• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glad my posts are cute. Have a good one.

Answer me straight. Does a stronger dollar make our goods more attractive abroad? This should be obvious coming from someone who "ran a $200 million" business.

So?????????
 
Answer me straight. Does a stronger dollar make our goods more attractive abroad? This should be obvious coming from someone who "ran a $200 million" business.

So?????????

It certainly means our dollar buys more and depending on prices in this country, yes it could make goods more attractive abroad. This certainly affects oil prices which are traded in dollars.
 
It certainly means our dollar buys more and depending on prices in this country

This is not what you said. For a refreshment:

stablize the value of the dollar making our products more attractive overseas

yes it could make goods more attractive abroad.

Incorrect, which proves you really have no business discussing these topics to the length at which you go.

This certainly affects oil prices which are traded in dollars.

We import oil.

And to think, you ran a $200 million business :lamo
 
Lets see you expect corporate america to create jobs when they are at least smart enough to know if they hold out until the 2012 elections that they might have a republican dominated business friendly government that is running on reducing corporate tax rates and regulations.

I can only hope that americans are smart enough to remember what 10 years of Bush tax cuts and Reagan's trickle down economics have done to the middle class and the poor in our country, instead of jobs and trickle down the Republicans have plundered the wealth of this country to the point of where 93 percent of America's wealth is now controlled by 20% of our population, to the point of high unemployment.

It's time for the middle class and the poor to show that 80% of our population can recover what the republicans have stolen from the poor and middle class. If we want jobs in America for Americans it's time to send the carpetbaggers and thier supporters back into the holes they crawled out of

Hopefully you are sending your Bush tax cuts back to the govt. to reward them for their great stewardship of the economy and for creating a 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Love how stealing from the poor is allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Wonder how those evil Republicans cutting taxes increased govt. revenue?

Personal income taxes by year

Individual Income tax

2010 898.5
2009 915.3
2008 1,145.7
2007 1,163.7
2006 1,043.9
2005 927.2
2004 808.9
2003 793.7

U.S. Treasury

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
 
It certainly means our dollar buys more and depending on prices in this country, yes it could make goods more attractive abroad. This certainly affects oil prices which are traded in dollars.

epic_fail.jpg

..................
 
Again I somewhat agree with you, but you can't just hand a failing state government money without restriction and expect good results, each state that was given money should have had to give a detailed report on what they were going to do to help "themselves" balance their budgets. as it was they did nothing... . and just kicked the can down the road for a year. near 800 billion dollars for a one year delay, hardly seems like something that could be called successful. Even more so when you do some math, and say that we could have "given" every unemployed person in this country over $55,000 each and wouldn't have needed to pass the added billions in umemployment benefits

it would be curious to see how this would play had such restrictions had been applied. I know most our situation here, and the state did start the process of thinking and planning down the road. We're better off for the time given. I can't speak to the entire nation though. And not sure who deserves the most blame for any that didn't use that time.

Also, how would giving people that much money have played? What would be the counter proposal to the stimulus?
 
This is not what you said. For a refreshment:





Incorrect, which proves you really have no business discussing these topics to the length at which you go.



We import oil.

And to think, you ran a $200 million business :lamo

Yes, I ran a 200 million dollar business, what did you run?

We import oil and we more for our dollars when it is worth more.

I have seen no evidence that you are anything other than a book smart liberal who has never run or managed anything.
 
Hopefully you are sending your Bush tax cuts back to the govt. to reward them for their great stewardship of the economy and for creating a 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Love how stealing from the poor is allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Wonder how those evil Republicans cutting taxes increased govt. revenue?

Personal income taxes by year

Individual Income tax

2010 898.5
2009 915.3
2008 1,145.7
2007 1,163.7
2006 1,043.9
2005 927.2
2004 808.9
2003 793.7

U.S. Treasury

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Tax revenue generally increases year after year no matter what. There's no way you can directly link a tax cut to a % revenue increase. Also, the data is further meaningless without posting at least the amount revenue collected before the cuts - right?

Who's to say that the gov't wouldn't have collected more money without the cuts? Only way to do that would be to have an alternate parallel universe which you enact a different tax policy and see the results. Until then, it’s all speculation.
 
Last edited:
Good post but what really bothers me is how so many people want to reward politicians that ran up the current debt and penalizing the taxpayers for what those politicians did. Not once has anyone addressed spending only revenue and that is a travisty.

You know Conservative, I'm on the same side of the coin with you, and agree with you on many things. But besides being a conservative myself, I'm also a realist. As such, I would only ask you to do the same. Blame? There is enough to go around for everyone. While I respect Bush on some issues, his deficit spending was terrible and having roughly 5 trillion added to our debt under him is something I can't defend. Now we agree fully that Obama has made the situation even worse and for the life of me, I can't understand the liberal view that it's suddenly okay to be running a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.
But all that aside we are where we are, and we can place all the blame we want it doesn't change where we are. Where we are is dire to put it mildly, and we can't get out of it with just spending cuts, as much as you or I would like that to happen, it's just not feasible. Think about it for a moment, we are 15 trillion dollars in debt, we are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion a year, that means we would have to cut 2 trillion dollars a year in spending just to start paying down our debt by 500 billion per year.

Now I'm with you 100% on reasonable cuts in spending, and I'm talking about real verifiable cuts in spending, give me that first … then I'm willing to give you the Bush tax cuts back …. but not just the wealthy but all of them. See what you and other conservatives sometimes fail to see, is that it was these tax cuts, that “added” to that number of people that pay no taxes. I believe that we as a nation got ourselves into this mess, and we as a nation need to help get us out of it

The best thing we could do (IMO) is to completely redo our tax system, hell I would go so far as to reduce our corporate tax to 10% with no deductions, I'd rather see that, then companies like GE and others getting off with paying nothing. I have always been in favor of only one federal tax, and that being a consumption tax, with everyone getting a pre-bate check from the government for taxes paid up to the poverty level. I am for this sort of tax because it brings such things as illegal money getting taxed where it doesn't now, and even helps with the illegal alien problem, because they still spend money while they are here and thus would be paying taxes.
 
Yes, I ran a 200 million dollar business, what did you run?

That's a shame for the business.

We import oil and we more for our dollars when it is worth more.

Um.... what?

I have seen no evidence that you are anything other than a book smart liberal who has never run or managed anything.

Just because i called you out for not understanding the role of currency exchange in regards to international trade does not equate to me being a "book smart liberal who has never run or managed anything".

But the fact that you are having trouble understanding such a simple concept shows you have no business discussing these topics ad nauseum.

Admit you were wrong, and go on your way.:2wave:
 
I agree in principle that we have to maintain a viable fighting force even during peacetime, but I'm not sure what research was produced during Bush's tenure that was instrumental to the war. Our technology was vastly superior to Iraq's. It seems to me that the main problem wasn't an absence of research, but a failure to adjust our spending priorities fast enough from a Europe ground war mentality to a urban assault/counter insurgency mentality. Our major deficiencies were an insufficient supply of body armor and light armored troop carriers -- not super high-tech stuff. Perhaps we should have anticipated the prevalence of IEDs, but hindsight is 20/20. Certainly we should have responded to the threat more quickly when it arose.
That's because we didn't do it during Bush 41 (last two years) and Clinton, all they did was cut the hell out of the budget. Thus Bush had to start out doing both (technology development and warfighting). Research pay off doesn't show up in just a couple of years, sometimes it takes a decade; sometimes longer. Bush had to start first finding out about the IED threat, and then start out with a military unprepared for it. Body armor manufacturers were working 24/7 to develop, qualify and build armor, all while taking a beating in the press. Tons of "armor experts" showed up with armor designs that didn't work. Armor development is a very sophisticated undertaking. Very few people even understand how to improve performance and reduce weight simultaneously of LIGHT WEIGHT armor. Guess what, armor is high tech. The Humvee was developed in the late 70's and fielded in the 80's under a completely different doctrine. When the USSR fell, everyone thought we could take a breather.
 
Tax revenue generally increases year after year no matter what. There's no way you can directly link a tax cut to a % revenue increase. Also, the data is further meaningless without posting at least the amount revenue collected before the cuts - right?

Who's to say that the gov't wouldn't have collected more money without the cuts? Only way to do that would be to have an alternate parallel universe which you enact a different tax policy and see the results. Until then, it’s all speculation.

Aw but tax revenue went down in 2009-2010. Who says they would? Liberals love to make that claim but my question again is why would you reward the politicians for their bad behavior by sending them more money? Amazing how liberals ignore how our money is being spent but instead focus on the amount of revenue the govt. gets. What does more revenue to the govt. generate? Hmmmm, more power and greater dependence. Keep supporting that liberals.
 
Aw but tax revenue went down in 2009-2010. Who says they would? Liberals love to make that claim but my question again is why would you reward the politicians for their bad behavior by sending them more money? Amazing how liberals ignore how our money is being spent but instead focus on the amount of revenue the govt. gets. What does more revenue to the govt. generate? Hmmmm, more power and greater dependence. Keep supporting that liberals.

C-Man, was just making the point that a graph that shows us tax revenue increasing year after year does not in any way prove that the tax cuts directly cause an increase in government revenue above what the gov't would have collected without the tax cut (btw, I see you have left out the numbers from 2000-2002 - why?).

I never said I support higher taxes or believe the government deserves more of our paycheck. I was just pointing out that your example does not prove anything.
 
it would be curious to see how this would play had such restrictions had been applied. I know most our situation here, and the state did start the process of thinking and planning down the road. We're better off for the time given. I can't speak to the entire nation though. And not sure who deserves the most blame for any that didn't use that time.

Also, how would giving people that much money have played? What would be the counter proposal to the stimulus?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we really should have given those people that money, it was just kinda a thought thrown out there to consider if we would have gotten more or less bang for our buck then the way it was spent. Think about it 14 million people fired or laid off getting 200 to 400 dollars a week in unemployment benefits, or handing them what would be equal to 30 months of unemployment at one shot to spend .. We may well have seen more spending during that first year the we did from the way the stimulus was spent.
 
=The Barbarian;1059782222]You know Conservative, I'm on the same side of the coin with you, and agree with you on many things. But besides being a conservative myself, I'm also a realist. As such, I would only ask you to do the same. Blame? There is enough to go around for everyone. While I respect Bush on some issues, his deficit spending was terrible and having roughly 5 trillion added to our debt under him is something I can't defend. Now we agree fully that Obama has made the situation even worse and for the life of me, I can't understand the liberal view that it's suddenly okay to be running a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.
But all that aside we are where we are, and we can place all the blame we want it doesn't change where we are. Where we are is dire to put it mildly, and we can't get out of it with just spending cuts, as much as you or I would like that to happen, it's just not feasible. Think about it for a moment, we are 15 trillion dollars in debt, we are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion a year, that means we would have to cut 2 trillion dollars a year in spending just to start paying down our debt by 500 billion per year.

No one is condoning the amount "Bush" Spent but Bush never ran trillion dollar deficits and Bush had 9/11 which GAO puts the cost at over a trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs. I wasn't happy with Bush but faced with the alternative of Gore or Kerry, I chose wisely. Today I will never support sending more money to the Federal Govt. politicians that created this 14.6 trillion dollar debt. why reward bad behavior. It is time to cut Federal Spending and stimulate the private sector to grow our way out of this debt. Not going to happen by just slowing the growth of spending.

Now I'm with you 100% on reasonable cuts in spending, and I'm talking about real verifiable cuts in spending, give me that first … then I'm willing to give you the Bush tax cuts back …. but not just the wealthy but all of them. See what you and other conservatives sometimes fail to see, is that it was these tax cuts, that “added” to that number of people that pay no taxes. I believe that we as a nation got ourselves into this mess, and we as a nation need to help get us out of it

I am willing to send nothing more to the govt. until they get serious about debt reduction and that isn't going to happen by massive expansion of the Federal reach on things like Obamacare and other social engineering programs. That is the responsibility of the states not the Federal Govt. I am one of those conservatives that believe we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. In addition to the 47% of income earners that don't pay any FIT, we have 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans that aren't paying much either. Instead of creating an atmosphere that promotes job growth this govt. is destroying jobs.

The best thing we could do (IMO) is to completely redo our tax system, hell I would go so far as to reduce our corporate tax to 10% with no deductions, I'd rather see that, then companies like GE and others getting off with paying nothing. I have always been in favor of only one federal tax, and that being a consumption tax, with everyone getting a pre-bate check from the government for taxes paid up to the poverty level. I am for this sort of tax because it brings such things as illegal money getting taxed where it doesn't now, and even helps with the illegal alien problem, because they still spend money while they are here and thus would be paying taxes.

Totally agree, we need a flat tax so that everyone pays something. Think of what $100 a year would generate from those 47% of the 140 million American workers that aren't paying any FIT? I want to see a govt. down to the 1.6 trillion dollar range and ould start by taking SS and Medicare off budget immediately. I then would bill every foreign country or deduct it from their foreign aid for illegals from their countries using our ER's. The only way I would support a tax increase is with a balanced budget amendment and then taking the existing debt and pay it off with a debt tax in the form of a Federal Sales Tax. The balanced budget amendment would have to be enforceable though.
 
or handing them what would be equal to 30 months of unemployment at one shot to spend .. We may well have seen more spending during that

Dude, this is the best idea i have heard all day, and i am jealous i didn't think about it first! :thumbs:
 
C-Man, was just making the point that a graph that shows us tax revenue increasing year after year does not in any way prove that the tax cuts directly cause an increase in government revenue above what the gov't would have collected without the tax cut (btw, I see you have left out the numbers from 2000-2002 - why?).

I never said I support higher taxes or believe the government deserves more of our paycheck. I was just pointing out that your example does not prove anything.

because the Bush tax cuts were in two parts, one for 2001 and another down the road. The first part was passed in June 2001 and took four months to distribute that money which put it at the end of fiscal year 2001 which was Sept 30, 2001. Fiscal year of the govt. runs from October to Sept. so you cannot hold Bush responsible for the 2001 numbers since his policy wasn't even in place until later in that year. Then remember what happened in Sept. 2001 and how that affected employment and thus revenue. The real tax cuts didn't happen until July 2003 and that is when real tax cuts started benefiting the economy, see 2004 through 2007
 
Hopefully you are sending your Bush tax cuts back to the govt. to reward them for their great stewardship of the economy and for creating a 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Love how stealing from the poor is allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Wonder how those evil Republicans cutting taxes increased govt. revenue?

Personal income taxes by year

Individual Income tax

2010 898.5
2009 915.3
2008 1,145.7
2007 1,163.7
2006 1,043.9
2005 927.2
2004 808.9
2003 793.7

U.S. Treasury

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Eventually the top 20% of those controlling America's wealth will be consumed by the top 1% and then many of those who have prospered by feeding off of the middle class and poor will find that they do not have the skills needed to survive.

The Great American Wealth Transfer | Progressive Democrats of North Carolina

American corporations saw record profits in 2010 even as many Americans struggled to hold on to their jobs, homes and retirement savings. Nearly 80% of all economic gains made in the past thirty years have gone to the richest 1% while wages for workers have remained stagnant or even declined as low-paying service jobs replaced outsourced manufacturing jobs. In the 1970s, the average CEO of a large corporation made 30 times what an hourly worker made. Today, this CEO makes 300 times what an hourly worker makes. And yet, corporatists and their Republican supporters want us to believe that it is the greed of the American workers who have brought this country to the brink of financial disaster by wanting decent wages, affordable health care, a modest home, a decent education for their children, and a secure retirement.

Today, the top 1% of U.S. households receives more income than the bottom 120 million Americans combined. The richest 1% of households owns nearly half of all investment assets (stocks and mutual funds, financial securities, business equity, trusts, non-home real estate). The bottom 90% of the population owns less than 15%; the bottom half—about 150 million Americans—owns less than 1%. The one public institution powerful enough to change this trajectory, government, has largely aided and abetted this trend. The primacy of property rights buttressed by tort reform and deregulation is hailed as “Liberty” -- with the help of huge amounts of corporate money -- while efforts to defend human, civil, worker and consumer rights are being dismissed as “Socialism.”
 
because the Bush tax cuts were in two parts, one for 2001 and another down the road. The first part was passed in June 2001 and took four months to distribute that money which put it at the end of fiscal year 2001 which was Sept 30, 2001. Fiscal year of the govt. runs from October to Sept. so you cannot hold Bush responsible for the 2001 numbers since his policy wasn't even in place until later in that year. Then remember what happened in Sept. 2001 and how that affected employment and thus revenue. The real tax cuts didn't happen until July 2003 and that is when real tax cuts started benefiting the economy, see 2004 through 2007

The economy recovered from a mild recession and businesses had an availability of productivity enhancing systems; e.g., digital automation, computer networking and security (think about online banking and shopping), a population transitioning from land lines to cellular, etc...
 
Eventually the top 20% of those controlling America's wealth will be consumed by the top 1% and then many of those who have prospered by feeding off of the middle class and poor will find that they do not have the skills needed to survive.

How did any rich person take any money from you? The problem wit you and other liberals is you believe the pie is finite when the reality is it keeps growing. That 20% can grow just as easily as it falls. What you seem to lack is th initiative to become part of that 20% so instead of celebrating their successes you initiate class warfare and want part of what they earned. Liberalism seems to be about spreading their misery equally to everyone else.
 
The economy recovered from a mild recession and businesses had an availability of productivity enhancing systems; e.g., digital automation, computer networking and security (think about online banking and shopping), a population transitioning from land lines to cellular, etc...

Amazing what incentive will do to the private sector, isn't it?
 
That's because we didn't do it during Bush 41 (last two years) and Clinton, all they did was cut the hell out of the budget. Thus Bush had to start out doing both (technology development and warfighting). Research pay off doesn't show up in just a couple of years, sometimes it takes a decade; sometimes longer. Bush had to start first finding out about the IED threat, and then start out with a military unprepared for it. Body armor manufacturers were working 24/7 to develop, qualify and build armor, all while taking a beating in the press. Tons of "armor experts" showed up with armor designs that didn't work. Armor development is a very sophisticated undertaking. Very few people even understand how to improve performance and reduce weight simultaneously of LIGHT WEIGHT armor. Guess what, armor is high tech. The Humvee was developed in the late 70's and fielded in the 80's under a completely different doctrine. When the USSR fell, everyone thought we could take a breather.

Aw, that so called peace dividend from the Reagan years, money that Reagan spent to rebuild our military that Clinton didn't have to spend.
 
How did any rich person take any money from you? The problem wit you and other liberals is you believe the pie is finite when the reality is it keeps growing. That 20% can grow just as easily as it falls. What you seem to lack is th initiative to become part of that 20% so instead of celebrating their successes you initiate class warfare and want part of what they earned. Liberalism seems to be about spreading their misery equally to everyone else.

For you and those like you the pie keeps growing for those in the middle class and poor class the pie keeps getting smaller, bringing over 2.5 billion workers into the labor pool reduced employment opportunities for the middle class and poor and allowed the rich to prosper from the cheap labor and the lack of regulations in foreign countries.

You ain't all that smart, truth be known if money was removed you couldn't survive in a world of where you actually had to earn a living by working for it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom