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

[hadit]

To the OP, we'd prefer Obama left the country the way Bubba Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan did. Not like Carter, though. That was a disaster.

 

[kaz]

Your post proves the government can dupe you, and you don't even know it.

Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?

A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Not in any practical way. Neither is competing for work, and neither is available for work. What someone wants or says they want doesn't change likelihood of getting a job.

"neither is available for work"

Wrong, that's the exact difference. One wants a job and is just not looking out of frustration, the mother isn't available for work. That's the whole point, Holmes

If someone doesn't fill out any applications, doesn't respond to any ads, doesn't place any ads or send out any resumes, doesn't bid on any contracts, doesn't even ask any friends or family if they know of anything and isn't on the union rolls...then how is he available to be hired? He isn't. No one can hire him until he actually tries to get a job.

You don't know what the word "available" means.. If you want to argue the dictionary, cool, but I'm not interested in that words don't mean what they mean so you need to do it with someone else. Maybe there's a WebsterWasWrong message board somewhere ...

 

[Al Azar]

I get a laugh when I read how people didn't understand what was happening in the mortgage debacle. Like it was a.mystery.

I wrote mortgage loans for 19 years. When the really loose loans and shaky practices started gaining market, we (my colleagues and I) knew what was going to happen in the not to distant future. They (all the junk loans) were all going to default. And mostly they did. But it wasn't a mystery that prudent, sound mortgage banking guidelines had been thrown out the window when the investment banking money hit the streets.

There were a lot of good middle sized banks that never got in trouble. Their loans were sound and their defaults manageable.
They made what was known as A paper loans. What Fannie was known for. When they (FAnnie) started buying junk loans, Franklin Raines should have gone to jail.

Gee wonder how that happened?

Yes. Commercial banks weren't the problem. They were still regulated and had to do business responsibly, whether they wanted to or not. It was the totally unregulated shadow banking industry that traded in unsuitable loans by mixing them with good loans into packages that S&P and Moody's rated A.

A lot of people should have gone to jail, but for corporate shielding. It' hard to prosecute an individual when it was a "corporate decision". All we can do, and have been doing quite aggressively, is fining the dickens out of the corporations to blame and using the revenue to reimburse some of the victims.

 

[PredFan]

Hey idiot, let me clue you in on something since you seem to be devoid of any clue at all.

When someone says "worse off" with out a qualifier like "economically", intelligent people take the whole picture. The number of immigrants, the number of unemployed, the GDP, the debt, plus just about anything you want to look at taken together and we are way worse than in 2008. You can but pick the minutiae all you want to, 0ba is an unmitigated failure.

When someone says "worse off" with out a qualifier like "economically", intelligent people take the whole picture.

Why don't you offer 3 meaningful metrics by which we were " better off" in 2008 than now..

Already done moron, can't read?

One of them was GDP. ..

Q4 2007 - 14,997 trillion

Q4 2007 - 14,577 trillion

-2.8% for the year


You're a fucking dumbass.

Hey dumbass, want to try again?

Why?

I've made my point... . you're an imbecile...

Because idiot, there's a typo there. You have two different stats for the same year. Want to try again dumbass?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

That would then be personal income tax, not corporate tax.

Exactly, which shows that the statement that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. I've owned three corporations, still own one. All were S corps. I pay taxes up the wazoo

WTF are you talking about? They're two different things dope. If you truly ever owned a corp you would know the difference quite clearly.

You need to read the nested quotes. The claim that liberals keep making that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. So your leftist brother turned it to they don't all pay one tax specifically called a "corporate tax." All my corps were S corps, sure, I didn't pay a "corporate" tax. But I paid massive taxes through the income taxes. To tell me I wasn't taxed is just to be a liar and frankly a complete dick

Dude you are a dope. The subject was corporate taxes, a separate entity. A Corp has it's own tax ID. It's not about you or your taxes.

The claim was that 60% paid no federal tax and you said nuh uh. I linked to it and now you're still saying nuh uh.

You obviously have no clue.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

That's right. It's so simplistic but you are unable to give a brief summary. I believe you're dodging and really have no idea or no good answer.

I said your question was simplistic, can't you even read? Government schools, huh?

I see now. You get yourself cornered and rather than just drop it or find a solid answer, you hem and haw and argue. In other words, "Kazzing". It's a very apt description.

OK, so here's how my ignore list works. My birthday is in April. Every April I review my ignore list and decide who to give another shot. So there is no way to come off before April. And there is no guarantee you will in April. If you don't, you get reconsidered the next April and so on. Given how quickly you decided to go with the pre-pubescent playground chant, I'm guessing you won't be coming off any time soon. Life is to good to waste it on pubies who never grow up.

Have a good one. Hope you have a good elementary school teacher this year

OK, so here's how my ignore list works. My birthday is in April.

I stopped right there. I don't give a shit.

 

[pinqy]

Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?

A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Not in any practical way. Neither is competing for work, and neither is available for work. What someone wants or says they want doesn't change likelihood of getting a job.

"neither is available for work"

Wrong, that's the exact difference. One wants a job and is just not looking out of frustration, the mother isn't available for work. That's the whole point, Holmes

If someone doesn't fill out any applications, doesn't respond to any ads, doesn't place any ads or send out any resumes, doesn't bid on any contracts, doesn't even ask any friends or family if they know of anything and isn't on the union rolls...then how is he available to be hired? He isn't. No one can hire him until he actually tries to get a job.

You don't know what the word "available" means.. ...

Ok, then please explain to me how someone who is not doing anything at all about work and about whom no employer is aware is available for work.

Let's take three people. All three are just handed out applications to work at McDonalds.
Person 1 fills out the application and turns it in.
Person 2 does not fill it out because he doesn't think they'll hire him because he's Black.
Person 3 would like to work, but is too busy taking care of the kids right now and doesn't fill out the form.

Do you really want to claim that 1 and 2 should be counted the same as available to work? Neither 2 nor 3 can be hired because neither is trying to work. The reason is irrelevant for immediate availability. Neither is available.

 

[Al Azar]

You need to read the nested quotes. The claim that liberals keep making that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. So your leftist brother turned it to they don't all pay one tax specifically called a "corporate tax." All my corps were S corps, sure, I didn't pay a "corporate" tax. But I paid massive taxes through the income taxes. To tell me I wasn't taxed is just to be a liar and frankly a complete dick

No one said that corporations weren't taxed. No one said the shareholders weren't taxed. There was a single statement, by me, that pointed out that pass-through corporations don't pay corporate income tax, which is absolutely true, and that threw you completely and obsessively off the rails for some reason.

What's the matter with you? Some facts may be hard to accept when they don't support your political posturing, but that doesn't make them untrue and doesn't entitle you to recharacterize them into something else that is also true, but not pertinent to the original statement.

Get a grip. I'm surprised you're not used to being schooled by now, considering the tactics you use when pouting about how unfair and inconvenient the facts sometimes are.

 

[kaz]

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Not in any practical way. Neither is competing for work, and neither is available for work. What someone wants or says they want doesn't change likelihood of getting a job.

"neither is available for work"

Wrong, that's the exact difference. One wants a job and is just not looking out of frustration, the mother isn't available for work. That's the whole point, Holmes

If someone doesn't fill out any applications, doesn't respond to any ads, doesn't place any ads or send out any resumes, doesn't bid on any contracts, doesn't even ask any friends or family if they know of anything and isn't on the union rolls...then how is he available to be hired? He isn't. No one can hire him until he actually tries to get a job.

You don't know what the word "available" means.. ...

Ok, then please explain to me how someone who is not doing anything at all about work and about whom no employer is aware is available for work.

Let's take three people. All three are just handed out applications to work at McDonalds.
Person 1 fills out the application and turns it in.
Person 2 does not fill it out because he doesn't think they'll hire him because he's Black.
Person 3 would like to work, but is too busy taking care of the kids right now and doesn't fill out the form.

Do you really want to claim that 1 and 2 should be counted the same as available to work? Neither 2 nor 3 can be hired because neither is trying to work. The reason is irrelevant for immediate availability. Neither is available.

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

 

[kaz]

You need to read the nested quotes. The claim that liberals keep making that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. So your leftist brother turned it to they don't all pay one tax specifically called a "corporate tax." All my corps were S corps, sure, I didn't pay a "corporate" tax. But I paid massive taxes through the income taxes. To tell me I wasn't taxed is just to be a liar and frankly a complete dick

No one said that corporations weren't taxed. No one said the shareholders weren't taxed. There was a single statement, by me, that pointed out that pass-through corporations don't pay corporate income tax, which is absolutely true, and that threw you completely and obsessively off the rails for some reason.

What's the matter with you? Some facts may be hard to accept when they don't support your political posturing, but that doesn't make them untrue and doesn't entitle you to recharacterize them into something else that is also true, but not pertinent to the original statement.

Get a grip. I'm surprised you're not used to being schooled by now, considering the tactics you use when pouting about how unfair and inconvenient the facts sometimes are.

I pointed out that "pass through" doesn't mean no taxes, it means it's paid on a personal instead of a corporate form. BTW, we still have CPAs and they still complete tax forms, just the tax is paid through my personal form rather than my corporate form.

So you tell me what point you're making that isn't just butt hurt over your hatred of the rich and corporations which form the tax is actually paid on?

 

[Al Azar]

You need to read the nested quotes. The claim that liberals keep making that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. So your leftist brother turned it to they don't all pay one tax specifically called a "corporate tax." All my corps were S corps, sure, I didn't pay a "corporate" tax. But I paid massive taxes through the income taxes. To tell me I wasn't taxed is just to be a liar and frankly a complete dick

No one said that corporations weren't taxed. No one said the shareholders weren't taxed. There was a single statement, by me, that pointed out that pass-through corporations don't pay corporate income tax, which is absolutely true, and that threw you completely and obsessively off the rails for some reason.

What's the matter with you? Some facts may be hard to accept when they don't support your political posturing, but that doesn't make them untrue and doesn't entitle you to recharacterize them into something else that is also true, but not pertinent to the original statement.

Get a grip. I'm surprised you're not used to being schooled by now, considering the tactics you use when pouting about how unfair and inconvenient the facts sometimes are.

I pointed out that "pass through" doesn't mean no taxes, it means it's paid on a personal instead of a corporate form. BTW, we still have CPAs and they still complete tax forms, just the tax is paid through my personal form rather than my corporate form.

So you tell me what point you're making that isn't just butt hurt over your hatred of the rich and corporations which form the tax is actually paid on?

I see. You finally concede I was right and now you're criticizing me about something you know nothing about, something you "think" motivates me because I made a simple factual statement that you don't like.

Sheesh. Grow up.

 

[kaz]

You need to read the nested quotes. The claim that liberals keep making that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. So your leftist brother turned it to they don't all pay one tax specifically called a "corporate tax." All my corps were S corps, sure, I didn't pay a "corporate" tax. But I paid massive taxes through the income taxes. To tell me I wasn't taxed is just to be a liar and frankly a complete dick

No one said that corporations weren't taxed. No one said the shareholders weren't taxed. There was a single statement, by me, that pointed out that pass-through corporations don't pay corporate income tax, which is absolutely true, and that threw you completely and obsessively off the rails for some reason.

What's the matter with you? Some facts may be hard to accept when they don't support your political posturing, but that doesn't make them untrue and doesn't entitle you to recharacterize them into something else that is also true, but not pertinent to the original statement.

Get a grip. I'm surprised you're not used to being schooled by now, considering the tactics you use when pouting about how unfair and inconvenient the facts sometimes are.

I pointed out that "pass through" doesn't mean no taxes, it means it's paid on a personal instead of a corporate form. BTW, we still have CPAs and they still complete tax forms, just the tax is paid through my personal form rather than my corporate form.

So you tell me what point you're making that isn't just butt hurt over your hatred of the rich and corporations which form the tax is actually paid on?

I see. You finally concede I was right and now you're criticizing me about something you know nothing about, something you "think" motivates me because I made a simple factual statement that you don't like.

Sheesh. Grow up.

Actually you conceded I was right. You said corporations don't pay taxes. When you turned out to be wrong, you changed it to that it's not called a corporate tax.

So I asked you what difference that made, what the tax is called, and you're running away

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

I don't Google what is in the news every day for people just because you don't like it because it doesn't help Democrats. People are dropping out of the work force and labor participation is low. Here's what you do. Open a tab and Google. Again, I keep a tab open all the time for that reason. I've never asked a question like you did without searching myself first, ever.

But that's why I'm a self supporting libertarian and you're a greedy collectivist

Then link from your open tab dope. You make dumb assertions and never cite a source when called on it. That means you have no credibility.

Bull. There is no reason I have to link to basic news. That's just stupid

That's how it works dope. It's up to you to prove your own points lest they and you be ridiculed.

That just ain't how Kazzie rolls, brah!

 

[IcebergSlim]

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

That's right. It's so simplistic but you are unable to give a brief summary. I believe you're dodging and really have no idea or no good answer.

I said your question was simplistic, can't you even read? Government schools, huh?

I see now. You get yourself cornered and rather than just drop it or find a solid answer, you hem and haw and argue. In other words, "Kazzing". It's a very apt description.

OK, so here's how my ignore list works. My birthday is in April. Every April I review my ignore list and decide who to give another shot. So there is no way to come off before April. And there is no guarantee you will in April. If you don't, you get reconsidered the next April and so on. Given how quickly you decided to go with the pre-pubescent playground chant, I'm guessing you won't be coming off any time soon. Life is to good to waste it on pubies who never grow up.

Have a good one. Hope you have a good elementary school teacher this year

You're ruthless!

 

[IcebergSlim]

To the OP, we'd prefer Obama left the country the way Bubba Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan did. Not like Carter, though. That was a disaster.

Bush, Sr. booked the worst economic performance of any Administration since the Great Depression.....only to be outdone by his worthless spawn......how kind of Reagan to leave him holding the bag.

 

[hadit]

To the OP, we'd prefer Obama left the country the way Bubba Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan did. Not like Carter, though. That was a disaster.

Bush, Sr. booked the worst economic performance of any Administration since the Great Depression.....only to be outdone by his worthless spawn......how kind of Reagan to leave him holding the bag.

Hmmm, and how many years has Obama had greater than 3% economic growth?

 

[IcebergSlim]

When someone says "worse off" with out a qualifier like "economically", intelligent people take the whole picture.

Why don't you offer 3 meaningful metrics by which we were " better off" in 2008 than now..

Already done moron, can't read?

One of them was GDP. ..

Q4 2007 - 14,997 trillion

Q4 2007 - 14,577 trillion

-2.8% for the year


You're a fucking dumbass.

Hey dumbass, want to try again?

Why?

I've made my point... . you're an imbecile...

Because idiot, there's a typo there. You have two different stats for the same year. Want to try again dumbass?

2008......

You feel vindicated?

 

[rdean]

It's done even better since then. 78 straight months of growth.

Pathetic by most standards.

A historic 78 straight months of growth is "pathetic"?
Then by that standard, the "GOP/Bush" recession was marvelous.

 

[IcebergSlim]

To the OP, we'd prefer Obama left the country the way Bubba Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan did. Not like Carter, though. That was a disaster.

Bush, Sr. booked the worst economic performance of any Administration since the Great Depression.....only to be outdone by his worthless spawn......how kind of Reagan to leave him holding the bag.

Hmmm, and how many years has Obama had greater than 3% economic growth?

Do you know the formula for calculating GDP?

 

[pinqy]

Not in any practical way. Neither is competing for work, and neither is available for work. What someone wants or says they want doesn't change likelihood of getting a job.

"neither is available for work"

Wrong, that's the exact difference. One wants a job and is just not looking out of frustration, the mother isn't available for work. That's the whole point, Holmes

If someone doesn't fill out any applications, doesn't respond to any ads, doesn't place any ads or send out any resumes, doesn't bid on any contracts, doesn't even ask any friends or family if they know of anything and isn't on the union rolls...then how is he available to be hired? He isn't. No one can hire him until he actually tries to get a job.

You don't know what the word "available" means.. ...

Ok, then please explain to me how someone who is not doing anything at all about work and about whom no employer is aware is available for work.

Let's take three people. All three are just handed out applications to work at McDonalds.
Person 1 fills out the application and turns it in.
Person 2 does not fill it out because he doesn't think they'll hire him because he's Black.
Person 3 would like to work, but is too busy taking care of the kids right now and doesn't fill out the form.

Do you really want to claim that 1 and 2 should be counted the same as available to work? Neither 2 nor 3 can be hired because neither is trying to work. The reason is irrelevant for immediate availability. Neither is available.

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

Available
adjective
1.
suitable or ready for use; of use or service; at hand:
I used whatever tools were available.
2.
readily obtainable; accessible:

Someone not trying to get a job is not at hand, ready for use readily obtainable, or accessible.

If an employer has 20 positions open, and there are 50 people in town who say they want jobs, but only 10 apply for work...how many workers are available for the employer to hire? Can he hire 10, 20, or 50?