Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gee, you left out the year 2000! I wonder why? And you stopped highlighting with the skyrocketing UE at the end of 2008, 2.4% in 8 months. I wonder why?Clinton passed a steady 3.9% unemployment rate to Bush and Bush passed a skyrocketing 7.7% unemployment rate to Obama.What was the unemployment rate under Bush for the first 7 years, and not talking about after the downturn from the housing bubble?
You really are this dumb, aren't you?
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
ADDI was Bush's baby, and Bush's alone. It was the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign.Really, don't you CON$ think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little too much????THE ADDI did not force banks to grant loans to anyone they didn't want to loan to. It provided the downpayment so that people who didn't have the scratch could buy the home. That's entirely different from a no-down-payment mortgage.
Unfortunately for your idiotic theories, none of the loans that ADDI was involved with are necessarily defined as "sub-prime" since a down payment was made.
And sub prime loans have to do with the interest rate, not the down payment anyway!!!
Want to place blame? Blame:
Chris Cox-R Chris Dodd-D Bawney Fwanks-D
Gee, you left out the year 2000! I wonder why? And you stopped highlighting with the skyrocketing UE at the end of 2008, 2.4% in 8 months. I wonder why?Clinton passed a steady 3.9% unemployment rate to Bush and Bush passed a skyrocketing 7.7% unemployment rate to Obama.
You really are this dumb, aren't you?
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
ADDI was Bush's baby, and Bush's alone. It was the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign.Really, don't you CON$ think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little too much????
And sub prime loans have to do with the interest rate, not the down payment anyway!!!
Want to place blame? Blame:
Chris Cox-R Chris Dodd-D Bawney Fwanks-D
I acknowledge that you want to ignore the effects of Bush bursting the housing bubble with his ADDI, but Bush did pass a skyrocketing UE rate on to Obama nonetheless. And 2000 shows that Clinton passed a steady 3.9% UE rate to Bush just as I said which Bush never equaled!!!Gee, you left out the year 2000! I wonder why? And you stopped highlighting with the skyrocketing UE at the end of 2008, 2.4% in 8 months. I wonder why?You really are this dumb, aren't you?
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
You really are that dumb, Ed. First, I highlited my first post that you failed to acknowledge.
Look at the fucking source I gave you and come back and tell me what years you see. I left out nothing.
I acknowledge that you want to ignore the effects of Bush bursting the housing bubble with his ADDI, but Bush did pass a skyrocketing UE rate on to Obama nonetheless. And 2000 shows that Clinton passed a steady 3.9% UE rate to Bush just as I said which Bush never equaled!!!Gee, you left out the year 2000! I wonder why? And you stopped highlighting with the skyrocketing UE at the end of 2008, 2.4% in 8 months. I wonder why?
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
You really are that dumb, Ed. First, I highlited my first post that you failed to acknowledge.
Look at the fucking source I gave you and come back and tell me what years you see. I left out nothing.
But as your own MessiahRushie admitted sub prime loans were not a problem until 2004, so legislation from Carter and Clinton were not the cause or the problem would have shown itself in the 1990s. ADDI was signed into law on Dec 16, 2003 and sub prime loans exploded in 2004!!!!!ADDI was Bush's baby, and Bush's alone. It was the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign.Want to place blame? Blame:
Chris Cox-R Chris Dodd-D Bawney Fwanks-D
There was a lot more legislation that ADDI that created the problem. Your just too disengenuous to admit that due to the fact that your blinded by your partisanship.
But as your own MessiahRushie admitted sub prime loans were not a problem until 2004, so legislation from Carter and Clinton were not the cause or the problem would have shown itself in the 1990s. ADDI was signed into law on Dec 16, 2003 and sub prime loans exploded in 2004!!!!!ADDI was Bush's baby, and Bush's alone. It was the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign.
There was a lot more legislation that ADDI that created the problem. Your just too disengenuous to admit that due to the fact that your blinded by your partisanship.
July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.
I will take your tangent on your MessiahRushie as a concession that the sub prime problem did not start until after Bush's ADDI.But as your own MessiahRushie admitted sub prime loans were not a problem until 2004, so legislation from Carter and Clinton were not the cause or the problem would have shown itself in the 1990s. ADDI was signed into law on Dec 16, 2003 and sub prime loans exploded in 2004!!!!!There was a lot more legislation that ADDI that created the problem. Your just too disengenuous to admit that due to the fact that your blinded by your partisanship.
July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.
I don't listen to Rush....you seem to do a lot of that for everyone. You use a radio entertainer as if he runs the country, and YOU act like HE is the messiah. Like I said your blinded by your partisanship.
I will take your tangent on your MessiahRushie as a concession that the sub prime problem did not start until after Bush's ADDI.But as your own MessiahRushie admitted sub prime loans were not a problem until 2004, so legislation from Carter and Clinton were not the cause or the problem would have shown itself in the 1990s. ADDI was signed into law on Dec 16, 2003 and sub prime loans exploded in 2004!!!!!
July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.
I don't listen to Rush....you seem to do a lot of that for everyone. You use a radio entertainer as if he runs the country, and YOU act like HE is the messiah. Like I said your blinded by your partisanship.
Yes, wealth, like capital assets, remain untaxed accumulating value, like an unlimited IRA, until they are sold. And when they are sold they are taxed at a lower rate than wages. Lyin' Ryan wants to eliminate all capital gains taxes so wealth will not be taxed even after it's sold making it even better than an IRA.I misposted, it's $20 TRILLION!!!
You understand the difference between wealth and income right? Raising income taxes will not come close to plugging the budget deficit for just one year.
I say, in a "Capitalistic" system we should tax that capital gain!!!
I acknowledge that you want to ignore the effects of Bush bursting the housing bubble with his ADDI, but Bush did pass a skyrocketing UE rate on to Obama nonetheless. And 2000 shows that Clinton passed a steady 3.9% UE rate to Bush just as I said which Bush never equaled!!!Gee, you left out the year 2000! I wonder why? And you stopped highlighting with the skyrocketing UE at the end of 2008, 2.4% in 8 months. I wonder why?
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
You really are that dumb, Ed. First, I highlited my first post that you failed to acknowledge.
Look at the fucking source I gave you and come back and tell me what years you see. I left out nothing.
No I don't mean taxed again!!! As you well know, the accumulated INCREASE in value was never taxed. That capital GAIN, if taxed, will be taxed for the first time. Again, as you well know, if you sell a house or stock you only pay tax on the profit you made above what you paid for the stock or house. Lyin' Ryan wants to eliminate the tax on that NEVER TAXED profit.Yes, wealth, like capital assets, remain untaxed accumulating value, like an unlimited IRA, until they are sold. And when they are sold they are taxed at a lower rate than wages. Lyin' Ryan wants to eliminate all capital gains taxes so wealth will not be taxed even after it's sold making it even better than an IRA.You understand the difference between wealth and income right? Raising income taxes will not come close to plugging the budget deficit for just one year.
I say, in a "Capitalistic" system we should tax that capital gain!!!
You mean taxed again, after all, all that money being invested was already taxed by the Government once when it was earned as INCOME!!
No I don't mean taxed again!!! As you well know, the accumulated INCREASE in value was never taxed. That capital GAIN, if taxed, will be taxed for the first time. Again, as you well know, if you sell a house or stock you only pay tax on the profit you made above what you paid for the stock or house. Lyin' Ryan wants to eliminate the tax on that NEVER TAXED profit.Yes, wealth, like capital assets, remain untaxed accumulating value, like an unlimited IRA, until they are sold. And when they are sold they are taxed at a lower rate than wages. Lyin' Ryan wants to eliminate all capital gains taxes so wealth will not be taxed even after it's sold making it even better than an IRA.
I say, in a "Capitalistic" system we should tax that capital gain!!!
You mean taxed again, after all, all that money being invested was already taxed by the Government once when it was earned as INCOME!!
Seeing as the budget shortfall is 1.5 Trillion just this year alone, how much more should we tax the "evil rich" so that government can balance the books?
Can We Tax The Rich Enough To Get Out Of Debt? | Tarheel Red
If confiscating all of their money won't balance the books, then why do some say just raising their taxes would do it?First, the deficit is $1.5 trillion dollars. Can the folks who make more than $200,000 make that up? There are 4,359,936 filers who make that amount of money. Simple math says that if we take 1,500,000,000,000 and divide it by 4,359,936 we get $344,041.7. That means we would have to bill each of those people who earn more than $200,000 a year $344,042 a year. Just to break even.
Seeing as the budget shortfall is 1.5 Trillion just this year alone, how much more should we tax the "evil rich" so that government can balance the books?
Can We Tax The Rich Enough To Get Out Of Debt? | Tarheel Red
If confiscating all of their money won't balance the books, then why do some say just raising their taxes would do it?First, the deficit is $1.5 trillion dollars. Can the folks who make more than $200,000 make that up? There are 4,359,936 filers who make that amount of money. Simple math says that if we take 1,500,000,000,000 and divide it by 4,359,936 we get $344,041.7. That means we would have to bill each of those people who earn more than $200,000 a year $344,042 a year. Just to break even.
I dont see why this discussion always goes this way. The major reason for the budget deficit is our failure to tax corporations. For example G.E. made 14.2 billion globally last year and 5 billion domestically yet not only did they not pay a dime in taxes, they were paid 3 billion in tax subsidies for their participation in the energy star program (since energy costs mean the market will demand efficiency anyway I think we could at least stop paying them 3 billion a year)
Its not just G.E. either, nearly every corporation in this country pays nothing in taxes and many get tax money paid to them by the billions. Since the 1950s taxes on corporations have been steadily lowered and during the same period the national debt has steadily climbed with a notable exception during the Clinton administration .Clinton cut national spending by closing a handful of overseas military instillations and revoked only SOME corporate tax breaks and as a result the country ran a budget surplus for his entire administration.
Heres an idea, lets do what we did when the country was running a budget surplus and revoke corporate tax breaks. Weve been giving out more and more tax breaks to big business and it hasnt stopped them from outsourcing jobs overseas, so lets take those breaks away and run a surplus again.
As you well know, if your stock loses money you get to deduct your loses from your taxable income. So again, your gains are never taxed twice.No I don't mean taxed again!!! As you well know, the accumulated INCREASE in value was never taxed. That capital GAIN, if taxed, will be taxed for the first time. Again, as you well know, if you sell a house or stock you only pay tax on the profit you made above what you paid for the stock or house. Lyin' Ryan wants to eliminate the tax on that NEVER TAXED profit.You mean taxed again, after all, all that money being invested was already taxed by the Government once when it was earned as INCOME!!
So does the Government assume some of the risk when I buy stocks? Do they pay me if I sell my house and lose money?
IMO they should not be able to tax the profit from selling a home, and they should not be able to tax Capital Gains. That is my opinion and at least for now I am entitled to it.
As you well know, if your stock loses money you get to deduct your loses from your taxable income. So again, your gains are never taxed twice.No I don't mean taxed again!!! As you well know, the accumulated INCREASE in value was never taxed. That capital GAIN, if taxed, will be taxed for the first time. Again, as you well know, if you sell a house or stock you only pay tax on the profit you made above what you paid for the stock or house. Lyin' Ryan wants to eliminate the tax on that NEVER TAXED profit.
So does the Government assume some of the risk when I buy stocks? Do they pay me if I sell my house and lose money?
IMO they should not be able to tax the profit from selling a home, and they should not be able to tax Capital Gains. That is my opinion and at least for now I am entitled to it.
In my opinion, in a Capitalistic system only capital gains should be taxed, not wages.
This has become the desperate fallacy settled on by the lackeys for the Rich,
that if they can't solve the entire problem then the Rich ought to be exempt from ANY sacrifice to solve the problem.
It's idiocy.
the assumption of tics like you is that government employees and welfare parasites should be exempt from any sacrifice to solve the problem. The rich pay the bulk of income taxes. Furthermore, they earned the money they have. Welfare tics have done nothing to deserve a single cent from anyone.
I just opened this cute little nugget in my e-mail from colorofchange.org:
The Fairness in Taxation Act attempts to address this by asking those who make $1 million in a year to pay a 45% income tax while billionaires would pay taxes at a 49% rate.3 That's a big change over the current system, where millionaires and billionaires pay a maximum of 35% and last year paid an average of only 17% of their income in taxes.4 Rates this low haven't been seen since the 1930s.
That read pretty well until I got to the very next statement:
WHAT??!!Schakowsky's bill is projected to raise more than $75 billion in new revenues more than enough to stave off unnecessary cuts to important programs while also helping to reduce the deficit.5
$75 billion in extra revenue is enough to avoid cuts???
Taking spending away from a democrat is like taking crack away from a whore
