Due to the US's recent avalanche of higher taxes, copious regulations and run-away debt, for the first time since it's been measured, the US is no longer in the top 10 of most economically free countries. All three issues are critical components of the democrat economic model. Economic freedom is directly related to innovation, growth and entrepreneurship. More evidence that a democrat controlled government (WH and congress) is the worst of all scenarios for a growing, stable economy.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303848104579308811265028066?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303848104579308811265028066.html

 
Attachments:

You do know that list is by the Heritage Foundation which is a biased partisan organization right?

You stupid fucking right wingers with your stupid fucking threads are giving me a headache.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do know that list is by the Heritage
> Foundation which is a biased partisan organization
> right?
>
> You stupid fucking right wingers with your stupid
> fucking threads are giving me a headache.


Refute it then. Calling names and dismissing things you don't like without any contrary evidence is a big fail.

refute what? Its' an objective study. You're asking me to refute Heritage Foundation and Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal's opinion.

That's what it is their fucking opinion. I've never heard of this study before. Does it even have a historical background I could compare it to if I looked to look past the sources of the so called study?

The article is fucking retarded. It says the study is based on what their opinion is of what countries have taken steps to increase "economic freedom" in which case that gave a better ranking.

Then they also factored countries whom have "experimented with socialism" lmao, in which case that decreased their ranking in the study.

That's the funniest shit I've ever read. lol

You people are fucking stupid.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> refute what? Its' an objective study. You're
> asking me to refute Heritage Foundation and Rupert
> Murdoch's Wall Street Journal's opinion.
>
> That's what it is their fucking opinion. I've
> never heard of this study before. Does it even
> have a historical background I could compare it to
> if I looked to look past the sources of the so
> called study?


Helps if you actually read the fucking link:

Quote

For 20 years, the index has measured a nation's commitment to free enterprise on a scale of 0 to 100 by evaluating 10 categories, including fiscal soundness, government size and property rights. These commitments have powerful effects: Countries achieving higher levels of economic freedom consistently and measurably outperform others in economic growth, long-term prosperity and social progress. Botswana, for example, has made gains through low tax rates and political stability.

Even if you consider it biased coming from Heritage (and this is done in concert with the WSJ btw), then it would be on a relative basis to the same bias which existed from the same source in the past.

It is the goal of this GOVT and future no matter who they be to crush and collapse our economy as to make our export companies start booming.

I dispute the vast majority of their so called categories of what constitutes "economic freedom."

It's a stupid fucking study for stupid fucking people that is objective.

I don't consider helping people acquire health care as an infringement of economic freedom. Okay, so take your idiotic dumbass heritage foundation nonsensical bullshit, and shove it up your ass.

It's the general assumption that right wing political views are what constitutes "economic freedom" and then used as a basis for ranking nations all being introduced as a "study."


And then you got retards on FFXU referencing their own dumb ass heritage foundation bullshit lmao as an indicator of "economic freedom" in America in relation with the world.

Come on man stop with the stupid fucking threads.

Use your fucking brain before you start a thread.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The article is fucking retarded. It says the
> study is based on what their opinion is of what
> countries have taken steps to increase "economic
> freedom" in which case that gave a better ranking.
>
>
> Then they also factored countries whom have
> "experimented with socialism" lmao, in which case
> that decreased their ranking in the study.
>
> That's the funniest shit I've ever read. lol
>
> You people are fucking stupid.


Nope, what it says is:

Quote

The most improved players are in Eastern Europe, including Estonia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. These countries have gained the most economic freedom over the past two decades. And it's no surprise: Those who have lived under communism have no trouble recognizing the benefits of a free-market system. But countries that have experimented with milder forms of socialism, such as Sweden, Denmark and Canada, also have made impressive moves toward greater economic freedom, with gains near 10 points or higher on the index scale. Sweden, for instance, is now ranked 20th out of 178 countries, up from 34th out of 140 countries in 1996.

Which would be taken as a positive comment relative to socialism. And the specific wording is the author of the article's versus the study's criteria which you can find easily at their site. The latter does not appear to, as you say, downgrade simply based on form of government per se; rather, they score based on the relative effects of whatever specific government on various criteria (e.g., rights to private property and likelihood private property may be confiscated) regardless of form.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dispute the vast majority of their so called
> categories of what constitutes "economic freedom."
>
>
> It's a stupid fucking study for stupid fucking
> people that is objective.
>
> I don't consider helping people acquire health
> care as an infringement of economic freedom.
> Okay, so take your idiotic dumbass heritage
> foundation nonsensical bullshit, and shove it up
> your ass.


And where exactly does it downgrade for "helping people acquire health
care?"

You Obama huggers are so blind to what this Communist is doing to this economy and country that i bet you are drolling over the chance to vote for communist #2, Hillary???

Those fuckin communists and their "experimentation with socialism." How dare they actually provide something for the people of their respective countries in return for their taxes.

You people have a mental disorder. So a free government is one that is fascist I assume.

Speaking of the shuddering economy, the number of people who are not working at this time are equivalent in number to those in the same position in 1978 when Jimmy Carter was president.

Yup. This economy is doing just great.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do know that list is by the Heritage
> Foundation which is a biased partisan organization
> right?
>
> You stupid fucking right wingers with your stupid
> fucking threads are giving me a headache.


Says the guy whose been spewing garbage about their healthcare paper 20 years ago for the last 2 weeks

I see we need to be more socialist to get back into the top 10.

That top 10 = a lot of Free healthcare.

Even John Boehner Republican Speaker said Heritage isn't credible. Forget what Democrats think of them.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even John Boehner Republican Speaker said Heritage
> isn't credible. Forget what Democrats think of
> them.


So far all you've provided is your opinions regarding why this is invalid. Sorry, your partisan opinions do not refute an ongoing (20 years) methodology that demonstrates the deterioration of economic freedoms in the US, especially over the past 7 years. What happened 7 years ago? Speaker Pelosi? Majority Leader Reid? Coincidence? Not likely

The Heritage Foundation is arguably the most partisan organization in the entire country. They are too partisan even for the most powerful person in the party they support, the Speaker of the House.

And you want me to give credence to a study by these people on what constitutes "economic freedom."

The definition of "economic freedom" itself is objective. Economic freedom I assure you means something different to you than it does me. The study itself is based on a false premise by an organization with the audacity to proclaim they are the arbiters of what the meaning of "economic freedom" is.

Every single last bit of this study is up for dispute and is not only not scientific but seriously lacking a semantic foundation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2014 08:46PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Heritage Foundation is arguably the most
> partisan organization in the entire country. They
> are too partisan even for the most powerful person
> in the party they support, the Speaker of the
> House.
>
> And you want me to give credence to a study by
> these people on what constitutes "economic
> freedom."
>
> The definition of "economic freedom" itself is
> objective. Economic freedom I assure you means
> something different to you than it does me. The
> study itself is based on a false premise by an
> organization with the audacity to proclaim they
> are the arbiters of what the meaning of "economic
> freedom" is.
>
> Every single last bit of this study is up for
> dispute and is not only not scientific but
> seriously lacking a semantic foundation.


But then you accept anything that TPM or MediaMatters publishes as gospel. lmao

Media Matters wouldn't do a dumb ass study proclaiming to speak for what "economic freedom" is.

They may do something on specifics like disparity or upward mobility as well defined phrases with well defined meanings and well defined scientific data.

According to the article, points were taken away from states with "experimental social programs."

If economic freedom is defined as: It’s the freedom to choose how to produce, sell, and use your own resources, while respecting others’ rights to do the same.

If that's the best Heritage and WSJ could hope to define "economic freedom" as, then how do so called "social experiments" infringe on peoples ability to produce and sell goods?

Does the head start program create regulations on the banking industry? How do you deduct for one based on a study of the other?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2014 09:17PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerry ... I mean Mark,

If you have half the smarts that you claim to have, why do you spend so much time here on the forum? Is it because any employer isn't willing to hire you because of your deep hatred?

Oh, I also have to share a quick joke that my daughter told me this weekend.

"Last week, it was so cold that the Democrats had their hands in their own pockets"

Gerry ... I mean Mark,

If you have half the smarts that you claim to have, why do you spend so much time here on the forum? Is it because any employer isn't willing to hire you because of your deep hatred?

Oh, I also have to share a quick joke that my daughter told me this weekend.

"Last week, it was so cold that the Democrats had their hands in their own pockets"

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Media Matters wouldn't do a dumb ass study
> proclaiming to speak for what "economic freedom"
> is.
>
> They may do something on specifics like disparity
> or upward mobility as well defined phrases with
> well defined meanings and well defined scientific
> data.
>
> According to the article, points were taken away
> from states with "experimental social programs."
>
> If economic freedom is defined as: It’s the
> freedom to choose how to produce, sell, and use
> your own resources, while respecting others’
> rights to do the same.
>
> If that's the best Heritage and WSJ could hope to
> define "economic freedom" as, then how do so
> called "social experiments" infringe on peoples
> ability to produce and sell goods?
>
> Does the head start program create regulations on
> the banking industry? How do you deduct for one
> based on a study of the other?


^

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> According to the article, points were taken away
> from states with "experimental social programs."
>

Nope, once again, what it says is:

Quote

The most improved players are in Eastern Europe, including Estonia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. These countries have gained the most economic freedom over the past two decades. And it's no surprise: Those who have lived under communism have no trouble recognizing the benefits of a free-market system. But countries that have experimented with milder forms of socialism, such as Sweden, Denmark and Canada, also have made impressive moves toward greater economic freedom, with gains near 10 points or higher on the index scale. Sweden, for instance, is now ranked 20th out of 178 countries, up from 34th out of 140 countries in 1996.

Which is almost directly opposite of what you said. In fact, as noted, they gained points.

Don't worry gerry doesnt like facts he makes up his own facts and ignores the real facts. Libs get scared because of facts they duck and run.

It says former Communist countries have made the biggest strides in what they deem as "economic freedom" and despite having experimented with milder forms of socialism other countries have also made strides.

So either you can't read or are retarded but it clearly states the any form of socialism in a nation is a hindrance on what they define "economic freedom" as being.

It's a stupid article and that quote right there contradicts its premise.

It says former Communist countries have made the biggest strides towards economic freedom because they have no trouble recognizing the benefits of a free market system.

They haven't made the biggest strides because they were formally fucking Communist and are transforming into a Capitalist society?

No, they've made the biggest strides because they see the error in their ways more than anyone lmao.

Its the stupid shit I've ever read in my life. Not scientific, its fucking propaganda.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It says former Communist countries have made the
> biggest strides in what they deem as "economic
> freedom" and despite having experimented with
> milder forms of socialism other countries have
> also made strides.
>
> So either you can't read or are retarded but it
> clearly states the any form of socialism in a
> nation is a hindrance on what they define
> "economic freedom" as being.


Which doesn't say:

> According to the article, points were taken away
> from states with "experimental social programs."
>

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a stupid article and that quote right there
> contradicts its premise.
>
> It says former Communist countries have made the
> biggest strides towards economic freedom because
> they have no trouble recognizing the benefits of a
> free market system.
>
> They haven't made the biggest strides because they
> were formally fucking Communist and are
> transforming into a Capitalist society?
>
> No, they've made the biggest strides because they
> see the error in their ways more than anyone lmao.
>
>
> Its the stupid shit I've ever read in my life.
> Not scientific, its fucking propaganda.


^ You know Gerry's grasping when he starts the Sven-like double posting. lmao

Economic "freedom". Is that the same as the Freedom Corp. thats polluting WVA?

We need to take the word freedom back from these fucks and start disputing their use of it for their own political ends.

They are tarnishing the word that is the basis of our nation. Freedom is not a word that you can just whore around as you please.