Proof Conservative Economic Policies WORK

[SteadyMercury]

And of course NY has a greater total state product than NC......it has a greater population! However, NC is growing quickly while states like NY are falling behind.

GDP per capita here: List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York = $57,423
North Carolina = $42,884

Clearly there is a bit more to it than New York having a larger population.

 

[jasonnfree]

"Red states" are hardly an example of successful conservative policies, since most of them rely entirely upon charity from blue states to stay solvent. Red states are actually an argument for government assistance--they are net "takers" of federal tax money.

Also, red states typically have low wages and low educational achievement levels that attract companies in search of cheap labor.

Well, welfare recipients themselves almost always vote Democrat, and since red states are often more diverse (like AL, MS, LA, SC, etc.), they tend to have more welfare recipients(since minorities are more likely to be on welfare). This is why their statistics look bad. Welfare is an epic failure. The reason those states are doing well is a good business environment.

Ask yourself - would you rather try getting a job in California or North Dakota/Texas?

California by far, having lived in tejas and visited North Dakota.

 

[jasonnfree]

Sorry, but NJ, NY, CA, CT and IL are the wealthiest states with a per capita income much higher than the national average. Many of these states are also laying off or cutting workers which decreases state income and output as well.

This is more Art Laffer incessant bullshit. This site fails to mention that ALL of the high tax states are among, by far, the wealthiest in the nation as far as gross state product and per capita income are concerned.

Are you insinuating that higher taxes create greater wealth? If so, why not raise taxes to 100%? Please explain how this works.

Please look into Germany's "Industrie 4.0" initiative. Their research and investment--paid for, in large part, by their "high tax" system--is revolutionizing manufacturing and technology. It is considered as the 4th phase of the industrial revolution, and it is creating thousands of high-paying jobs and lots of revenue. They are already far ahead of the U.S. in terms of innovative application of technology in industry.

America, rotting from it's adherence to "conservative" ideology, continues to fall further behind in a world that's investing in technology, health care, eduation, and society.

And they (Germany)have national health care. All modern countries have national health care except USA which republicans will always put the kibosh on saying we can't afford it.

 

[expat_panama]

All modern countries have national health care except USA...

--where you can't keep your doctor if you like him and you can't keep your insurance if you like it.

 

[Kimura]

Data Dump Americans for Economic Freedom
Conservative states lead in influx of personal income, population growth, employment growth, GDP growth, and growth of labor force. While liberals love to show charts showing red states are "poorer, less educated, blah blah blah", they're looking at the static picture. In fact, many of these states just recently became quite conservative (Texas used to vote for Democrats for governor/state legislature until the mid 90's) and just began to implement these smart policies. On the same token, the income growth/prosperity in blue states was generated when they were more conservative.

The dynamic picture shows that red states are advancing while blue ones are receding.

Sorry, but NJ, NY, CA, CT and IL are the wealthiest states with a per capita income much higher than the national average. Many of these states are also laying off or cutting workers which decreases state income and output as well.

This is more Art Laffer incessant bullshit. This site fails to mention that ALL of the high tax states are among, by far, the wealthiest in the nation as far as gross state product and per capita income are concerned. Sure, some people will move, but are they insinuating a surgeon from New York will move to North Carolina to practice surgery in Anytown, NC? Come on, spare me. Yeah, a NY surgeon will move to NC to practice medicine, where the gross state product is one-fourth less than NY? Yeah, ok.

Last time I checked, TX, FL, and NV ranked 33, 22 and 18 in the nation, respectively, in terms of per capita income. TX and FL have per capita income below the US national average. NY, NJ and CA rank among the highest in the nation in terms of per capita income and gross state product. Sure, states with no income taxes may create more jobs, but they tend to be low paying jobs. And the only reason they have no state income taxes is due to the fact they run surpluses as a result of trade with the rest of the country. They get away with this nonsense mostly due to comparative advantage: fewer services compared to higher tax states in the country, low wages, etc.

This is more delusional dogma by reactionaries.

Did you adjust for cost of living? That makes a huge difference. And of course NY has a greater total state product than NC......it has a greater population! However, NC is growing quickly while states like NY are falling behind.

You committed the exact fallacy I described in my first post. You're looking at the static picture rather than the dynamic one. States like TX and FL are moving in a very positive direction; NY, IL, and CA, not so much.

Let’s take my state: NJ. It’s has a smaller population than Texas, North Carolina, and Florida, and also has urban pockets which tend to obfuscate overall levels of education. However, we still have the 2nd highest per capita income in the country and a growing state product.

Texas ranks 33rd in per capita income. NJ ranks 2nd, CT ranks 3rd and NY ranks 7th. Why should any of these states follow the disastrous polices of states with low per capita income and state product?

 

[kiwiman127]

Data Dump Americans for Economic Freedom
Conservative states lead in influx of personal income, population growth, employment growth, GDP growth, and growth of labor force. While liberals love to show charts showing red states are "poorer, less educated, blah blah blah", they're looking at the static picture. In fact, many of these states just recently became quite conservative (Texas used to vote for Democrats for governor/state legislature until the mid 90's) and just began to implement these smart policies. On the same token, the income growth/prosperity in blue states was generated when they were more conservative.

The dynamic picture shows that red states are advancing while blue ones are receding.

Um, this isn't evidence conservative policies work. Not to say I think they don't work, but this simply isn't evidence that they do.

However, it is a proven fact that tax cuts don't create jobs. That is a myth cons won't let go of. Bush's tax cuts did nothing to create jobs. In fact, 2.5 times more jobs were created under Obama in 5 years than Bush in all of his 8 despite what Boner will tell you.

Wow, you liberals are so easy to beat.

You fail to say why this isn't evidence for conservative policies working. The evidence shows a very strong relationship between conservative policies and economic success. Without an alternative explanation for the relationship (and it's not warm weather, or California would be near the top), this is great evidence in favor.

With regards to tax cuts, Bush had full employment (unemployment below 5-6%) from 2003-2008. His economic record wasn't perfect, but it far better than Obama's. Under Obama, the labor force is declining and the only reason Bush's jobs numbers were bad was the 2008 recession (caused by Democrats' not regulating Fannie Mae)

Well, where to start?
The recession became official in December 2007. A recession is official after two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. So in other words, negative growth started after the second quarter of 2007. It's very naive to think that a Democratic Congress could effect the economy that quickly, particularly a recession driven by credit and housing crisis that had been predicted by economist in 2005-2006.
Also, you blame the Dems for not regulating Fannie Mae, where was the GOP? They controlled the House starting in 1994 and had off and on control of the Senate during that time frame . Please explain exactly how the Dems did that all by themselves. It seems that many in the GOP dragged their feet regulating Fannie Mae. After all "home ownership for all" was part of the 2004 GOP convention platform.!
Secondly, we often hear about the Bush "full employment". Yet, during the Clinton years we had better unemployment and worker participation numbers as the attached graphs clearly show.

 

[jasonnfree]

All modern countries have national health care except USA...

--where you can't keep your doctor if you like him and you can't keep your insurance if you like it.

Are you talking about the ACA? I was referring to countries such as Germany, England etc. that have national health care.

 

[mascale]

People forget that Reagan created the first great raid of the rich on federal spending, and in major deficit dollars to boot. Bush I, term 1, became the victim. Then Clinton was facing the prosepct of a likely default of the U. S. Federal government. There was no Progressive, forward-thinking, socialist China out there buying up the deficit financing.

Then there was Bush II, Terms 1, and 2. TARP happened speedily, and with a lot of slop. Rich bankers got to keep all their promised Comissions. The ACA roll-out, by comparison, was required to be complex and safe--for tens of millions. Finally the White House, just this week, likely has the website working.

Out of Bush II, Terms 1 and 2, California became less of a federal bucks recipient, mostly in contrast with Texas and Florida.

Any data dump is actually reliant on Socialist, progressive, China for congratulations.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Teaching is not possible, at any grade level, without the doctoral degree--unless you believe that some kids are better than other kids and that all the other kids are not worth the extra effort. China might agree, except that teaching is not possible, withot the doctoral degree. . . .! So there is a lot we have in common(?)!)