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

[rdean]

Or a Republican.

 

[kaz]

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

You have to laugh otherwise you'd cry. It's just like Faun bragging about our stock market. He (she) doesn't realize that the stock market is what it is due to the trillions of dollars the feds pumped into it. The market is not reflective of our economic success. Like the housing bubble, it's just an artificial bubble. All bubbles burst.

Do you understand the fundamentals of equity valuation?

You obviously don't understand the time value of money. I just explained equity valuation in the stock market a post or two ago, if you didn't get it the first time, read it again

 

[Wilbur Right]

How many prospective workers included in the LPR receive government assistance?

 

[kaz]

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

You have to laugh otherwise you'd cry. It's just like Faun bragging about our stock market. He (she) doesn't realize that the stock market is what it is due to the trillions of dollars the feds pumped into it. The market is not reflective of our economic success. Like the housing bubble, it's just an artificial bubble. All bubbles burst.

The markets are full of "funny money"...lots of people making money in it but the bubble is doomed to burst and when it does it will be ugly

You really have no idea, do you?

Do some reading on the debt/equity ratio of companies and then think about what government pumping free money into the market does to that. It has two impacts:

1) Companies borrow more because the artificially low interest rates drive the ideal debt/equity ratio towards debt

2) It drives up the market because the NPV of all company revenue goes up because of the short term, artificial benefit even as long term prospects go down.

That's why as I pointed out this week when economic outlook was BAD, the market went up. It was because it reduced the threat of the Fed increasing interest rates.

Turns out the financial training they gave you to sell loaded mutual funds to little old ladies didn't prepare you to cross swords with someone who worked on Wall Street and has an MBA and understands capital markets.

They trained you to sell securities, not understand them, Larry

 

[kaz]

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain.

Oh, how "accurate", since that "trickle-down" economic incentives have worked so fucking well in the last 3 plus decades, right???

Drop the talking points and address what I said

 

[rdean]

No president can stop the concentration of wealth at the top. But congress can. Who's in charge there, anyway?

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain. Why are you so much more obsessed with what others have rather than what you have?

What incentive for job providers to work has been removed?

Redistribution of the money we earn for working more. I mean duh, Larry

Where do they find you Idiots?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the average of the past 50 years?

If job creators are so disincentivized, why are we seeing higher rates of job growth than at any time during Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux?

Strawman. But I'll respond to your points for kicks.

1) What you said is a strawman because I was addressing a point that wanted to change "concentration of wealth at the top." That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today. You have little reading comprehension and call me an "idiot," classic

2) As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do on behalf of you and your greedy, wealth envying brethren who want to plunder them. Get used to them investing more and more overseas to run away from you.

That companies are moving to socialist countries should show you how far your greed has gotten out of hand. Yet it doesn't phase you at all, you just work on your plans to plunder them there

Foxconn cuts 60,000 factory jobs and replaces them with robots

Don’t blame the robots for lost manufacturing jobs | Brookings Institution

The Rise of Job-Killing Automation? Not So Fast

The last one explains the importance of education.

 

[kaz]

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain. Why are you so much more obsessed with what others have rather than what you have?

here's one review of Trump's "great" economic plan.....

"More than one-third of the proposed tax cuts on personal income will go to the top 1% of income earners, with the average taxpayer in this group receiving a reduction in their tax bill of $275,000. Taxpayers in the bottom 99% of income earners will receive a tax cut of less than $2,500," Moody's writes.

Listen, you faggot, I'm not a Republican and I don't support Trump. My God, you work so hard to put that in every fucking post you write to me. You're obsessed.

And as for your point, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, if they're only getting 33% of the reduction, that's less than their share, isn't it, gay boy?

 

[rdean]

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain.

Oh, how "accurate", since that "trickle-down" economic incentives have worked so fucking well in the last 3 plus decades, right???

Drop the talking points and address what I said

Check out post #126

 

[kaz]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

OK, Kaz....so give us the technical definition of "full employment" as you understand it....

Already did, multiple times. You really are lost

 

[IcebergSlim]

No president can stop the concentration of wealth at the top. But congress can. Who's in charge there, anyway?

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain. Why are you so much more obsessed with what others have rather than what you have?

What incentive for job providers to work has been removed?

Redistribution of the money we earn for working more. I mean duh, Larry

Where do they find you Idiots?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the average of the past 50 years?

If job creators are so disincentivized, why are we seeing higher rates of job growth than at any time during Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux?

Strawman. But I'll respond to your points for kicks.

1) What you said is a strawman because I was addressing a point that wanted to change "concentration of wealth at the top." That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today. You have little reading comprehension and call me an "idiot," classic

2) As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do on behalf of you and your greedy, wealth envying brethren who want to plunder them. Get used to them investing more and more overseas to run away from you.

That companies are moving to socialist countries should show you how far your greed has gotten out of hand. Yet it doesn't phase you at all, you just work on your plans to plunder them there

How is asking you to reconcile your hysteria with existing reality a "strawman"?

OK...so you weren't talking about anything that is actually happening......you are hyperventilating over something which you insist is being plotted....

It would be lovely if labor market dynamics organically changed the distribution of income and spread the wealth around to that segment of the population with a high MPC....perhaps it will.....it would certainly be my preference

If it DOESN'T, then the crude tool of distribution through federal tax policy may be necessary.......but what Supply Side steeped morons continually overlook is the benefit of increased demand which results from facilitating consumer spending....I'm of the belief that the reason the Clinton era saw better economic outcomes than the Reagan years was that the share of the "national income" going to labor was at the high end of the historical range...EVERYBODY did better.

 

[rdean]

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain. Why are you so much more obsessed with what others have rather than what you have?

here's one review of Trump's "great" economic plan.....

"More than one-third of the proposed tax cuts on personal income will go to the top 1% of income earners, with the average taxpayer in this group receiving a reduction in their tax bill of $275,000. Taxpayers in the bottom 99% of income earners will receive a tax cut of less than $2,500," Moody's writes.

Listen, you faggot, I'm not a Republican and I don't support Trump. My God, you work so hard to put that in every fucking post you write to me. You're obsessed.

And as for your point, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, if they're only getting 33% of the reduction, that's less than their share, isn't it, gay boy?

They are able to buy politicians to "fix" the laws Sugar Plum. Without that help, would they ever get that rich Sweet Cakes?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

OK, Kaz....so give us the technical definition of "full employment" as you understand it....

Already did, multiple times. You really are lost

I'm multitasking........how about linking me to the post in this exchange where you do so....

 

[kaz]

Full employment? We have a record low labor participation rate. That means over one-third of Americans of working age are not working nor looking for a job, plus the Americans who are not working and looking for a job.

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

If you don't understand what he said, obviously you don't know what "full employment" means. He told you in his sentence both what it means and what's misleading about it

Stop kazzing. The labor force participation rate has nothing to do with full employment.

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

 

[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?

 

[Wyatt earp]

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Oh, I fully understand the shortcomings of U3........but that doesn't change the technical definition of "full employment"...

Yea I am sure those workers love their new part time obama care jobs



.

What an achievement...



.

In the month that ACA became law, there were 9.126 million people working part time "for economic reasons"..........in May 2016 that number was 6.372 million....

You have a link? stupid lying fuck



By Patrick Gillespie April 25, 2016 13:25PM EDT


America has a huge part-time workforce problem.

And it's Worry Number One for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen. She has talked about part-timers at each of her last three press conferences, at nearly every speech in the last six months and at both of her past two testimonies to Congress.

Yellen's worries stem from the fact that the part-time U.S. workforce is at "very high levels."

Always....

Employment Level: Part-Time for Economic Reasons, Nonagricultural Industries

To bad you were not honest enough to mention before ...

America's part-time problem may be permanent


Excluding the Great Recession, the 6 million Americans who work part-time but want full-time jobs today are at the highest level in about 30 years or so. The number has come down since its peak during the recession but some experts believe America now has a "new normal" -- a permanently high number of part-timers.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yes, full employment. What a shame you're too delirious to recognize reality.

Over a third of Americans were not looking for work before Obama became president. 94% of that third of Americans don't want a job. And the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job markets; whereas, the unemployment rate is. And despite your ignorance, it indicates we are at full employment.

Just for you public school victims, let's try this again:

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go. The lower the unemployment numbers, you will eventually cross that threshold of what is considered Full Employment.

If you take away those who dropped out of the workforce, we are nowhere near Full Employment.

View attachment 88327

You should take a minute and learn the definition of "full employment"......don't run your yap, just do it...

 

[kaz]

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain. Why are you so much more obsessed with what others have rather than what you have?

What incentive for job providers to work has been removed?

Redistribution of the money we earn for working more. I mean duh, Larry

Where do they find you Idiots?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the average of the past 50 years?

If job creators are so disincentivized, why are we seeing higher rates of job growth than at any time during Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux?

Strawman. But I'll respond to your points for kicks.

1) What you said is a strawman because I was addressing a point that wanted to change "concentration of wealth at the top." That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today. You have little reading comprehension and call me an "idiot," classic

2) As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do on behalf of you and your greedy, wealth envying brethren who want to plunder them. Get used to them investing more and more overseas to run away from you.

That companies are moving to socialist countries should show you how far your greed has gotten out of hand. Yet it doesn't phase you at all, you just work on your plans to plunder them there

Foxconn cuts 60,000 factory jobs and replaces them with robots

Don’t blame the robots for lost manufacturing jobs | Brookings Institution

The Rise of Job-Killing Automation? Not So Fast

The last one explains the importance of education.

Yes, we need the real thing, not the crap government is doing.

Stupid liberal tricks

education = government education

Government "education" is glorified baby sitting, they are the worst of all solutions. Government always is

 

[kaz]

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain.

Oh, how "accurate", since that "trickle-down" economic incentives have worked so fucking well in the last 3 plus decades, right???

Drop the talking points and address what I said

Check out post #126

That's about automation, this point was about taking money from employers. You actually don't understand that, do you?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Oh, I fully understand the shortcomings of U3........but that doesn't change the technical definition of "full employment"...

Yea I am sure those workers love their new part time obama care jobs



.

What an achievement...



.

In the month that ACA became law, there were 9.126 million people working part time "for economic reasons"..........in May 2016 that number was 6.372 million....

You have a link? stupid lying fuck



By Patrick Gillespie April 25, 2016 13:25PM EDT


America has a huge part-time workforce problem.

And it's Worry Number One for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen. She has talked about part-timers at each of her last three press conferences, at nearly every speech in the last six months and at both of her past two testimonies to Congress.

Yellen's worries stem from the fact that the part-time U.S. workforce is at "very high levels."

Always....

Employment Level: Part-Time for Economic Reasons, Nonagricultural Industries

To bad you were not honest enough to mention before ...

America's part-time problem may be permanent


Excluding the Great Recession, the 6 million Americans who work part-time but want full-time jobs today are at the highest level in about 30 years or so. The number has come down since its peak during the recession but some experts believe America now has a "new normal" -- a permanently high number of part-timers.

Read this....

are at the highest level in about 30 years or so. The number has come down since its peak during the recession but

just another reason why I eschew "narrative" in favor of the raw data.....

 

[kaz]

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain. Why are you so much more obsessed with what others have rather than what you have?

What incentive for job providers to work has been removed?

Redistribution of the money we earn for working more. I mean duh, Larry

Where do they find you Idiots?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the average of the past 50 years?

If job creators are so disincentivized, why are we seeing higher rates of job growth than at any time during Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux?

Strawman. But I'll respond to your points for kicks.

1) What you said is a strawman because I was addressing a point that wanted to change "concentration of wealth at the top." That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today. You have little reading comprehension and call me an "idiot," classic

2) As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do on behalf of you and your greedy, wealth envying brethren who want to plunder them. Get used to them investing more and more overseas to run away from you.

That companies are moving to socialist countries should show you how far your greed has gotten out of hand. Yet it doesn't phase you at all, you just work on your plans to plunder them there

How is asking you to reconcile your hysteria with existing reality a "strawman"?

OK...so you weren't talking about anything that is actually happening......you are hyperventilating over something which you insist is being plotted....

It would be lovely if labor market dynamics organically changed the distribution of income and spread the wealth around to that segment of the population with a high MPC....perhaps it will.....it would certainly be my preference

If it DOESN'T, then the crude tool of distribution through federal tax policy may be necessary.......but what Supply Side steeped morons continually overlook is the benefit of increased demand which results from facilitating consumer spending....I'm of the belief that the reason the Clinton era saw better economic outcomes than the Reagan years was that the share of the "national income" going to labor was at the high end of the historical range...EVERYBODY did better.

Thanks for your concern about how I feel, gay boy, but I'm good. You suck at reading emotions for someone who wants to be a chick. Let's focus on the content, OK?

As for, "How is asking you to reconcile your hysteria with existing reality a "strawman"?"

Strawman

As for how it's a strawman, even though I pointed out it was a strawman, I answered your question in point number 2.

You don't actually read posts, do you?