- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Before Reagan there was a strong Soviet Union and a Cold War
So you wanna change the subject now?
Before Reagan there was a strong Soviet Union and a Cold War
Yet you still don't know the difference between BLS's payroll data from their household survey data or why it's dishonest of you to selectively pick between the two.
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?
GDP??? Tell me you didn't just go there??Research only tells you so much unless you get actual data, what were the economic conditions that Reagan inherited? ever hear of the misery index? Any idea what the GDP was? How about employment and unemployment? Does it really matter to you or do you simply want attention to divert from the Obama failures?
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?Conservative said:Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Ok, to be more direct, you are not correct that raising taxes means a business raises prices and the consumer pays those taxes. Income taxes are not an operating costs, rather they are costs unique to the form of the organization of a business. A business operator can not simply pass his income taxes to his customer because he wants to make more money.
GDP??? Tell me you didn't just go there??
GDP during 4th quarter, 1980, was 7.6% growth!
Try comparing that to what Obama inherited ...
GDP during 4th quarter, 2008, was an 8.9% decline.
Is it always your goal to undermine your own position like that? :lamo
:waiting:
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?
:waiting:
... and the Twin Towers.Before Reagan there was a strong Soviet Union and a Cold War
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?Conservative said:Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Let's see if I can get through to you, Reagan isn't in office, GWH Bush isn't in office, Bill Clinton isn't in office, GW Bush isn't in office. Obama is in office and responsible for the economy which today has 9.1% officially unemployed, 16.5% unemployed and under employed and that means over 25 million Americans aren't working at all or working full time. Still waiting for you to give me the month that GW Bush had 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans?
Since when do you post payroll survey data, Con? Why are you selectively switching between the two and settling on the one with the smaller employment growth numbers?Because the total is the important number not the selected data that you use. Just like liberals using the public debt data for the deficit and ignoring intergovt holdings. You ignore the Establishment data because you think it makes you look good. Fact remains that the total of 16.5% is being over looked just like the total of over 25 million unemployed and under employed. When did Bush ever have that high of a number? Doesn't it bother you that the 25 million plus number is in September 2011 over 2 1/2 years into the Obama term? That is why Obama has a very low approval rating, one that you continue to ignore.
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?Conservative said:Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Herbert Hoover had a 25% unemployment while he was in office which comes out to be 40 million unemployed. Looks like your claims are lacking factual evidence.
That isn't modern history and you werent around then either.
Since when do you post payroll survey data, Con? Why are you selectively switching between the two and settling on the one with the smaller employment growth numbers?
:waiting:
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?
:waiting:
Why do you complain when I respond to your posts?Let's see if I can get through to you, Reagan isn't in office, GWH Bush isn't in office, Bill Clinton isn't in office, GW Bush isn't in office. Obama is in office and responsible for the economy which today has 9.1% officially unemployed, 16.5% unemployed and under employed and that means over 25 million Americans aren't working at all or working full time. Still waiting for you to give me the month that GW Bush had 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans?
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?Conservative said:Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
He was a Republican though .
Show me the BLS offical press release that says there were 400K net jobs created? If there were 400k jobs created why didn't the unemployment percentage drop? You don't think 400 net job growth would cause a percentage reduction?
The only employed people who don't pay at least 1,000 dollars a year are those who make under twelve thousand year. They don't pay taxes because it's almost impossible to survive on 12 thousand a year anyway. Don't try to say that your number is just inaccurate. What you have proposed is a flat tax. A flat tax is without a doubt predatory to the poor. To say that everyone should be taxed the same percentage of their income is one thing but to assert that everyone should pay the exact same amount of money is ludicrous. Say everyone pays 5000 dollars which still probably wouldn't be enough. Then the man who makes 10,000 dollars a year is taxed at 50% of his income. The woman who makes 20,000 dollars a year is taxed at 25%. The college grad who comes out into the workplace at 45,000 a year with massive debts pays 11.1% a year. Finally the wall street executive making 450,000 dollars a year is taxed at 1.11% of his income. The more you make the less you pay in. The less you make the more you pay in. Even then a flat tax raises a lot less revenue than a progressive tax, if the top 20 percent possess 93% of the wealth and your taxing them at 10% or less, even if you tax 100% of the income of the bottom 80 percent you stand to raise no where near the same amount of money. It's just common sense. I've also noted that you don't understand why the wealthy should pay more. Other than for the reason I just mentioned it becomes necessary to point out that in 1945 the income tax rate for the top bracket was 91 percent. 1981-86 (your boy reagan) the effective income tax rate for the wealthiest of Americans was 50%. Point being the top tax bracket needs to stop whining.
WTF?? I gave you the link to their chart which shows it ...Show me the BLS offical press release that says there were 400K net jobs created? If there were 400k jobs created why didn't the unemployment percentage drop? You don't think 400 net job growth would cause a percentage reduction?
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?Conservative said:Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
We have already gone over this, 400 thousand (Jobs created) divided by 25 million (Unemployed) Gives .016. Seeing as how the unemployment is only measured in tenths...
WTF?? I gave you the link to their chart which shows it ...
And again, the unemployment rate remained flat because along with 398,000 jobs gained there were 423,000 jobs added to the labor force.
I sure wish you'd take notes in class. I'm getting tired of have to re-educate you.
Now answer the question, Con ......
:waiting:
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?
:waiting:
Look, income taxes have been the rule of law in this country for almost a hundred years, under both political parties, and held to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court. However, if you feel your personal interpretation trumps that of the Supreme Court, simply don't pay your income taxes and instead send the IRS a letter explaining that your interpretation of the Constitution trumps that of the Supreme Court.
Best of luck!
Again, Con .... since when do you post payroll data? When I pointed out to you that payroll data showed 23 million jobs created under Clinton you attacked that figure, claiming that household survey data is the data you use and that household data showed a net gain of only19 million jobs were gained during Clinton's terms.
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?Conservative said:Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Again, Con .... since when do you post payroll data? When I pointed out to you that payroll data showed 23 million jobs created under Clinton you attacked that figure, claiming that household survey data is the data you use and that household data showed a net gain of only19 million jobs were gained during Clinton's terms.
Now you like payroll data better because the number of jobs gained is lower than the data you always post??
Holy ****!
Now answer my question, Con ......
:waiting:
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?
:waiting:
[/COLOR]
Too funny. you point out how 45,000 people got a job with Verizon and you actually try to make that sound negative.If 400 net jobs were created and the labor force remained the same then the unemployment rate would have dropped and it didn't. the fact is the labor force increased as did the number of discouraged workers. In addition 45000 Verizon workers counted as unemployed in August went back to work. The numbers are terrible as there are still 15 million officially unemployed and another 10-11 million under employed. In addition business owners and contract workers who are out of work aren't counted. The Obama economy is a disaster and until you wake up it will get worse.
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?Conservative said:Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Take your problem up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics who released the official data. Notice on that official data release that 16.5% wasn't discussed. That is the issue and that is the Obama record. Live it, it is what it is
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?Conservative said:Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.
Now then, about that book ... and don't think I'm the only one here who is laughing their ass off watching you run away from answering this as fast as your walker will allow.
:waiting:
Why are you so afraid to tell me the title of that book, Conservative? Don't you defend what you post? Or is what you post such BS that you realize it's not worth defending?
:waiting:
[/COLOR]