Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many times must I say this until you believe me...? You're fucking deranged.

Your links said the same thing I just said. Deportations are at record highs and they're mostly among the border jumpers as the Obama administration has taken effort to allow "law-abiding" illegal immigrants stay.

Stick to things you know about ... like party leadership in Congress.

Here is what my link said:

On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics.

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

Since you can't understand what was written here, what it says is the reason libs are claiming DumBama has the highest decoration record is not because he deported more people, but because the definition of what is considered a deportation changed.

 

[Al Azar]

because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

So, the result of the above is....?????

Right wingers FULLY supporting even more tax breaks to these errant companies, correct???

(BTW, name the huge US companies that are actually paying the stated "high" tax rate)

Again I'm a Republican. You're just flaming too much for me right now. Maybe some psychiatric help?

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

The rest of them don't pay the full amount. They pay somewhere near zero and the full amount. I suspect it's much closer to zero, don't you?

Approximate 60% of our corporations are pass-through corporations and pay no corporate income tax.

 

[kaz]

because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

So, the result of the above is....?????

Right wingers FULLY supporting even more tax breaks to these errant companies, correct???

(BTW, name the huge US companies that are actually paying the stated "high" tax rate)

Again I'm a Republican. You're just flaming too much for me right now. Maybe some psychiatric help?

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

The rest of them don't pay the full amount. They pay somewhere near zero and the full amount. I suspect it's much closer to zero, don't you?

Approximate 60% of our corporations are pass-through corporations and pay no corporate income tax.

You're referring to S Corps and LLCs. They are mostly the small corps, they aren't 60% of the market

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The real fall is people that think it's the President that spends our money.

Clinton presided under a Republican led Congress, and a pretty conservative Congress as well. Look at your chart one more time and take note of when Republicans held leadership of Congress. See how the deficits began to shrink in the 90's? See how we find the same pattern once again when they took leadership in 2010?

You could, COULD be correct on the above...and that is why (at least for me) republicans are usually better at fiscal oversight....
HOWEVER, how do you explain the absence of war costs and Medicare Advantage expenditures from GWB's budget.???

They're better at fiscal oversight with a Dem president. Not so much with a Repub.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Until one employer pays more and then they can get the best the market offers while prompting others to offer more in order to compete thereby creating demand. But employers never seem to do that do they?

Employers don't sit at a coffee shop making some sort of nefarious plans on how to screw workers.

Employers only pay what they need to pay to get the labor needed. If one employer of a said industry decides he's going to overpay his workers, then it won''t be long before his competition comes in and starts taking away his customers. They can produce products or services at a lower price than the company that overpays their workers. This is what happened in the outsourcing days in the early 2000's. Americans and American companies had no desire to leave, but they had no choice. Their competition moved overseas and began stealing their customers. This was especially true of union shops.

Employers don't sit at a coffee shop making some sort of nefarious plans on how to screw workers.

I'm quite sure it's not a coffee shop but it's indisputable that they are and have been mysteriously operating on the same page for quite some time.

Please explain what market forces act on wages. No one will answer that question except to say what employers are willing to pay what employees are willing to take which is exactly my point. They decide and so far they have let overall compensation decrease over time.

Now, in a world where record profits, record productivity have been the norm for several decades and yet have not moved wages, what forces do?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Is it? Why? How is it counted or reported differently?

They are counted and reported the same, that's my point, Kenneth. However, the former wants a job and the second isn't getting a job (right now) no matter what. Hence my point that entirely different economic circumstances are treated the same. They are both considered part of the labor force, neither is considered unemployed even though the guy who gave up looking for work wants one.

I mean duh

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

You're full of shit per usual. Please provide a link.

I'm not showing you that labor participation is going down because people can't find jobs. I don't do research for lazy asses like you, particularly ones who aren't debating in good faith., If you cared, you'd Google it yourself like I do all the time. I always have two tabs open when I post, the second is to do research before posting anything like you just did

You are in no way "debating in good faith".
It's your assertion and your burden to cite proof. If you can't then I will assume you are unable. I believe the colloquial term is "Kazzing".

 

[Al Azar]

because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

So, the result of the above is....?????

Right wingers FULLY supporting even more tax breaks to these errant companies, correct???

(BTW, name the huge US companies that are actually paying the stated "high" tax rate)

Again I'm a Republican. You're just flaming too much for me right now. Maybe some psychiatric help?

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

The rest of them don't pay the full amount. They pay somewhere near zero and the full amount. I suspect it's much closer to zero, don't you?

Approximate 60% of our corporations are pass-through corporations and pay no corporate income tax.

You're referring to S Corps and LLCs. They are mostly the small corps, they aren't 60% of the market

Seventy percent of partnership and S corporation revenue goes to big
businesses.

Seventy percent of partnership income comes from the financial industry and
holding companies.

Seventy percent of partnership and S corporation income goes to the top 1
percent of U.S. households by income.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...hyp0cc1h9nLAFQeyw&sig2=bRl5LjpiwPJp5sa0HP3b6w

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not at all. That's why MW needs to be more realistic with future increases indexed to inflation.
It's a shame that is the case. In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

It's not a "shame" that companies don't pay their employees higher than market wages, Kenneth. It's why their employees have jobs

Again professor, what market remains nearly flat for three decades? What market forces act on wages?

The US from 1929 until the 1950s for one. Again, repeating your lie that it's been "three decades" doesn't make it so. It started in the late 90s when the dot com bubble burst. That isn't "nearly three decades" it's a little over 1 and a half

You didn't answer the question in any way.

It's an ambiguous question. A lot of forces act on wages

Not ambiguous in any way. If there are many then give your best summary as you believe it.

 

[kaz]

They are counted and reported the same, that's my point, Kenneth. However, the former wants a job and the second isn't getting a job (right now) no matter what. Hence my point that entirely different economic circumstances are treated the same. They are both considered part of the labor force, neither is considered unemployed even though the guy who gave up looking for work wants one.

I mean duh

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

You're full of shit per usual. Please provide a link.

I'm not showing you that labor participation is going down because people can't find jobs. I don't do research for lazy asses like you, particularly ones who aren't debating in good faith., If you cared, you'd Google it yourself like I do all the time. I always have two tabs open when I post, the second is to do research before posting anything like you just did

You are in no way "debating in good faith".
It's your assertion and your burden to cite proof. If you can't then I will assume you are unable. I believe the colloquial term is "Kazzing".

That's fauns term. He has a gay obsession with me. He follows me around all the time mindlessly repeating that. This is your chance to go on my ignore list. Say kazzing one more time. Come up with your own material. This isn't a playground no matter how much you miss those. As stupid as liberals are, only two other liberals took up his obsession with that particular playground chant. The true dumbest of the dumb

 

[Wyatt earp]

That doesn't address the point......there is no dispute that Scrub failed to provide the means to pay for Medicare Part D and the War in Iraqnam...in fact, Iraqnam funding was outside the regular budget process which meant that the costs weren't reflected in the "reported deficit".....this changed in FY 2010.

Thank you...You explained better than I did but, rest assured, that right wingers will STILL deny it.

They're idiots.....

m?'

15,000,000 jobs Obama has created instead of 850,000 per month lost? The answer is easy and this is why we should elect Hillary.

There is no shortage of part time fry cook jobs in the Obama economy

When has there ever been a shortage of part time fry cooks?

Reread my post

Why reread it? It was stupid the first time you posted it. You're implying that Obama's economy is so bad that many jobs went to part time fry cooks. Aside from the idiocy that many jobs at all went to part timers since we have fewer part timers now than we had at the end of Bush's Great Recession, I'm not aware that there's ever been a shortage of part time fry cooks. So such an example doesn't actually reflect on the health of the economy if it's no worse now than ever before.

Still want to ignore that part time jobs are at a 30 year low prick?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What did Obama do those people?

Can you quite being so stupid ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do Republicans remember how the country was when Obama became president. The economy, the stock market, the wars, employment and so on? The car industry, the steel industry, the rubber industry and so on?

Credit card companies? Health care?

Do they wish he had done nothing?

How would things be different?

Do you remember that Pelosi and Reid ran congress ?

Can you remember that you are not supposed to reveal that you never graduated from the 5th grade ?

 

[kaz]

So, the result of the above is....?????

Right wingers FULLY supporting even more tax breaks to these errant companies, correct???

(BTW, name the huge US companies that are actually paying the stated "high" tax rate)

Again I'm a Republican. You're just flaming too much for me right now. Maybe some psychiatric help?

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

The rest of them don't pay the full amount. They pay somewhere near zero and the full amount. I suspect it's much closer to zero, don't you?

Approximate 60% of our corporations are pass-through corporations and pay no corporate income tax.

You're referring to S Corps and LLCs. They are mostly the small corps, they aren't 60% of the market

Seventy percent of partnership and S corporation revenue goes to big
businesses.

Seventy percent of partnership income comes from the financial industry and
holding companies.

Seventy percent of partnership and S corporation income goes to the top 1
percent of U.S. households by income.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...hyp0cc1h9nLAFQeyw&sig2=bRl5LjpiwPJp5sa0HP3b6w

Um ... how is that money not being taxed? It goes through to owners INCOME statements. They have to pay massive taxes on that. The top 1% pay 40% of all taxes and the top 5% pay 60%. And you're claiming that's tax free? Geez, Al Jazzera, you have to pay more attention

 

[kaz]

It's not a "shame" that companies don't pay their employees higher than market wages, Kenneth. It's why their employees have jobs

Again professor, what market remains nearly flat for three decades? What market forces act on wages?

The US from 1929 until the 1950s for one. Again, repeating your lie that it's been "three decades" doesn't make it so. It started in the late 90s when the dot com bubble burst. That isn't "nearly three decades" it's a little over 1 and a half

You didn't answer the question in any way.

It's an ambiguous question. A lot of forces act on wages

Not ambiguous in any way. If there are many then give your best summary as you believe it.

So you ask a simplistic question and I point out it's more complicated than that, you want me to do the work to define the variables that make up your point. Pass, do your own work

 

[Dana7360]

To blame that mess entirely on Bush is asinine

Really? Assholes like you blame EVERYTHING that has gone wrong in this country on Obama. That is asinine. Right?

Not just this country but in the world.

You name just about anything that's happened in our world in the last 8 years and the conservatives will blame it on Obama or Hillary.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

To blame that mess entirely on Bush is asinine

Really? Assholes like you blame EVERYTHING that has gone wrong in this country on Obama. That is asinine. Right?

Not just this country but in the world.

You name just about anything that's happened in our world in the last 8 years and the conservatives will blame it on Obama or Hillary.

Excuse me while I laugh after hearing BBBBUUUUUUTTTTT BOOOOOOOOOSH for the last 7 1/2 years, you fucking clown

 

[Grizz]

To blame that mess entirely on Bush is asinine

Really? Assholes like you blame EVERYTHING that has gone wrong in this country on Obama. That is asinine. Right?

...and assholes like you blame "Booosh" for everything that's wrong.
Dumbass.

 

[Al Azar]

Again I'm a Republican. You're just flaming too much for me right now. Maybe some psychiatric help?

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

The rest of them don't pay the full amount. They pay somewhere near zero and the full amount. I suspect it's much closer to zero, don't you?

Approximate 60% of our corporations are pass-through corporations and pay no corporate income tax.

You're referring to S Corps and LLCs. They are mostly the small corps, they aren't 60% of the market

Seventy percent of partnership and S corporation revenue goes to big
businesses.

Seventy percent of partnership income comes from the financial industry and
holding companies.

Seventy percent of partnership and S corporation income goes to the top 1
percent of U.S. households by income.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...hyp0cc1h9nLAFQeyw&sig2=bRl5LjpiwPJp5sa0HP3b6w

Um ... how is that money not being taxed? It goes through to owners INCOME statements. They have to pay massive taxes on that. The top 1% pay 40% of all taxes and the top 5% pay 60%. And you're claiming that's tax free? Geez, Al Jazzera, you have to pay more attention

No need to lie about what I said, which was that 60% of our corporations pay no corporate income tax, nothing more.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

You're full of shit per usual. Please provide a link.

I'm not showing you that labor participation is going down because people can't find jobs. I don't do research for lazy asses like you, particularly ones who aren't debating in good faith., If you cared, you'd Google it yourself like I do all the time. I always have two tabs open when I post, the second is to do research before posting anything like you just did

You are in no way "debating in good faith".
It's your assertion and your burden to cite proof. If you can't then I will assume you are unable. I believe the colloquial term is "Kazzing".

That's fauns term. He has a gay obsession with me. He follows me around all the time mindlessly repeating that. This is your chance to go on my ignore list. Say kazzing one more time. Come up with your own material. This isn't a playground no matter how much you miss those. As stupid as liberals are, only two other liberals took up his obsession with that particular playground chant. The true dumbest of the dumb

Apparently you've earned it and I can see why.
The burden is still yours.

 

[nat4900]

Why do you think the Border Union endorses Trump for President? Unions don't usually do that. Something must be wrong somewhere.

Perhaps Trump's wall would make the Border Patrol's job more of a desk one than out on the field......But, the endorsement is short-sighted since a wall and additional technology would probably also precipitate the firing of many on the Patrol.


Criticism of the endorsement, the first time the union has taken sides in a presidential campaign, has come from all directions. Many agents lean conservative and were Ted Cruz supporters.

Others take issue with backing a campaign built in part by disparaging Mexican immigrants. That’s not surprising given the fact that about half of the nation’s 18,000 agents on the Southwest border are Latino. And there’s no shortage of white agents who hear the Trump backlash from their Latina wives.

Union for Border Patrol agents under fire for endorsement of Trump