Page 16 of 145 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666116 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 1443

Thread: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

  1. #151
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Another stalker. At least you are not alone.
    Pretending to be a victim doesn't make your posts any more believable.

    Try again.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  2. #152
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    So your answer then is to send people who aren't paying any Federal Income Taxes a check? How much and why? Amazing how you believe those evil rich people who are paying 38% of all Federal Income Taxes collected AFTER the tax cuts benefit more than people who aren't paying any Federal Income taxes at all? You call yourself "slightly liberal?" That total lack of logic and common sense makes you totally liberal.

    Currently with Bush tax cuts:

    A single person earning $18,000 per year.

    Taxable income of $8,650 in 2010 .

    Tax @ 10% = $884

    Make Work credit is $400

    tax liability is PAY $484

    So tell me Conservative, how much tax money do you thing would go into the pot if we managed to grab a few quid off of the working poor?

    Who in addition to the ten % they pay in income taxes pay and additional 16% in other taxes.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  3. #153
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Do you mind responding to this video?

    Sounds like a poor choice of words on his part if you ask me. It's always the most important political objective for a party to win the next presidential election. Do I agree that President Obama being re-elected would be disastrous? Absolutely. You can see the senator clarify what he meant in the following video. He explains that in 2012 that is indeed the most important political objective of the Republicans, in the meantime, their number one goal is to address the debt and spending problem in order to help the economy get back on it's feet.



    For more hateful comments made by senate minority leaders read the following:

    "Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader,'' Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.'' - Pelosi 2003
    "President Bush is a liar," Reid, the Senate's Assistant Majority Leader, said. "He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country." - Harry Reid, 2002
    Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called President Bush "a loser" during a civics discussion with a group of teenagers at a high school on Friday.

    "The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid, D-Nev., told students at Del Sol High School when asked about the president's policies. "I think this guy is a loser." - Harry Reid, 2005
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  4. #154
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Pretending to be a victim doesn't make your posts any more believable.

    Try again.

    And drive bys do what to show that you know what’s going on?
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  5. #155
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
    Currently with Bush tax cuts:

    A single person earning $18,000 per year.

    Taxable income of $8,650 in 2010 .

    Tax @ 10% = $884

    Make Work credit is $400

    tax liability is PAY $484

    So tell me Conservative, how much tax money do you thing would go into the pot if we managed to grab a few quid off of the working poor?

    Who in addition to the ten % they pay in income taxes pay and additional 16% in other taxes.
    So tell me how much tax that same person actually pay under the Bush tax cuts? I am sorry that person makes 18,000 a year, what is your solution, another taxpayer check to this individual? Again, you can play your game about all those other taxes but if you don't want to pay excise taxes don't drive a car, you are forced to pay payroll taxes to fund SS and Medicare that already is under funded and going bankrupt so cut the funding to those programs. If you want to live in a particular state you will pay those state taxes that fund schools, police, etc. so let's stop with the argument about other taxes and focus on what is supposed to fund the Federal govt.-Income taxes

  6. #156
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ATL
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 09:00 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Quit stalking me. Either make a point relevant to the discussion or STFU.
    I love the smell of burning moonbat in the morning.

  7. #157
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
    And drive bys do what to show that you know what’s going on?
    "What's going on" is quite plain from the news article. Hundreds of thousands are giving up trying to find a job. Bad for them, but good for Obama since their drop from the role artificially lowers the unemployment rate.

    Of course, only fools would not see what is really going on.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  8. #158
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Not only were the tax cuts stimulative, so were the increases in actual spending by the federal government. For more information, see this article.
    I'm not arguing that spending increases don't stimulate the economy. The article you linked was about potential 2009 stimulus so I don't see how it relates to our previous conversation regarding the tax cut in 2003. However, I have a problem with how the stimulus spending stimulated the economy. Essentially you are increasing government transfer payments to temporarily lift GDP (unemployment extension, food stamp increases, temporary employment for infrastructure projects, etc.) You do this buy borrowing demand from the future and spending it today. Now I do think that there should have been some stimulus in 2009 due to the extreme situation presented by the recession. However, I didn't support the size of the package or the frivolity in which it was spent. Maybe if spending had contracted appropriately the following years I could get behind it. In the article you linked the economist calls for a stimulus of $50 -$100 billion. The final total was around $850 billion.

    There are also the psychological costs of unemployment extensions and food stamp increases. Now over two years later we have all time record highs in unemployment duration and food stamp recipients. Add to that the demand we stole from our kids and I don't find it justified.

    Here are some economists who advised the president AGAINST the stimulus:

    http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus...o_stimulus.pdf
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  9. #159
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    I'm not arguing that spending increases don't stimulate the economy. The article you linked was about potential 2009 stimulus so I don't see how it relates to our previous conversation regarding the tax cut in 2003. However, I have a problem with how the stimulus spending stimulated the economy. Essentially you are increasing government transfer payments to temporarily lift GDP (unemployment extension, food stamp increases, temporary employment for infrastructure projects, etc.) You do this buy borrowing demand from the future and spending it today. Now I do think that there should have been some stimulus in 2009 due to the extreme situation presented by the recession. However, I didn't support the size of the package or the frivolity in which it was spent. Maybe if spending had contracted appropriately the following years I could get behind it. In the article you linked the economist calls for a stimulus of $50 -$100 billion. The final total was around $850 billion.
    Page 3 of the article has a chart that gives an efficiency breakdown of various types of fiscal policy stemming from tax cuts to transfer payments. The article was an address to congress calling for economic stimulus as early as July 2008.

    To state that Keynesian stimulus "borrows demand from the future" is inaccurate. The point of enacting such a policy is to create demand, but this does not necessarily require future demand to be repaid. When the government conducts any sort of fiscal stimulus, public saving (government spending minus tax revenue) should go to the negative if it is not already there. This can be achieved on three possible fronts; 1.) decreasing taxes 2.) increasing government expenditures 3.) a mixture of both. Any type of deficit spending, whether it is stimulative or not, requires tax increases in the future to finance said expenditure. Tax revenue is also a component in private saving (income minus (consumption plus taxation)), so it is intuitive that increasing taxes in the future will diminish business investment, but not necessarily future demand.

    For an actual article that supports the stimulus which is also quantitative in nature, see this.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #160
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,569

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
    Currently with Bush tax cuts:

    A single person earning $18,000 per year.

    Taxable income of $8,650 in 2010 .

    Tax @ 10% = $884

    Make Work credit is $400

    tax liability is PAY $484

    So tell me Conservative, how much tax money do you thing would go into the pot if we managed to grab a few quid off of the working poor?

    Who in addition to the ten % they pay in income taxes pay and additional 16% in other taxes.
    Someone making 18 g's a year, isn't going to pay any income taxes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •