• 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!

Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

Yes, and your point? I asked how Obama prevented a great depression when economists credit TARP?

Again, economists credit Federal Reserve monetary easing policies first and foremost. An overwhelming majority of right wing economists were and are against TARP.
 
What do local and state taxes have to do with the cuts in Federal income Taxes? Trying to weasil out of the absurd comments you made? The Bush tax cuts were for Income taxes and that is what you claimed was in the trillions for the rich. Try to stay on track instead of diverting. You are wrong and just cannot admit it.

I thought you would avoid this: "please explain how you would suggest adding additional taxes to a family of 4, trying to live on $22,000 a year?

And then square that with the $91,000 tax cut on average that each of those making over 1 million dollars have been enjoying for years."
 
It seems that you are overlooking a few things conservative. The “47% of the income earners” that you say pay no tax. Maybe not income taxes but when all the tax that they pay is added up, I would imagine it would come out that overall their tax bill would be comparable.

Considering that they pay a higher percentage of their income on gas tax, a higher percentage of their income on property tax, pay a higher percentage of their income on sales tax, pay a higher percentage of their income on tolls (where there are tolls). a higher percentage of their income on Social Security tax and a higher percentage of their income on Medicare tax.

When all is added up, it would be a pretty safe bet that they might even pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the top percent.:2wave:

Let me just point to one of the items you mention. The average homeowner in the town I live in pays 9% of their income on property taxes. The median home is moderate about 350K. How many people who pay no federal income tax can afford a home like that? If they broke out the statistics, you would find most of those who pay no tax rent, thus property taxes are well below the norm.

Also, a lot of the taxes you point to are state or local. So even had you been correct it would be meaningless to the debate of federal taxation.

Honest debate is fun, this gottya type stuff less so, getting boring.
 
So in your world corporate welfare does not exist?

You should also support a family of 4 making $50,000 a year not having any tax liabilities.

I don't call keeping more of what you earn welfare, why do you?

As for families making 50,000 a year since they don't work for me why should I support them? You must love sending your money to the govt. so they can redistribute it after overhead as they see fit. Why don't you do that with your entire paycheck?
 
Again, economists credit Federal Reserve monetary easing policies first and foremost. An overwhelming majority of right wing economists were and are against TARP.

I was against TARP but then again that isn't the issue, the issue is what did Obama do that kept us out of another depression which he claims he prevented especially since the easing of monetary policies was begun in late 2007. keep dodging.
 
FICA IS Social Security tax or didn't you know? And that is like putting money into a 401K.

Except that it is not. At all. In any way shape or form similar. Furthermore, Medicare is not retirement. Stop being a dishonest hack.

Is investing in retirement a tax? You just cannot help yourself can you? Diverting not only from the thread topic but also from the income tax issue that 47% don't pay?

You dishonestly (As you always do) argued that because those 47% use services, they should be taxed and it's unfair they aren't. Except that they ARE taxed for the 2 largest programs in the budget, and do use services

Conservative, completely dishonest. As usual.
 
obvious Child;1059330078]Except that it is not. At all. In any way shape or form similar. Furthermore, Medicare is not retirement. Stop being a dishonest hack.

Need some help reading what I posted? Never said that Medicare was retirement. Maybe you ought to think before you post or get someone to read my posts to you so you don't just see what you want to see.



You dishonestly (As you always do) argued that because those 47% use services, they should be taxed and it's unfair they aren't. Except that they ARE taxed for the 2 largest programs in the budget, and do use services

Conservative, completely dishonest. As usual.


Sounds a lot like a personal attack but I have come to expect that from you. Again you seem to do what most liberals do, ignore FEDERAL INCOME TAXES and the services those provide vs. use taxes for retirement and healthcare. One of these days you are going to realize how foolish you have been. Here is what Federal Income Taxes fund. Tell me that the people who don't pay any income taxes don't get benefit or use these services?

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Income Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest

Oh, by the way FICA is indeed the tax to fund SS and Medicare. Doesn't look like your research is reliable.
 
Last edited:
Let me just point to one of the items you mention. The average homeowner in the town I live in pays 9% of their income on property taxes. The median home is moderate about 350K. How many people who pay no federal income tax can afford a home like that? If they broke out the statistics, you would find most of those who pay no tax rent, thus property taxes are well below the norm.

Also, a lot of the taxes you point to are state or local. So even had you been correct it would be meaningless to the debate of federal taxation.

Honest debate is fun, this gottya type stuff less so, getting boring.

I was responding to the bolded part of this question from post #208 <How do the middle class subsidize tax cuts to the wealthy when 47% don't pay any Federal Income taxes? >

Then you come up with this question for me. <How many people who pay no federal income tax can afford a home like that? > Which I will respond with a… HUH? What the hell is your point?:shock:

Where did I say or imply that people with an income that is below the poverty level would be renting, or purchasing, a $350 thousand-dollar home? Even with in the loose credit of the bush years, that would be a tough nut to crack,plus manage to feed the family.


Then you post this meaningless s*** < Also, a lot of the taxes you point to are state or local. So even had you been correct it would be meaningless to the debate of federal taxation.>

Did you read anything that I posted? Don’t look like you even skimmed any of them. If not I suggest you go back and read them.

If and when you do decide to read any of my post, I suggest that you read post #227, where I showed that Social Security and Medicare, is the biggest chunk of tax that is paid by the working poor. So why would a 7.65% chunk of the working poors pay be, as you say, “meaningless to the debate of federal taxation “? :roll:


Now to the cherry that you dropped in me lap.:mrgreen:

You can rest easy, and take down the barricades of your gated community, because the working poor are not likely to be moving in anytime soon.

Reason one. Odds are that they couldn’t scrape up the $70 K down stroke. If for some reason they managed to hit the lottery, they couldn’t afford the payment of $1500 hundred a month and be able to eat as well.

Reason two, Renting would be out of question as well, the rent of a for $350 K even in this market would run at a minimum of $2500.I,m getting 1% of the houses value, but sadly none of my rentals are in the $350 K range.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Yes, Congressman Lincoln lied. :rolleyes: The source of the information is immaterial if it is correct... or so many on this board keep telling me.


United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal.


From yuor own link...


Re-read (if you bothered to read it a first time) the linked site. It's all about information that the President submits to Congress, and 'proposed expenditures'.

Congress, through appropriations bills, writes the actual budget.


I guess Harkin is lying too, right Redress???
how congress writes a budget



Of course, I don't expect Redress to admit error.

Apparently I am correct... yet again.
 
Hmmmm....192K jobs created eh? well, that makes up for the some 7 million or so he's lost....There all better now.


j-mac
 
No. AT&T receives a subsidy for offering retiree drug coverage; the new law does not allow it to remain tax exempt. Therefore you have just been arguing in favor of corporate welfare. :lol:

I thought I read somewhere that subsidy was given, because it was cheaper to give that subsidy, then to have at&t drop that coverage, that then would be picked up by medicare, but at a higher price ..
 
Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Hahahah!

/thread
 
Hmmmm....192K jobs created eh? well, that makes up for the some 7 million or so he's lost....There all better now.


j-mac

This is the type of hysterical, ignorant bull**** that makes politicians and their strategists giggle. Obama's policies didn't lose this nation 7 million jobs. The nosedive our economy was in from the previous 8 years had a pretty big influence on the situation. To deny this is just evidence of how gullible and ignorant some people are.
 
This is the type of hysterical, ignorant bull**** that makes politicians and their strategists giggle. Obama's policies didn't lose this nation 7 million jobs. The nosedive our economy was in from the previous 8 years had a pretty big influence on the situation. To deny this is just evidence of how gullible and ignorant some people are.

Sounds like you read leftwing blogs and ignore non partisan sites. The numbers simply don't support your claim, Obama has 2 million jobs less today than when he took office but he relies on people like you to ignore the facts and continue to spout the leftwing propaganda.
 
Sounds like you read leftwing blogs and ignore non partisan sites. The numbers simply don't support your claim, Obama has 2 million jobs less today than when he took office but he relies on people like you to ignore the facts and continue to spout the leftwing propaganda.

I'm still waiting for your to offer up an intelilgent counter to the schooling Goldenboy put you through on the first page of this thread. The numbers are obviously something you don't fully understand, as has been made obvious by Goldenboy...and by your responses to his posts. I've not spouted any leftwing propoganda, I've just pointed out a glaring fact that some on here tend to forget, and that's the economic mess Obama inherited. That's not propoganda, that's reality. It took years to go into the freefall it was in and it isn't something that can be turned around on a dime. It's just more politically expedient to throw your hands up in the air and scream "Obama lost 7 million jobs" or some such nonsense...Reagan won the cold war and cutting taxes but not touching defense/social security/medicare will cure the deficit and blah blah blah.

Pssshhh....
 
I'm still waiting for your to offer up an intelilgent counter to the schooling Goldenboy put you through on the first page of this thread. The numbers are obviously something you don't fully understand, as has been made obvious by Goldenboy...and by your responses to his posts. I've not spouted any leftwing propoganda, I've just pointed out a glaring fact that some on here tend to forget, and that's the economic mess Obama inherited. That's not propoganda, that's reality. It took years to go into the freefall it was in and it isn't something that can be turned around on a dime. It's just more politically expedient to throw your hands up in the air and scream "Obama lost 7 million jobs" or some such nonsense...Reagan won the cold war and cutting taxes but not touching defense/social security/medicare will cure the deficit and blah blah blah.

Pssshhh....

I was always taught that when someone was making a complete ass of themselves just get out of the way and let them. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you and you know where. I have posted the actual unemployment and employment numbers from BLS.gov so many times and yet they still get ignored. Instead you prefer some sites that ignore the facts. The fact remains that 1 million discouraged workers were dropped from the unemployment roles in February because they gave up looking for work. What happens when you drop 1000000 from the roles divided by the labor force? The unemployment rate drops. Now tell me where those discouraged workers show up on any graph? do you think discouraged workers are employed or unemployed?

What I find extremely interesting is how liberals continue to try and destroy Reagan over 20 years after he left office. Why do you have such a problem keeping more of what you earn? Why do you care so much how much someone else makes or pays in taxes? More importantly why do you buy everything the left tells you and never verify the rhetoric by getting it from non partisan sites?

Obama did not inherit what he helped create unless you think we elect a King who bypasses the Congress on every issue. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2011 and the results are there for all to see but you and others choose to ignore them. The question is why?
 
I was always taught that when someone was making a complete ass of themselves just get out of the way and let them. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you and you know where. I have posted the actual unemployment and employment numbers from BLS.gov so many times and yet they still get ignored. Instead you prefer some sites that ignore the facts. The fact remains that 1 million discouraged workers were dropped from the unemployment roles in February because they gave up looking for work. What happens when you drop 1000000 from the roles divided by the labor force? The unemployment rate drops. Now tell me where those discouraged workers show up on any graph? do you think discouraged workers are employed or unemployed?

What I find extremely interesting is how liberals continue to try and destroy Reagan over 20 years after he left office. Why do you have such a problem keeping more of what you earn? Why do you care so much how much someone else makes or pays in taxes? More importantly why do you buy everything the left tells you and never verify the rhetoric by getting it from non partisan sites?

Obama did not inherit what he helped create unless you think we elect a King who bypasses the Congress on every issue. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2011 and the results are there for all to see but you and others choose to ignore them. The question is why?

Yep the gipper got most things wrong but occasionally he managed to stumble upon something right.
:2wave:

"These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland ... They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."

—RONALD REAGAN, Labor Day Address at Liberty State Park, 1980
 
I was always taught that when someone was making a complete ass of themselves just get out of the way and let them. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you and you know where. I have posted the actual unemployment and employment numbers from BLS.gov so many times and yet they still get ignored. Instead you prefer some sites that ignore the facts. The fact remains that 1 million discouraged workers were dropped from the unemployment roles in February because they gave up looking for work. What happens when you drop 1000000 from the roles divided by the labor force? The unemployment rate drops. Now tell me where those discouraged workers show up on any graph? do you think discouraged workers are employed or unemployed?

What I find extremely interesting is how liberals continue to try and destroy Reagan over 20 years after he left office. Why do you have such a problem keeping more of what you earn? Why do you care so much how much someone else makes or pays in taxes? More importantly why do you buy everything the left tells you and never verify the rhetoric by getting it from non partisan sites?

Obama did not inherit what he helped create unless you think we elect a King who bypasses the Congress on every issue. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2011 and the results are there for all to see but you and others choose to ignore them. The question is why?

I agree 100% and would add that people who have taken part time jobs because ir's all they could find number in the humdreds of thousands and they too are dropped fom the rolls.

It's all about manipulating the numbers and all the Liberals jumping on it like it meany something so it makes it look like all the failed Obama ideas worked when in fact they just spend millions and there is almst nothing of substance to show for all of it.

We would have near zero unemployment had all that stimulus money just been divided up to each citizen. We would all solvent the mortgages would be all caught up and we would have new cars and and money in the bank.
 
I was always taught that when someone was making a complete ass of themselves just get out of the way and let them. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you and you know where. I have posted the actual unemployment and employment numbers from BLS.gov so many times and yet they still get ignored. Instead you prefer some sites that ignore the facts. The fact remains that 1 million discouraged workers were dropped from the unemployment roles in February because they gave up looking for work. What happens when you drop 1000000 from the roles divided by the labor force? The unemployment rate drops. Now tell me where those discouraged workers show up on any graph? do you think discouraged workers are employed or unemployed?

What I find extremely interesting is how liberals continue to try and destroy Reagan over 20 years after he left office. Why do you have such a problem keeping more of what you earn? Why do you care so much how much someone else makes or pays in taxes? More importantly why do you buy everything the left tells you and never verify the rhetoric by getting it from non partisan sites?

Obama did not inherit what he helped create unless you think we elect a King who bypasses the Congress on every issue. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2011 and the results are there for all to see but you and others choose to ignore them. The question is why?

jobs.gif


while you were perusing the bls database evidently you must have overlooked this little chart.:roll:
 
Gas prices have just went way up and all the media is saying jobs are on the rise...WHERE? More Lies to stop the people from rising up and taking back the Republic?

I do not see one new business or industry of any kind.... All I see and hear is more jobs being lost both public and private.... Last I knew a few states were still in a state of emergency..... BANKRUPT!

US states of emergency: In depth coverage of the financial crisis facing US state and local governments from the Financial Times
 
Last edited:
I hate the lies....:doh

Here ya go, move to Seattle, if your a techie and like rain have a go at it. 1900 hundred jobs. :2wave:

<Amid a sluggish job market and shaky economic recovery, the world's biggest Internet retailer is hiring like crazy at its headquarters complex. Consider Amazon's online jobs board: It lists about 1,900 openings in Seattle, at least twice as many as a year ago. More than 900 call for techies. >

Business & Technology | Amazon.com on a hiring spree | Seattle Times Newspaper
 
Now for the rest of the story, since Obama has taken office over a million people per month have dropped out of the labor market. Guess that is a success to liberals.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673
Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693

Apparently 14.693 million unemployed is a success to a liberal. The only liberals touting these numbers must be the ones that are either in school or have a job.

Since the Obama "recovery" began 20 months ago, the national unemployment rate has fallen only half a point, from 9.4 percent in July 2009 to 8.9 percent today. Contrast those anemic results with the robust job growth that occurred during the Reagan recovery in the ’80s. By the 20-month mark of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had dropped from 10.8 percent to 7.5 percent – a 3.3-point drop.
Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/04/...eaving-behind/

I'm not sure from where you get your "million a month" number. Your numbers show that total unemployed+discouaged was 12.6M in Jan 2009 when Obama started and is now 14.7. 2.1M/25 = 84K month. How do arrive at 1M/mo?

I did notice that in Bush's last 12 months the total unemployeed+discouraged increased by 4.6M or about 383K/mo. I also notice that the current trend is in the right direction.
 
I'm not sure from where you get your "million a month" number. Your numbers show that total unemployed+discouaged was 12.6M in Jan 2009 when Obama started and is now 14.7. 2.1M/25 = 84K month. How do arrive at 1M/mo?

I did notice that in Bush's last 12 months the total unemployeed+discouraged increased by 4.6M or about 383K/mo. I also notice that the current trend is in the right direction.

Don,t bother conservative with the truth he will have none of it.
 
I’m trying my best to be polite to you barbarian but I must admit your making it rather hard with your lack of reading comprehension and all. Do you remember when I referred you to post #212? Where I said this in response to post #208.




<When all is added up, it would be a pretty safe bet that they might even pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the top percent.>


You say I proved your point. How did I prove your point when evidently you didn’t comprehend and guess you still don’t comprehend the point is was making wasn’t about income taxes? Here I will bold some pertinent parts for you.

Pay particular attention to the part that is not only bolded but underlined as well. :2wave:

I am glad you are trying to be polite, but perhaps you should do some reading of your own .. I cut most of your post .. and highlighted what I responded to ... and here was what I said

-chuckles- Oh I know, you were pointing out that they do pay some taxes, it was your comparison of saying they pay as a percentage of income more then those that do pay income taxes I was taking exception to.

Now if you didn't understand that what I questioned, was your statement "they might even pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the top percent." then maybe I didn't make it clear enough for you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom