Mimi,

Stop making up facts to back up your "hissy fit" called liberalism. Missisippi has the lowest per capita income. South Carolina is tied for 24th place for lowest cost of living ( the bottom 10 states are all democratic stongholds), There are 13 states that have a lower level of college educated people than SC. Pennsylvania has the highest college tuition cost. So far as taxes, SC is the 2nd lowest in the nation, Maryland, Conneticut, New York, New Jersey and Mass. are the highest (what party do they vote for?). There are 8 states with higher unemployement rates than SC and 7 states with a higher number of uninsured people.

@Dr John: "Stop making up facts..."

good idea for all (especially the politicians)...stop the spins...might add cherry picking facts (aka BS)

and once we have the facts, what do they mean...eg, what does it mean/matter "South Carolina is tied for 24th place for lowest cost of living (the bottom 10 states are all democratic stongholds)"...

dont think those living in the bottom 10 (those with highest cost of living) are flocking to TN (1st place, lowest COL)...

perhaps a more telling 'back up' of liberalism is the end result/success of liberal and conservative policies.

brief result summary

conservatism: led to 1929 depression; 2008 recession; and a trickle up to the 1%.

liberalism: led to recovery from 1929 depression; turning economy around after 2008 recession; social security, medicare, affordable health care (BO-care).

also one might consider GOPs originally opposed social security and medicare...now want to repeal BO-care (tho modeled on MITT-care in MA); repeal social security and medicare as we know it...and GOPs pay for rich folks' tax cuts with program cuts for education and the least (the disabled, etal)

so, not a rhetorical, does SC's (any state) COL rank (any specific ranking) matter...maybe how much do they matter a better question/discussion.

The only person making up facts is you John. You spend hours on these post spewing nonsense. Why don't you link us to your fact finding research (that doesn't include Faux comedy show.) For some reason you try to prove a point by comparing apples and frogs. SOUTH CAROLINA HAS THE HIGHEST TUITION IN THE SOUTH. Weather we are the very very very lowest is insignificate the point is that we are at the bottom of every single catagory. PERIOD except of coarse in Corporate welfare then I would say we rank right up there with the highest. Touting the fact that 13 states out of 50 have lower educated people than SC as some sort of accomplishment is comical at best. Answering your question about what party the party that by the way is also on of the most corrupt that has been running South Carolina for way too long issssssss THE REPUBLICAN NEO-CONS.

@Dr. John - we're only below average in housing and transportation costs. We're 5% above national average for food and utilities, and 3% above average for restaurants and clothing.

The left is rising! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrk1R5jUKtA and so is unemployment :(

@Tonto: 'The left is rising!...'

tonto's ref say:' Even the ultra-marxist Harvard professors say Obama must go...'

well guess this disproves (not that disproof needed) right wingnut's ridiculous bs Bo is a communist...but proves there are right and left wingnuts...just more on right.

couldnt do without you, tonto...

@Dr. John: 'take all 240 years, it was the main reason why this has become...As a contrast, look at all of the failed societies...'

thanks for the push to google which provided nothing to substantiate your all too general conclusion...

until the time of our modern DEM/GOP parties there is no evidence conservatism was the main reason...ie;

George Washington: no party
John Adams: The Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs...The Federalists, too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters, grew weaker year by year
Jefferson: The Democratic-Republican Party, not to be confused with the modern Republican
James Madison: Democratic-Republican Party
John Q Adams: Democratic-Republican Party
Andrew Jackson: Democratic, The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States along with the Republican Party. The party supports a socially liberal and progressive platform
Martin Van Buren: Democratic
William Henry Harrison: Whig, supported the supremacy of Congress over the presidency and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism.
John Tyler: Whig
James K. Polk: Democratic
Zachary Taylor: Whig
Millard Fillmore: Whig

in more recent times there were 14 DEM administrations and 17 GOP...counting FDR served 4 terms make it about even so what's the basis for your main reason opine/conclusions...

ps. forgot to post link for info re presidents/administrations...interesting and educational. the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

We don't find fault with you legitimate sources only your cherry picking of the facts and you self inflicted conclusions. The problem with you John is you like to exclude any information that might prove that there have been failed policies in both parties at the moment the policies that are hurting this country and its people are the failed Federalist Republican policies we have all been suffering from for over a decade.

You're challenging his source for a list of presidents? Come on.

Actually, 'doc', your source verifies the validity of stanley's source for this: "Wikipedia’s political coverage is often very good
for recent or prominent topics but is lacking on older or more obscure topics."
A chronological listing of US presidents isn't 'obscure.'

@Dr. John: It has been shown that although wkipedia is accurate for the information it provides, it suffers greatly from errors of ommission and bias, especially in politics. Please consider using a different source in the future.

dr john begs the question...does not address the issue...the issue: in more recent times there were 14 DEM administrations and 17 GOP...counting FDR served 4 terms make it about even so what's the basis for his 'main reason' opine/conclusions...ie;

'take all 240 years, it [conservatism] was the main reason why this [country] has become the most...'

he provides NO data on which to base his all too general opine...instead, it seems, he suggest wikipedia provides incorrect data re USA presidents' terms and party affiliation...which, forget wikipedia, is historical fact...and which he and all know.

also fact is GOP policies led to 1929 depression; 2008 recession; CA 2011 budget issues; and the trickle UP to the 1%-ers.

BTW dr john's tactic is typical of T-GOPers...ie, make wild, inaccurate, general, statements without substantiating data...then when asked for facts change the subject...move the goal posts.

look at the edit history of that page - it's been raided 13 times in the last three days by a couple of people hacking the "Contemporary Explanations" and "General theoretical explanations" portions of that page (plus the "overview," too)

The one common ground there is no arguement about is lack of regulations on our banking system. No matter how many time they come to that conclusion they don't learn a thing and just keep trusting that without regulations that people of greed will do the right thing.

So if we cannot trust people of greed will do the right thing, then how can we trust government to do the right thing?

citing World NUT Daily as a source removes all foundation from your argument. Next!

@Dr. John: "...the great depression..."

depression and recession causes are above my pay grade...perhaps a better question is what caused the markets (1929/2008) to crash/tank...

opine: greedy bastards taking advantage of an unregulated market...job losses/gains parallel (w/ some lag) DJI losses/gains...in any event;

if a ship (of state) runs aground, the capt is responsible whether on the bridge or not.

@reg: "citing World NUT Daily as a source removes all foundation from your [drjohns] argument.

hadnt read WND but looked at 'what really caused...' article and did quick read of other articles and have to agree it is no foundation for dr john's (or anyone’s) opine...

besides biased conclusions there are either lies, cherry picked facts, or misunderstanding of the market, in the article...eg;

article say, "How could that [stock mkt caused depression] be? By April 1930, the stock market had recovered to its pre-crash level.

facts:

DJI: Jan 2, 1929 -307; January 2, 1930 -244; January 2, 1931 -169; Dec 31, 1931 -77

@reg: "citing World NUT Daily as a source removes all foundation from your [drjohns] argument.

hadnt read WND but looked at 'what really caused...' article and did quick read of other articles and have to agree it is no foundation for dr john's (or anyone’s) opine...

besides biased conclusions there are either lies, cherry picked facts, or misunderstanding of the market, in the article...eg;

article say, "How could that [stock mkt caused depression] be? By April 1930, the stock market had recovered to its pre-crash level.

facts:
DJI: Jan 2, 1929 -307; January 2, 1930 -244; January 2, 1931 -169; Dec 31, 1931 -77

Reg,

JFK believed tax cuts helped the economy, that a strong military and national security policy was necessary, all conservative principles. The other points you cite on race are actually all conservative principles. Conservatism is rooted in equal oportunity and wanting the best for all Americans. It is liberalism that views people as members of ethnic groups, minorities, income and gender. Liberalism needs people in minority status to perpetuate the idea of societal unfairness. Liberalism also needs more control over the daily lives of people to manage outcomes where conservatism ensures everyone has access to the opportunities. So yes, by the definition of conservatism, JFK was a democrat with conservative leanings. Meanwhile. Nixon implemented liberal policies that led to greater government intervention, growth and regulation. He is a liberal leaning republican. I am not suggesting that JFK or Nixon were full blooded conservative or liberal, but illustrating how party lines do not follow ideology. And yes Reg, you piled on about my comment regarding Wikipedia as an inaccurate source. You Mis-read my criticism of Wikipedia to be criticism of party affiliations of past presidents as you and Stanley tried to invoke party lines in my ideological analysis. The icing on the cake is that I intentionally used a Wikipedia source that I sarcastically claimed was the holy grail of sources, to show exactly how inaccurate it was and you agreed with me I am all smiles

JFK initiated tax cuts when the economy was prime for those tax cuts. If the points on race are actually conservative principles, then why is that not every conservative on the books has only tried to cut from any type of equal rights program for all minorities, be it based on race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, age and every other factor. You say liberalism wants "control over the daily lives..." *have you been asleep at the wheel?* WHICH PARTY JUST MADE IT OKAY FOR EMPLOYERS TO ACCESS YOUR FACEBOOK/TWITTER (and even Patch) ACCOUNTS? Now, thanks to Tim Scott et al, you don't agree to give it up to let your boss spy on you, you can be fired. Dems introduced bill to stop that, all GOP but one blocked it. Libs want freedom, GOP wants Big Brother. Then there's GOP trying to interfere into which charities you can donate to; taking away your rights to representation; trying to create the same circumstances our ancestors came here to escape. GOP IS IN NO WAY AMERICAN. And your blatantly false definitions of "liberalism" only indicates that you're trying to do the same misleading and misrepresentation that they're doing in congress right now.

There you go again Dr. John relying on your radical right wing sources as if they are factualy information. You know nothing about liberal so do give up you are now starting to sound a little foolish. I wonder why Dr. John that govt spending always increases under Republicans, I wonder why John it take a Democrat with progressive ideas to solve every single problem the failed Republican policies have created??? The one thing I can agree with you on is that not all Republicans are conservative and further some are socially conservative and some fiscally There are those same group of people in both parties. The problem is that the American people by a huge MAJORITY are centrist a little bit of both. Over all the majority of Americans fall within Independent and Democratic, Republicans are the smallest of any voting electorate and there are explaination for that it isn't because their policies are the best.

You're using your own definitions in your application of that definition, especially in your twisting of the term "welfare state." (as a "doc," don't you know what that term means?) A Welfare state is one that protects the general welfare of its population, and by ensuring that all have the same rights to the same benefits with equal opportunity. Go read the constitution - 'Promote the General Welfare'. Are equal opportunity and guaranteed rights "liberal" concepts? You betcha! You also need to brush up on affirmative action, too - you're describing it as some reverse discrimination, which it in no way is at all whatsoever. Maybe you should pick up some more education, "doc"

@Dr. John:

the only indisputable fact that cant be nit-picked with irrelevant contentions is: GOPs were in charge mar1921 to mar1933...

re: 'it was faulty government policy...not faulty "GOP" policy'...[say dr john]
so you say the GOPs practiced DEM 'government' policies 1921 -1933...seriously :)

fully aware DJI is an index based on performance of 30 stocks...and as you know or should know it is accepted by most as a reasonable indicator of market performance...

that DJI does not reflect total trading volume is irrelevant to this discussion (actually a distraction) as are many of your statements and contentions (my opine)

sigh...

@Dr. John: "...DEM policies did not solve it..."

whose policies did...DJI: 1932, 41; 1938, 154...and FDR reelected in 1936...so folks of that day must have felt DEM policies were working...

re: ' quicker recoveries made when government does not try to control the economy.'
convince me with examples...

re: yo link...place little faith in cato propaganda, eg, cato say:

"Roosevelt and his “brains trust” had no idea
what they were doing. They attempted one failed
intervention after another. The Great Depression was a
disaster, and sadly an avoidable one."

FDR/DEMs elected for 16 years...and there was not another great disaster until another 8 years (2001-2008) of GOP policies...

oh/and

'During the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial average rose on the average of 7.3% under GOPs and 10.3% under DEM administrations...the difference in the increase under DEMs and GOPs amounts to 41% increase in net worth to investors.' (LATimes, 2004)

First you cite FAUX News, then World NUT Daily, and now ... Cato? The group founded by Charles Koch? How much more partisan can you be?

@Dr. John: "...nice to know that democrat policies contributed more in creating the richest 1% of Americans...

they also contributed, to a more equitable distribution of wealth...to creating the middle class...ie;

1920s: [mostly GOPs]...income inequality climbs steadily, peaking in 1929, just before the stock market crash. It's a bad time to be a poor person (and an awesome time to be a rich person!) in America
1930s-1940s: [mostly DEMs]...the trend reverses itself, and incomes become more equal.
1950s-1960s: [IKE,JFK,LBJ] ...income distribution is pretty much stable. It's happy times in the USA.
1970s: [nixson, ford, carter] still holding
1980s-today: [begin reaganomics, trickle UP]...Except for a brief period in the late '90s, income inequality grows like mad. Despite periods of significant economic growth, from 1980 to 2005 some 80 percent of income growth was absorbed by the richest one percent...
http://news.change.org/stories/a-timeline-of-incom e-inequality-in-america

BTW pre 1929 and pre 2008 wealth distribution was 1%:99%

@Dr. John: "I think you meant to say "re-distribution"...we are all communists/ socialist now"

your sarcasm does not alter facts: GOP policies precipitated 1929 and 2008 disasters...and the economy, in general, does better under DEMs than GOPs...

eg;

Under which president, since WW2 produced:

1. The largest growth in gross domestic product?
2. The largest growth in jobs?
3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?4. The largest growth in industrial production?
5. The biggest rise in hourly wages?
6. The lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment)?
7. The lowest inflation?
8. The largest reduction in the deficit?
(apologies if a repeat post)

clue no GOPs

Answers:
1) Truman 2) Carter 3) Johnson 4) Kennedy 5) Johnson 6) Truman 7) Truman 8) Clinton (LATimes 2004)

what have GOP ideologies/policies produced...besides 1929, 2008, trickle UP, etc...

BTW2 do you think the 1%:99% ratio may be the tipping point to economical disasters...naw, but uncanny how this distribution ratio was a precusor to both 1929 and 2008 crisis...

The only communism running 'round here is the economic policies promoted by the GOP of late. They're identical to Marxist Economics.

There is nothing in today’s American economic policies of the GOP that resembles Marxism. There is nothing in the Democratic that resembles socialism. It was a “theory” that failed in practice, proposed over a hundred years ago to quantify industrial economies to describe the socioeconomic progression from capitalism to socialism then to communism. Marx underestimated in Das Capital Americas brand of capitalism that began hundreds of years earlier during colonial times whose spirit is still present today. He did not calculate an educated and politically powerful proletariat that would not stand by and allow the value surplus of production to trickle down but reach out and grab it by political activism and collective bargaining, forcing the bourgeoisie to capitulate. Karl Marx did not foresee that the all this could be done within the freedoms inherent in the American political system without revolution and overthrow.

So take that Marxism stuff and keep it in the history books where it belongs.

John H-
You're confusing Marxist Communism/Socialism with Marxist Economics. His socio/communist dissertation he himself would never work. He stood by this economic theory, though, which called for: no government influence on trade; a controlled labor market; no establishment of workers' rights; no voters' rights, even - and all based on what he claimed would lead to a major port development through such policies - that might have worked a century ago (and while still remaining brutalistic), but would never do anything today. In fact, that would only knock us back 2 centuries in basic human rights.

Well Reg, I don’t think even the most radical elements of both parties want to retrograde a couple of centuries of socio-economic progress.

@John H: '...retrograde a couple of centuries of socio-economic progress.'

not exactly pertinent to reg/drjohn discussion...but definitions to consider...

retrograde: Reverting to an earlier or inferior condition

conservatism: seeks to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".

'the way things were'...well maybe not centuries but seems GOP policies are a 'retrograde' to 1929 and 2008....'an earlier or inferior condition.'

@John H - tell that to Honduras, Vietnam, China, Sri Lanka, Guyana, Bangladesh ... and Russia and India use a lot of Marxian theories in their economies, too

To Stanly: When do liberals become the conservators of their agenda once achieved and conservatives seek to peruse a new progressive plan? Answer: During Barak Obama’s second term.

To Reg: “tell that to Honduras, Vietnam etc…

I’m glad that won’t happen in America.

@John H: "Answer: During Barak Obama’s second term."

and when DEMs take back the house and get 60 votes in the senate...ie, nov 2012...well;

maybe need to replace a couple of supreme court justices too.

there is a fly in the ointment...the supreme court has enabled koch bros, etals, to buy elections...

DEMs and GOPs must not let the corporations win...the greedy bastards dont give a damn about people...

ei/ie/io:
"Billionaire business owners didn't get to be rich by throwing millions of dollars away. They invest; they do not donate...When they throw a million dollars to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney [any elected official], they are not doing it solely from the kindness of their own heart. They are making a purchase. They seek to buy power, to buy access to the people who make the laws, and they want to make sure that the person signing all the laws in 2013 is the type of person who will only sign laws favorable to them."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/02/1096713/-We-are-the-1-Mitt-s-Megadonors

dont let them buy your vote thus buying america...it truly is no longer DEM or GOP...its the people or corporations...general bullmoose (capp's epitome of a ruthless capitalist) or lil abner

Not one statement in your last comment is true, john john. Not one.

@Dr. John

RE: Jimmy Carter- highest misery index

DEMs still had the lowest

RE: Bill Clinton - deficit reduction was authored by republican congress.

really...didn't GOPs (newt) threaten to shut down government...

RE: Reagan - largest job growth on the heels of a recession

he was 'authorized' by DEM who controlled house for 8 and senate for 2 yrs,

RE: Clinton just had to keep the key in the ignition

and keep the newt from shutting down our country.

RE: Obama has largest decrease in personal disposable income...chart shows a sharp decrease in disposable income in 2009

BO do...now the rest of the story, disposable income trended up 2010, 11, 12, and exceeded that in 2008...and most economic indicators show economy improving after 2008.

re: Jimmy Carter - highest inflation rate

opine: i'll take highest inflation rate over 1929 depression and 2008 recession 8 days a week...

RE: Reagan had the sharpest inflation reduction...

one term inflation reduction does not make an equitable distribution of wealth trend...RR/GOP policies led to 1% v 99% and the 2008 recession.

there was no trigger, just 8 years of trickle UP GOP policies...eg, W tax cuts for rich folks, a war lied into and not paid for, contributed far more than a one term DEM congress...

but believe what you want...seems it will take a strike three (1929 and 2008, strike one and two) depression/recession for GOPs to get voodoo economics do NOT work.

RE: Reagan had the sharpest inflation reduction in a Single term from the previous term

what cato say re RR yrs:

[CLIP]"Eight dreary, miserable years" of "egregiously statist policies," Murray Rothbard snarled in Liberty magazine in 1989. My colleague David Boaz was less dyspeptic, but nearly as disappointed, in his introduction to the 1988 Cato Institute volume "Assessing the Reagan Years": "The Reagan Revolution turned out to be a paper tiger,"

[CLIP] The Cato Institute in "Assessing the Reagan Years," which showed that under Reagan, federal spending actually increased from 23 percent to 24 percent of gross national product, while payroll tax increases resulted in a net tax increase for most Americans. [end clip]

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ronald-reagan-was-no-libertarian

'According to William Niskanen, former chairman of the Cato Institute [believe you use cato], the Reagan years left three major adverse economic legacies. First, privately held federal debt increased from 22% to 38% of GDP, despite a long peacetime expansion. Second, failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, trade barriers increased drastically – the share of U.S. imports subject to trade restrictions increased from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988.

A GOP friend of mine (some of my best friends are GOPs) said there must have been two RRs...the president and the one they talk about today.

Just like you didn't know the meaning of "welfare state," you also don't seem to know what "real disposable personal income" is, either. That's money for selective personal consumables and for savings. So, you're chart tells us that, in that era of recent recession, American consumers were spending less on non-necessary things and buying cheaper alternates whenever possible. Regular coffee instead of latte. You also don't know jack about Soros. This is the guy who partially funded the movement to overthrow communism in Hungary and replace it with capitalism, instead. Compare that to the Kochs - who use their money to fund schemes they hope will make sure they make more money. Soros uses his on projects (...Media Matters isn't his, either....) that promote true capitalism, not Koch-funded Marxist communism. That promote democracy, not a Koch brothers' oligarchy and serfdom. I really can't believe you're brave enough to post that kind of comment here, 'doc' - either you're clearly a troll, or very very very gullible to fox/wnd/cato. Either way, it doesn't say much about you.

Your examples of federalist tenets are completely absent in today's world. We've got Marxist GOP promoting no public works, who want a private military - been like that for a century, too. Remember TVA? The Hoover Dam? How even with govt contract, private industry refused to do them, and one three tried (Hoover), they messed it up so bad in cutting corners for profit at every turn, that they all had to be removed for the govt to start it all over again? .... Your "food stamps" quote just shot you in the foot, too, 'doc' - no one is eligible for food stamps unless they themselves have paid enough in taxes to qualify for them. That means that those folks have already paid for that themselves.

@DrJohn: 'the Koch Brothers are a threat?...Soros propaganda'

the following hi-lite the difference in kochs and soros

koch bros:
Common Cause is working to spotlight the threat to our democracy posed by a billionaire's caucus of self-interested corporate political contributors. In January 2011, we convened a forum,“Uncloaking the Kochs,” and co-sponsored a rally to call attention to a private, invitation-only political strategy and fundraising “seminar” in Rancho Mirage, Calif. sponsored by Koch Industries....From their base in Kansas, Koch Industries’ top executives David and Charles Koch are major stealth funders of efforts to fight reasonable government regulations, especially around climate change. They’re also leaders in a national campaign to roll back campaign finance laws that for a century have served as a check on corporate power.
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=6460127

soros:
Between 1979 and 2011, Soros gave away over $8 billion to human rights, public health, and education causes. He played a role in the transition from communism to capitalism in Hungary (1984–89),[7] and provided Europe's largest higher education endowment to Central European University in Budapest.[9] Soros is also the chairman of the Open Society Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

yeah, i know kochs give to charity...like the arts...they are multi billionaire, greedy bastards, yuppies...any contray points welcome...

just saw a 60min segment on buffett's son howard (think it was a repeat)...he and his dad are another stark comparison to the koch's 'greed is good.'...eg;

'Buffett [the son,howard] was named an Ambassador Against Hunger by the United Nations World Food Programme. In March 2010, Buffet became a member of the Eastern Congo Initiative founded by Ben Affleck. "I joined Ben in this effort because I believe strongly in investing in sustainable solutions to humanitarian challenges," he said.'

Well since the only racism evident in it seems to come from *you*, Tonto ... you let us know when AG Holder gives you a call. Meantime, let's go over the truth in your silly posting (from fox news' briet bart, no less). When you have a ticketed event, and in which the guests' names are printed on those tickets, you check to see that the person carrying that ticket actually has the same name that appears on that ticket. Twisting that into some defense of voter id is garbage - juvenile, even. But what can you expect from a source like the one your citing?

Here is what I call a racist - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo&feature=fvwrel

@tonto: 'What will AG Holder do about this racist outrage?'

surely you can see the difference in asking for ID at a political rally and at the ballot box...so are you purposely trying to confuse the issues...in any event

how do you see this as racist...or are you using the racist adjective to further confuse the issue...

And if that's what you find racist, then go after the source. Your juvenile attempt to insinuate everybody else is in the same pocket will backfire on you, too. For example, need I remind you of Republican state legislator David Duke?