The blueprint for prosperity

[francoHFW]

all you jackass doops go on and on about horrible regulations and can't give a single example. Idiot.

Here is a single example, snowflake. And it is a perfect example.

The Obama administration on Friday ordered a moratorium on new leases for coal mined from federal lands as part of a sweeping review of the government’s management of vast amounts of taxpayer-owned coal throughout the West.

The result of this highly unconstitutional action?

I. Created unaffordable energy prices
II. Negative impact on jobs
III. Which in turn has a negative impact on tax revenues

It’s bad all the way around and it’s why we’ve seen an exponentially better economy under President Trump and the Republicans than we did under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. And this is just one example of hundreds. So much for your ignorant claim that MaObama “had no policies”. He did. They were all just really bad.

Obama announces moratorium on new federal coal leases

Good, there's plenty of coal that is not on Federal Land, and none of it is important for the economy.there are more people employed in alternate energy than in gas and coal combined now and we are competing with China and the EU, which we were not before Obama.

 

[francoHFW]

all you jackass doops go on and on about horrible regulations and can't give a single example. Idiot.

Here is a single example, snowflake. And it is a perfect example.

The Obama administration on Friday ordered a moratorium on new leases for coal mined from federal lands as part of a sweeping review of the government’s management of vast amounts of taxpayer-owned coal throughout the West.

The result of this highly unconstitutional action?

I. Created unaffordable energy prices
II. Negative impact on jobs
III. Which in turn has a negative impact on tax revenues

It’s bad all the way around and it’s why we’ve seen an exponentially better economy under President Trump and the Republicans than we did under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. And this is just one example of hundreds. So much for your ignorant claim that MaObama “had no policies”. He did. They were all just really bad.

Obama announces moratorium on new federal coal leases

Good, there's plenty of coal that is not on Federal Land, and none of it is important for the economy.there are more people employed in alternate energy than in gas and coal combined now and we are competing with China and the EU, which we were not before Obama.

Too bad Hillary wasn't elected, she would have helped West Virginians Etc get trained for new technology jobs so, now we still have 6 million going unfilled...

 

[P@triot]

Good

I rest my case. You responded exactly as I predicted you would. You denied everything. Once I proved it and you could no longer deny it, then you simply declare that anything Obama did was “good”.

there's plenty of coal that is not on Federal Land

Uh...why does the federal government even own “federal land”? The U.S. Constitution never authorized them to steal lands from the state and make it federal.

and none of it is important for the economy.

All of it is vital to the economy, stupid. It’s basic Supply & Demand.

there are more people employed in alternate energy than in gas and coal combined now

Because of unconstitutional government intervention. The federal government isn’t empowered to pick winners and losers. That is supposed to be done by the consumers of the free market.

and we are competing with China and the EU, which we were not before Obama.

Exactly. Before, we had no competition. We were the elite of the elite. In typical Dumbocrat fahsion, MaObama lowered the bar (and thus lowered our standard of living) and now we have to compete with shit-hole communists states like China. Thankfully though, President Trump is fixin that. God Bless President Trump.

 

[francoHFW]

you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.

If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.

I think I'll go with our justice system and judges over bought off High School grad right-wing pundits, thanks oh, as to what is unconstitutional and illegal. How is lockherup coming, super duper. Or any other Democrat you people have convicted in your brain such as it is...

 

[P@triot]

Too bad Hillary wasn't elected, she would have helped West Virginians Etc get trained for new technology jobs so

So you’re admitting she would have acted unconstitutionally and you’re disappointed that she didn’t get the opportunity to do so? Wow, man. Wow. The U.S. Constitution does not empower the federal government to “train” citizens. Idiot.

now we still have 6 million going unfilled...

We have many job openings thanks to President Trump and the Republicans! And the free market will flawlessly handle all of them.

Do you know what will happen with those “6 million” tech jobs you claim exist? Salaries will skyrocket as companies compete to land the talent capable of filling them. That wouldn’t have happened had Hitlery Clinton take the action you are advocating. Again...this proves you are an idiot.

 

[P@triot]

I think I'll go with our justice system and judges over bought off High School grad right-wing pundits, thanks oh, as to what is unconstitutional and illegal

Well you have to. You’re not informed/educated enough to determine it yourself. But the rest of us who have actually read the U.S. Constitution don’t need someone else to affirm it for us.

 

[Faun]

The unemployment rate was already about 8% when ARRA went into effect.

Well then MaObama was extra stupid for “promising” that unemployment would never hit 8% if we passed his absurd “stimulus package”.

Why would that make him stupid when the unemployment rate was 6% when he said that? Was he supposed to know it would sky rocket to 8% by the time it was passed by Congress and put into effect?

These are rhetorical questions, Buttplug. I don’t expect someone as dumb as you, who actually said Obama lost 10 million jobs since 2007 (he wasn’t even president until 2009), to have even a clue what you’re talking about.

 

[hadit]

View attachment 233797

That is why we have a have a Natural rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.

Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.

Or stop saying it.

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.

So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.

Well, at least you stopped saying it for a while. Let's see how long that lasts.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 233797

That is why we have a have a Natural rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.

Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.

Or stop saying it.

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.

Ahahahahahaha! Daniel makes shit up and then panics when someone calls him out on it. Well done hadit!

Daniel...you’re the one who keeps making the claim. If you know, you should give the answer. You just got bent over son.

I am not the one claiming I have a valid argument with nothing but an appeal to ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 233797

That is why we have a have a Natural rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.

Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.

Or stop saying it.

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.

So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.

It Must be the "gospel Truth" if you don't have a valid rebuttal.

 

[danielpalos]

you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.

If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.

 

[hadit]

View attachment 233797

That is why we have a have a Natural rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.

Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.

Or stop saying it.

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.

Ahahahahahaha! Daniel makes shit up and then panics when someone calls him out on it. Well done hadit!

Daniel...you’re the one who keeps making the claim. If you know, you should give the answer. You just got bent over son.

I am not the one claiming I have a valid argument with nothing but an appeal to ignorance.

But you ARE the one who keeps using that same phrase over and over again to justify the fact that you want to be paid for not working. So, here's your chance to define what you're saying. What is the number and what is your source for that number?

Then we can debate whether it's applicable or if you're just spouting off nonsense.

 

[hadit]

View attachment 233797

That is why we have a have a Natural rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.

Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.

Or stop saying it.

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.

So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.

It Must be the "gospel Truth" if you don't have a valid rebuttal.

I made a simple request. What is this number you keep talking about and where did you get it?

Why "rebut" something that may not even have any meaning?

 

[hadit]

you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.

If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.

What's the number and where did you get it?

 

[danielpalos]

That is why we have a have a Natural rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.

Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.

Or stop saying it.

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.

Ahahahahahaha! Daniel makes shit up and then panics when someone calls him out on it. Well done hadit!

Daniel...you’re the one who keeps making the claim. If you know, you should give the answer. You just got bent over son.

I am not the one claiming I have a valid argument with nothing but an appeal to ignorance.

But you ARE the one who keeps using that same phrase over and over again to justify the fact that you want to be paid for not working. So, here's your chance to define what you're saying. What is the number and what is your source for that number?

Then we can debate whether it's applicable or if you're just spouting off nonsense.

Who cares about right wing morals.

We are discussing economics and promoting the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

 

[danielpalos]

That is why we have a have a Natural rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.

Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.

Or stop saying it.

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.

So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.

It Must be the "gospel Truth" if you don't have a valid rebuttal.

I made a simple request. What is this number you keep talking about and where did you get it?

Why "rebut" something that may not even have any meaning?

Anyone who wants to have any understanding of economics whatsoever, should look into the concepts involved.

 

[danielpalos]

you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.

If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.

What's the number and where did you get it?

A book on Economics. I don't need to Gossip, like right wingers.

 

[hadit]

you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.

If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.

What's the number and where did you get it?

A book on Economics. I don't need to Gossip, like right wingers.

What is the number and what is the name of the book?

 

[hadit]

Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.

Or stop saying it.

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.

So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.

It Must be the "gospel Truth" if you don't have a valid rebuttal.

I made a simple request. What is this number you keep talking about and where did you get it?

Why "rebut" something that may not even have any meaning?

Anyone who wants to have any understanding of economics whatsoever, should look into the concepts involved.

You talk about a number, what is it?

 

[hadit]

Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.

Or stop saying it.

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.

Ahahahahahaha! Daniel makes shit up and then panics when someone calls him out on it. Well done hadit!

Daniel...you’re the one who keeps making the claim. If you know, you should give the answer. You just got bent over son.

I am not the one claiming I have a valid argument with nothing but an appeal to ignorance.

But you ARE the one who keeps using that same phrase over and over again to justify the fact that you want to be paid for not working. So, here's your chance to define what you're saying. What is the number and what is your source for that number?

Then we can debate whether it's applicable or if you're just spouting off nonsense.

Who cares about right wing morals.

We are discussing economics and promoting the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

You're talking about a 'natural rate of unemployment'. What is the number and what is your source?