• 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!

Gallup: Unemployment Rate Jumps from 7.7% to 8.9% in 30 Days

I'm objective. I lost my business. I spent 4.5 years out of work learning to live off what I could make, hunt and generate.
My life was pretty good until the liberal scum took over the house and senate; after that it went a new direction and no - even
though I'm completely self sufficient and have found meaningful work (recently) I am not better off then I was before the
socialist took over. PERIOD


Slyfox696 said:
Tells me they came in after Republicans did all the damage. *eyeroll*

What it REALLY tells me is you don't really seem to want to be objective on this topic.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
I'm objective...liberal scum
Click to expand...
Clearly you're objective... :roll:

Perhaps you can tell me, what exactly did the "liberal scum" do in that roughly one year (with a Republican President, mind you) which caused all of the damage to our country?
 
Look at the budget they passed and I could care less that RINO bush was in the oval office; he was a pacifist to the left on way too many issues. How'd that 08 budget look compared to the one done before the liberal scum socialist took over the congress? Business isn't stupid you know, they saw what the socialist agenda would be and the bottom fell out because of it.


Slyfox696 said:
Clearly you're objective... :roll:

Perhaps you can tell me, what exactly did the "liberal scum" do in that roughly one year (with a Republican President, mind you) which caused all of the damage to our country?
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Look at the budget they passed
Click to expand...
The one Bush signed?

and I could care less that RINO bush was in the oval office; he was a pacifist to the left on way too many issues.
Click to expand...
:lamo Of course.

How'd that 08 budget look compared to the one done before the liberal scum socialist took over the congress?
Click to expand...

Fed Government Outlays (in billions of dollars)

1999: 1,701.8
2000: 1,789.0
2001: 1,862.9
2002: 2,010.9
2003: 2,159.9
2004: 2,292.9
2005: 2,472.0
2006: 2,655.1
2007: 2,728.7
2008: 2,982.5

Umm...reasonable? Par for the course?

Business isn't stupid you know
Click to expand...
Just the people who run them and work in them.

they saw what the socialist agenda would be and the bottom fell out because of it.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Of course. And this is you being objective, right?
 
Why'd yo stop at 08? Embarrassed by 09 - I would be if I were you.


Slyfox696 said:
The one Bush signed?

:lamo Of course.



Fed Government Outlays (in billions of dollars)

1999: 1,701.8
2000: 1,789.0
2001: 1,862.9
2002: 2,010.9
2003: 2,159.9
2004: 2,292.9
2005: 2,472.0
2006: 2,655.1
2007: 2,728.7
2008: 2,982.5

Umm...reasonable? Par for the course?

Just the people who run them and work in them.

:lamo

Of course. And this is you being objective, right?
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Why'd yo stop at 08?
Click to expand...
Uhh...because you asked about 08? Because 08 was when the financial crash happened?

Embarrassed by 09 - I would be if I were you.
Click to expand...
Why would I be embarrassed about that?

1999: 1,701.8
2000: 1,789.0
2001: 1,862.9
2002: 2,010.9
2003: 2,159.9
2004: 2,292.9
2005: 2,472.0
2006: 2,655.1
2007: 2,728.7
2008: 2,982.5
2009: 3.517.7
2010: 3,456.2
2011: 3,603.1
2012: 3,537.1

What's to be embarrassed about? Ignoring for a moment the entire point was to ridicule your assessment that it was the Democrats who took office at the time of the recession who were responsible for the recession, I'm sure you'll want to point to 2009 outlays. Yes, they are slightly higher than the standard increase, but that's what happens in a major economic recession. You'll notice since then, even in 2010 when Democrats still held Congress, spending has stayed roughly the same as it was in 2009 (in fact decreased with the Democrats in 2010).

So...again...this is you being objective?
 
So being objective is forgiving liberals for burying us in debt. You conveniently left out repayments of 08 stimulus bail out money in 09/10.


Slyfox696 said:
Uhh...because you asked about 08? Because 08 was when the financial crash happened?

Why would I be embarrassed about that?

1999: 1,701.8
2000: 1,789.0
2001: 1,862.9
2002: 2,010.9
2003: 2,159.9
2004: 2,292.9
2005: 2,472.0
2006: 2,655.1
2007: 2,728.7
2008: 2,982.5
2009: 3.517.7
2010: 3,456.2
2011: 3,603.1
2012: 3,537.1

What's to be embarrassed about? Ignoring for a moment the entire point was to ridicule your assessment that it was the Democrats who took office at the time of the recession who were responsible for the recession, I'm sure you'll want to point to 2009 outlays. Yes, they are slightly higher than the standard increase, but that's what happens in a major economic recession. You'll notice since then, even in 2010 when Democrats still held Congress, spending has stayed roughly the same as it was in 2009 (in fact decreased with the Democrats in 2010).

So...again...this is you being objective?
Click to expand...
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Businesses with less than 50 employees didn't get any extension. There are about 4.5 million of them.
Click to expand...

Businesses with less than 50 employees do not have to provide any insurance.
 
CalGun said:
I'm objective. I lost my business. I spent 4.5 years out of work learning to live off what I could make, hunt and generate.
My life was pretty good until the liberal scum took over the house and senate; after that it went a new direction and no - even
though I'm completely self sufficient and have found meaningful work (recently) I am not better off then I was before the
socialist took over. PERIOD
Click to expand...

Oh? And exactly which bill(s) did that Democrat-led Congress pass that you contend caused the economy to collapse?
 
Painter said:
Didn't businesses get another full year extension for this? I would not expect them to lower hours a year and a half in advance.

Anyhow, I am not even sure you are wrong. I just wanted to say one thing to this...
The only people I know of personally that have had their hours cut recently were affected by the Sequester. (3 people)
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. There is also a fee or tax that I believe took effect on July. I forget the numbers, but it was something like 2% for last year, 4% for this, and next year will be much higher. Adjusted for what is needed.

I forget the specifics, maybe someone knows which part of the law I am speaking of.
 
CalGun said:
And it was under 6 for 80% of Bushes term until the left took both houses of congress too.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I have had to continually remind the left in other forums that things were pretty good until the 2006 elections.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It was 4.2% when Bush and Republicans took power in 2000.

We can play that game all day long. It's probably a better idea to discuss the policies which have resulted in the various changes, rather than timing.
Click to expand...

No, you can't unless that is all it is to you. A game.

Facts are facts. The semiconductor/communications revolution and Y2K scare drove the 90's. Not Clinton.
 
Fisher said:
Businesses with less than 50 employees do not have to provide any insurance.
Click to expand...

Yep.

If you have employees that number in the 50's, it's a pretty easy choice to cut jobs.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yep.

I have had to continually remind the left in other forums that things were pretty good until the 2006 elections.
Click to expand...
By the 2006 election, the housing bubble had already begun its implosion.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It wasn't the cause of the economic fall of everyone else.
Click to expand...
The collapse of the real estate markets caused the collapse of the credit markets. That was the economic collapse. That in turn led to the collapse of the stock market as well as the collapse in related industries. And that collapse began with housing bubble bursting, which began around early 2006.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The collapse of the real estate markets caused the collapse of the credit markets. That was the economic collapse. That in turn led to the collapse of the stock market as well as the collapse in related industries. And that collapse began with housing bubble bursting, which began around early 2006.
Click to expand...

If there was no bailout, there would have been a natural correction. The larger problem was actually from the FEC rule changes pertaining to short selling of stocks, which caused a huge problem for most investors, more so than one segment called the housing market.
 
I am doing better than I ever have under Obama. I would be doing better than I ever have under Romney. Who is President really doesn't have a lot to do with my success or failure unless they order a nuke strike on my city or something. It has more to do with where you are in the life curve than who is POTUS IMO.
 
Fisher said:
I am doing better than I ever have under Obama. I would be doing better than I ever have under Romney. Who is President really doesn't have a lot to do with my success or failure unless they order a nuke strike on my city or something. It has more to do with where you are in the life curve than who is POTUS IMO.
Click to expand...
Yep.

For people to think they have no control over their destiny, have lost. They already gave control to the politicians.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It doesn't matter. There is also a fee or tax that I believe took effect on July. I forget the numbers, but it was something like 2% for last year, 4% for this, and next year will be much higher. Adjusted for what is needed.

I forget the specifics, maybe someone knows which part of the law I am speaking of.
Click to expand...

There is something that is income contingent, like an extra 1% medicaid tax on folks making more than $200K/$250K per couple, as well as close to a 4% tax on investment incomes for them; there is also a something like a 4% tax on the sale of a home if the price is above some amount and the sellers' income is above a certain amount. For some reason I want to say it is if the sales price is over $750K and the sellers' other income is more than $500K but I would have to check.
 
Fisher said:
There is something that is income contingent, like an extra 1% medicaid tax on folks making more than $200K/$250K per couple, as well as close to a 4% tax on investment incomes for them; there is also a something like a 4% tax on the sale of a home if the price is above some amount and the sellers' income is above a certain amount. For some reason I want to say it is if the sales price is over $750K and the sellers' other income is more than $500K but I would have to check.
Click to expand...

No, this is a tax provision for businesses related specifically to health care.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If there was no bailout, there would have been a natural correction. The larger problem was actually from the FEC rule changes pertaining to short selling of stocks, which caused a huge problem for most investors, more so than one segment called the housing market.
Click to expand...

Now you're shifting the discussion. We weren't discussing the bailout (which Bush initiated) which started in late 2008. We were discussing the collapse -- which occurred prior to the bailouts. The collapse of the economy began with the collapse of the real estate markets -- which began in early 2006.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Now you're shifting the discussion. We weren't discussing the bailout (which Bush initiated) which started in late 2008. We were discussing the collapse -- which occurred prior to the bailouts. The collapse of the economy began with the collapse of the real estate markets -- which began in early 2006.
Click to expand...
Yes, and so did short sales changes. If I recall right, July 2006 was when the rules changes.

My point is that the impact of the housing market was small compared to the problems caused by the short sale changes. It harmed the entire market.

Also remember. Republcans held fast against no bailout, until the provision was placed into law that money returned from the bailot loans could not be respent, but to pay back down the debt.

Do you follow the finer nuances of such things, or read and go by sites like Common Dreams?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom