11 am

        Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 5, 2012 / 6:23 am

        Taco a little too sensitive aren’t you?

        I answered your question. It is not my fault that you do not understand the written word. Perhaps when YOU get a handle on your poor reading comprehension then you can understand the simple answer I provided.

        I searched for the quote in a difference section of the WordPress blog using the “Dashboard” option. I copied and pasted it from your post to the search field – only your post came up. I never saw the original thread by Mark to be familiar with it. You have to understand, drones come here and make ludicrous and unproven claims. It is not my fault the Dashboard search did not reveal it. Why could you not simply cut and paste the link as asked? When drones fail to do that they are hiding something or lying. I am not saying you are lying – that has just been the experience here.

        As for snarling? Get real…. your oversensitivity and hyper-emotionalism have no place in reality. Again, I answered your question. You just don’t like the answer and the plain facts behind it. Your pResident has failed.

      • Amazona May 5, 2012 / 1:49 pm

        I see yet another Lefty has crawled out from under a rock to illustrate the PL dependence on snark and insult as replacements for actual political discourse.

        Note the lack of anything BUT insults in the posts.

        But then, that’s all the Pseudo Left has ever had, and lately it’s all the true ideological Left, as well.

      • JACO May 5, 2012 / 4:44 pm

        Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

      • JACO May 5, 2012 / 4:48 pm

        Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 5, 2012 / 5:54 pm

        Again taco, sorry to burst any preconceived notions you have about us conservatives.

        There is no anger or hysteria. Your perception is a result of reading incomprehension and hyper-sensitivity.

        Since there is no anger, your question is moot. Regardless of the emotion your question is moot and completely irrelevant to the fact that obAMATEUR has failed in his policies to bring down unemployment as promised. The only influence on the decreasing unemployment numbers is the FACT that the calculus is flawed and deceptive.

        Why can’t you post the link to the thread in question? Spook did a better job explaining the source of the quote and the question was not even directed at him. Once he explained the source (and the fact that it was irrelevant to the topic of the thread) I had no reason to verify its truthfulness. He was being direct and you, for some strange reason, are being evasive. Why is that? This is too familiar …..

        Try again, drone.

      • JACO May 6, 2012 / 3:37 am

        Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 6, 2012 / 5:38 am

        Again taco, you must either be completely illiterate or excessively dense.

        I answered your question TWICE now.

        You just don’t like the answer. Your pathetic attempts at “gotcha” is all to familiar and has failed as always. I also see that you avoid the topic of the thread and try to deflect and dodge in typical mindless drone tactics.

        Again, all too familiar…….

        and pathetic.

      • JACO May 6, 2012 / 8:52 am

        Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 6, 2012 / 9:14 am

        ok wally (taco) for the last time.

        I answered your question. Are my words: “There is no anger or hysteria.” not sufficient enough for you? Perhaps you need someone to read them to you and explain them.

        Your hyper-emotionalism and screeching the same old debunked crap is getting tiresome.

        I am not angry, but the people (1 million +) who have been out of work, can not get a job and have stop looking because there are no jobs for them and being told that “we are in a recovery” are angry.

        James Pethokoukis has a few more details …

        If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.6% today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 11.1%.

        If the participation rate just stayed where it was last month, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.4%.

        Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate, perhaps the truest measure of the labor market’s health, is still a sky-high 14.5%.


        So effectively, obAMATEUR is peeing on their leg and telling them it’s raining. In short (and plain and simple words you can understand) he is lying – like you who claim I haven’t answered the question when I repeatedly have.

        Keep deflecting from the topic, drone. You have yet to prove anything wrong (nor anyone else).

      • JACO May 8, 2012 / 3:03 am

        Posting from a fake email address — deleted//Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 8, 2012 / 5:27 am


        I did not delete your posts. The moderator knows something I don’t. The explanation is there – again you cannot comprehend the written word.

        I answered you question THREE TIMES. It is not my fault you ignore them and continue this proggy deflection to avoid commenting on topic.


      • JACO May 9, 2012 / 4:07 pm

        Posted using a fake email address. //Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 9, 2012 / 4:45 pm

        Ok taco,

        FOURTH TIME – there is no anger.

        Why do you insist on deflection away from the topic and lying about responses you don’t like?

        My answer still does change the fact that obAMATEUR has failed.

      • JACO May 10, 2012 / 2:34 am

        Posted using a fake email address. //Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 10, 2012 / 6:34 am

        Taco, I answered that question also. I explained the difference in the employment and economic conditions between President Bush’s administrations and pResisedint obAMATEUR’s rule, while maintaining the caculus’ obvious flaw. Since I need to hold your hand and guide you there, see May 4th, 8:20 post.

        There is no dodging on my part (but for some strange reason you do not want to address the topic) – you just don’t like my answers, which makes you refuse to accept facts you are afraid to. I answered the question now FOUR times. Your inability to comprehend the written word is astounding.

        But, if you want to continue your pathetic little game of GOTCHA and continue to dodge the topic that is your choice. Here is a hint, you haven’t “got” anything in your posts, but if you need to continue to lie as well to protect your dainty ego, be my guest.

      • JACO May 10, 2012 / 10:08 am

        Posted using a fake email address, //Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 10, 2012 / 4:48 pm

        TACO, now you are misrepresenting what I said -it is not so simple-minded and petty as you state – in short you are lying.

        FOR THE THIRD TIME (perhaps you should have someone with intelligence read this then have them explain it to you).

        I see that you can only reduce your reasoning into simple-minded sentences. I described that the employment atmosphere was different during Bush. Bush had POSITIVE job growth as well as STEADY labor participation – the trends were up and moving in the proper directions. ObAMATEUR’s atmosphere is in the WRONG direction. We have anemic job growth, HOWEVER, the LABOR PARTICIPATION is NEGATIVE and moving in the wrong direction. THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR WORK THEREFORE THEY ARE NO LONGER LOOKING AND THE LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE IS DECREASING – GOING NEGATIVE.

        The calculus is flawed due to the fact that in both cases above the unemployment rate drops – one properly since we have positive job gorwth and steady to positive labor participation rate. The present case, we have anemic to positive job growth BUT we have NEGATIVE labor participation (more people out of work and not looking). There are those that are retiring PLUS there are those that are entering the work force, but the number of people who are no longer looking because there are no jobs for them is due to the fact that obAMATEUR has failed in his job creation policies. But you acknowledge the drop in labor participation and therefore acknowledge the drop in unemployment is a result and not job creation.

        I know it is too complicated for you to understand especially when you are so weak when it comes to reading comprehension.

        Keep dodging and avoiding the actual topic of the post. But it is obvious that you are not looking for honest debate based on your belligerent statements and misrepresenting mine.

      • JACO May 11, 2012 / 4:28 pm

        Posting from invalid email address — deleted//Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 11, 2012 / 10:25 pm

        Taco the drone: “Right, it’s just like I said–the calculus bothers you when there’s a Democrat in the White House, but when there’s a republican, suddenly you aren’t so bothered by it. ”

        “And I noticed that you dodged the question of what the retirement of the massive population surge known as the Baby Boom would do to the labor participation rate you’re so hot and heavy for.”

        uh no. Now you are just plain lying. It’s just like I said. You are deflecting from the topic and trying to play these pathetic “gotcha” games. Hmmmmm… sounds way too familiar. Please refer to the prior posts and have someone read them to you. Your questions were answered. You just don’t like the answers.

        Again, I have been consistent in answering your questions. You on the other hand have been too predictable – lies and misrepresentations.

        I have explained it more than once and you continue with your simple-minded and petty BS.

        Go away drone, you waste everyone’s time here with your petty BS. As I said, have someone read it and explain it to you. It is not rocket science, but to you breathing is.


      • tiredoflibbs May 12, 2012 / 6:28 am

        TACO, do I need to hold your hand again and guide you, like before? Can you read?

        For one thing your “what if” scenario is not in play at the moment. You have not shown that the lower participation rate is due to “Baby Boomers Retiring”. You do realize that the Baby Boomers cover a period of over 25 years ending in the 60s? IF the lower participation rate is due to massive retirements, as you propose, this would be the mantra of the Left. It is not. The BEGINNING of the Baby Boomers retiring is not the only factor for the rate reduction. We also have young people entering the workforce – those same young people also are having a hard time finding work.


        If you want to propose a “what if” at least give some proof of your claim and not baseless statements….. Again, sounds very familiar. At least, your “what if” scenario acknowledges the fact that the unemployment numbers are dropping because the labor participation rate is dropping and not due to the policies by the obAMATEUR – AS I HAVE MAINTAINED!!!

        I have proved several of your claims, of me not answering your questions, to be lies. Questions that are used to dodge away from the topic. Why do you keep doing that? Why are you afraid to address the topic of the thread (or any thread)? Why do you continue to lie about what I have said? Address the topic of the thread…

        Answer those questions, if you have the guts.

      • Retired Spook May 12, 2012 / 9:03 am

        Tired, I missed JACO’s comment before it was deleted. I gather he’s arguing that the labor force participation rate is dropping because Baby Boomers are retiring. That’s a logical assumption if one doesn’t bother to look at the facts, which I’m guessing our pesky little troll, JACO, didn’t.

        So much for kicking back at the lake house, long afternoons of golf or pretty much anything baby boomers had dreamed about in retirement. For many, the plan now calls for logging more hours at the office and renewed worries about money, according to a new poll.

        The Associated Press-LifeGoesStrong.com poll found a baby boom generation planning to work into retirement years — with 73% planning to work past retirement, up from 67% this spring.

        A majority of boomers also are shaky about their nest eggs.

        In all, 53% of boomers polled said they do not feel confident they’ll be able to afford a comfortable retirement. That’s up from 44% who were concerned about retirement finances in March.

        This USA Today article was written last November, so the 6% increase in the percentage of Boomers working past retirement occurred in just 6 months, from last spring to this past November. It’s only been 4 years since the oldest Boomers (those born in 1946) reached the minimum Social Security retirement age of 62, and the youngest Boomers won’t reach the full retirement age of 67 until next year. So, between the substantial majority that are continuing to work beyond the normal retirement age, and the ones who are waiting for full S.S. retirement benefits, the retirement of the Baby Boomers has had a negligible effect on the labor force participation rate — so far.

      • tiredoflibbs May 12, 2012 / 10:19 am

        Spook, Taco (as per his original email address) is just claiming that I completely avoided his baby boomer question. Plus misrepresenting that I only complained about the unemployment calculus only when there is a Democrat in the White House.

        Apparently, taco has a reading comprehension problem or he is just being purposefully belligerent and annoying.

      • Retired Spook May 12, 2012 / 10:45 am

        Look for an email from me about this in a few minutes

      • JACO May 12, 2012 / 4:38 pm
      • tiredoflibbs May 12, 2012 / 10:13 pm

        Again with the lying taco?

        FOUR TIMES you claimed I did not answer it and FOUR TIMES I hand guided you to my answers.

        Since you are going to lie at least try and disguise it and not make it so blatant and obvious.

      • JACO May 13, 2012 / 4:07 am
      • tiredoflibbs May 13, 2012 / 6:39 am

        Evasive TACO?

        FOUR times you asked why I was so angry with the unemployment calculus under obAMATEUR and then made the baseless claim that I was not angry with the calculus under Bush. FOUR times I said that there is no anger, PERIOD (plus I explained why the economic situation was different now under obAMATEUR than when it was Bush). Since there is no anger, then there is no need to explain why (as you claim) I was angry. You find that evasive? You want me to explain something about me that is not true? Then when you don’t get an answer you like, you claim that I am being evasive!

        No, being evasive is deflecting from the topic and trying to play your pathetic little gotcha games. You thought that you could get me in a situation where I accepted the calculus for Bush while not accepting the same calculus for obAMATEUR. I am not as petty as you proggy drones. It is not my fault that you have pathetic reading comprehension skills.

        You lost, get over it.

      • tiredoflibbs May 12, 2012 / 10:19 pm

        taco: “I’ve been on topic the whole time”

        No, you deflected away from the topic the first chance you were able to. Nice try at revising history, which is typical of the proggy mentality.

        You barely touched the topic of the thread and deflected to poverty rates never to return. Then when I asked for a link to your quote, you would not provide it. Spook provided the info when for some strange reason you refused to do so.

        Since you are going to lie at least try and hide it by not making it so obvious.

  6. Retired Spook May 4, 2012 / 4:19 pm

    You know Obama is in trouble when these are the two lead articles in the Washington Post afternoon edition:

    THE FIX: Obama’s time grows short on the economy
    The president has less time than you might think to convince people the economy is getting better.
    » Read full article

    Steep decline in voter registration among Hispanics and blacks
    Number has fallen sharply since 2008, posing a serious challenge to the Obama campaign in an election that could turn on the participation of minority voters.
    » Read full article

  7. bozo May 5, 2012 / 3:31 am

    ALEC (who did this delightful “study”) has already been outed.

    • tiredoflibbs May 5, 2012 / 6:35 am

      wow, creepy, a proggy website “outs” a report they (as a party) don’t like and reveals their ideology a failure.

      This is hardly credible. ALEC does not look at infrastructure, which is their chief complaint. Oh boy, where to begin?

      When a state’s GDP is growing LESS with massive infrastructure in place – something is wrong. For example, your proggy website wants ALEC to count infrastructure improvements. The problem is, it is not a measure of GDP or growth. It indicated the amount of money the state is spending – money that is mostly from federal sources.

      No creep, your ideology has been “outed” as the massive failure it has historically been. The problem is you and your entire party are in denial.


    • Amazona May 5, 2012 / 1:46 pm

      What the incoherent freakzo is trying to say is just a rehash of tired old Leftist cant, which is that government spending is good for the economy.

      The article which so impressed the freaky clown just uses a whole lot of words to whine that they don’t agree with economists who find government spending to inhibit economic growth by taking money out of the private sector.

      It’s the same old same old, Krugman-esque claim that cannot be verified by historical fact, and is in itself nothing more than the wishful thinking the article so snidely attributes to Laffer.

      Nothing to see here……

    • JACO May 5, 2012 / 4:46 pm

      Posting from fake email address – deleted//Moderator

Comments are closed.