The original post about ‘great strain’ was not mine. Our discussion began from your disagreement that 9/11 put this strain on the economy. More specifically your position was ‘our over reaction to it’ to which I disagreed.Lets see a link to your source that you claim links a great strain on the economy based on the physical damage on 9/11?
Your graph compares the ‘riches 400 people’ out of 315million against the middle class. Do you think this is represents a legitimate comparison? Wouldn’t comparing an extreme element to a median element usually reveal some great disparity? Essentially the comparison groups are extreme compared to each other.Your graph compares the lowest income earners to the highest income earners. My claim was the middle class tax rates have gone up over the last 30 years, while the tax rates for the most wealthy have gone down, as seen below:
Your graph to support the ‘trickle down’ argument is the ‘increase in national debt’. I miss the correlation.Why trickle down economics has been incredibly unsuccessful:
Did you miss my original post about the ‘apples/oranges’ comparison of wage income vs. capital gains? I guess not. What you miss is that the inheritance and capital gains taxes are ‘double taxes’. One cannot have income from capital gains until he first has income to invest and thus profit to incur capital gains taxes. This initial income is taxed at the income rate. The same is true on inheritance. I know you read the Politifact article which revealed this principal.For those who primarily get their income from inheritance and capital gains, they pay a lower effective tax rate on their total income than do the middle class.
Never argued that at all, didn't know the answer, wrote BLS and got the answer, it is a monthly number NOT a cumulative number per the followingobvious Child;1059905426]When you argued that discouraged workers was doubling every month. Several of us tried to point out that the BLS data you were citing was cumulative. You refused to accept that at all. The problem is that by arguing that discouraged workers was doubling that the US population was doubling as well. You totally failed to read that chart properly and you got beaten rightfully into pulp for it.
Guess you are wrong as well. Want me to make a big deal out of it like you have which of course has nothing to do with the thread topic?Published CPS levels are not cumulative, and the number of discouraged workers are displayed in thousands and are not seasonally adjusted.
Personal Attack or is calling someone a liar a sign of admiration?Hardly; See my previous post you liar.
Personal attack or is calling someone a clown a sign of admiration?Actually if we all just treated you like the clown you are, you wouldn't be a problem.
Every month is a stand alone number according to BLSWow. YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. Every month is the net total. Meaning that every month shows the net cumulative change. Seriously. You STILL DON'T understand the data you cite. That is embarrassing. I doubt you even know what cumulative means at this point.
Every month is a stand alone number so discouraged workers plus the "official" unemployed for September 2011 total over 15 million putting the unemployment rate at almost 9.8%Really? Nothing Cumulative In your chart?
So every month shows an additional amount of discouraged workers? Not the TOTAL discouraged workers?
Going to lose a lot of sleep over that one, another personal attack? Let someone else decideYou are literally beyond hope here.
Personal attack unless calling someone a liar is a sign of admirationSo basically you just made up in your head what you think I argued putting absolutely no work into finding out what I actually said.
Basically you admit you are a liar. You don't know what I said, you just made it up and hoped it was what I said. The fact you keep doing this is an admission you are a compulsive liar.
Personal attack, believe you got the word liar down pat. Interesting how anyone that disagrees with you is called a liar. How about attempting to prove the Obama numbers I have posted wrong?See my post above this one. Liar.
So you took the time to respond, issue personal attacks and yet have not responded to the actual Obama data posted. According to you I cannot read BLS data correctly yet you have yet to prove that. Here are the Obama numbers as of Sept. 2011 so take a shot at proving them wrongYou know, we point out your actual failures and that is your response.
You don't understand what cumulative is. You cannot read BLS data properly as evident in your own post where you claimed that the BLS data isn't cumulative yet you posted cumulative data. You don't know why chain, real and nominal are different. You haven't the faintest idea why deleveraging seriously changes a recession. And you expect us to take you seriously.
You basically make up things to attack us on when we cite very specific screw ups you have. WOW.
You haven't proven that I make anything up but you do use the word liar a lot which is a personal attack. Look forward to you proving the numbers I have posted as being wrong.Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
I II III IV I II
3.9 3.8 2.5 2.3 0.4 1.3
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
According to you, that puts unemployment at 5%.Every month is a stand alone number so discouraged workers plus the "official" unemployed for September 2011 total over 15 million putting the unemployment rate at almost 9.8%
-JryanI'm coming to see that no matter what law we regulate, be it the stand your ground act, there is never an objective morally right answer to any morale question; in fact, since there are multiple objectively right answers to every moral question that leaves us with a lot of grey area and a lot of black area (not in the racial since).
Labor Force 154.017 Million
Official Rate 13992/154017=9.08 or 9.1%
Now including Discouraged workers
Discouraged workers 1.037 million
Total Unemployed 139.992 + 1.037=15.029 million/154.017=9.76%
Wondered where he got the 5% from so thanks for clarifying.
This is the same person who claims that the GOP Controls the Senate because they can filibuster legislation