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

[IcebergSlim]

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

education = government education


Haven't you stipulated to earning a masters from a STATE university?

 

[Faun]

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

People giving up looking for work represents less than about 6% of the folks who are not in the labor force.

Next kaz...?

 

[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?

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

What's interesting is you're a liar and yet for a rare occasion you are right. The rich do buy politicians.

Which is why you are a liar, even though you said it, you believe they don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be demanding more government.

And again, I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian. I'm against government helping companies. You're just stupid as shit at this point, you have no ability to retain and process information at all

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.....

I believe the feds more then your skewed data

 

[kaz]

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

education = government education


Haven't you stipulated to earning a masters from a STATE university?

Nice, one sentence, two fallacies..

Equivocation. I am talking about grade schools. I mean duh.

Faulty generalization. I am talking about the overall state of government schools, you can't conclude that applies to every individual school. The ones I want to (Maryland BS, Virginia Tech MS and Michigan MBA) are all highly ranked against other public schools as well as private schools.

My kids went to either private or public depending where we lived. In Brookfield, Connecticut for example, they went to excellent public schools. In California, they went to private, and the schools in our area (San Jose) were among the highest rated in the State, and they sucked

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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?

I wish we had a real 4.9% unemployment rate.... I miss those days when a recession wasn't that bad and the economy would actually recover within at least two consecutive terms of a president. I want to return to those days.

 

[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

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

Why would I waste 30 seconds when you either can't or don't read posts when you respond to them?

 

[IcebergSlim]

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?

I do........and it is entirely clear that you "reason" in the manner of a hysterical crack whore.....

That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today

There's only Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow....You've ruled out today......and I am disinclined to believe that you are reminiscing.......

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


Looks pretty "Not-Today-or-Yesterday" to me.......

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't even need to go look anything up when it comes to labor participation and the work force. It's such common knowledge.

No matter what state the economy is in, baby boomers are retiring. That's just a fact everyone knows.

We knew there are 5.8 million unfilled jobs. The highest in history as far as I know. Those jobs aren't filled because people don't have the skills.

Many younger adults are staying in college longer (probably not Republicans) so they can get a good and well paying jobs.

With such a large population and people retiring, of course there are more disabled than ever before. Disabled who aren't working.

Many liberal women have dropped out of the labor force to stay at home and raise their children because their well educated husband makes enough.

I've known three well educated women over the last couple of years who's husbands stay at home to raise the kids because the wife makes much more.

Then many of those youngsters Republicans sent off to Iraq have come back disabled.

And I'm sure there are many more reasons I never thought of. But I suspect I got the bulk.

You are just making up crap off the top of your head with no evidence to support any of your claims.

One: many college students have always worked, and should be working more than ever with the unaffordable costs of going to college today.

Two: Senior Citizens have always worked past retirement age. In fact they are now predicting a higher than ever labor participation rate from Seniors in the near future thanks to baby boomers.

Three: our welfare roles expanded under DumBama; he doubled the food stamp participation rate alone. Those welfare roles have not reduced very much in spite of this so-called great economy of ours.

I spend my working days in industrial areas. Those areas are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They can't find American workers willing to do the job. The ones that are willing to work can't because they are unable to pass a drug test. Smoking pot is more important than working for many younger people today.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

 

[IcebergSlim]

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....

Why would I waste 30 seconds when you either can't or don't read posts when you respond to them?

It would have taken you much less time to post the link......

The other possibility is that you were lying.....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You don't even need to go look anything up when it comes to labor participation and the work force. It's such common knowledge.

No matter what state the economy is in, baby boomers are retiring. That's just a fact everyone knows.

We knew there are 5.8 million unfilled jobs. The highest in history as far as I know. Those jobs aren't filled because people don't have the skills.

Many younger adults are staying in college longer (probably not Republicans) so they can get a good and well paying jobs.

With such a large population and people retiring, of course there are more disabled than ever before. Disabled who aren't working.

Many liberal women have dropped out of the labor force to stay at home and raise their children because their well educated husband makes enough.

I've known three well educated women over the last couple of years who's husbands stay at home to raise the kids because the wife makes much more.

Then many of those youngsters Republicans sent off to Iraq have come back disabled.

And I'm sure there are many more reasons I never thought of. But I suspect I got the bulk.

You are just making up crap off the top of your head with no evidence to support any of your claims.

One: many college students have always worked, and should be working more than ever with the unaffordable costs of going to college today.

Two: Senior Citizens have always worked past retirement age. In fact they are now predicting a higher than ever labor participation rate from Seniors in the near future thanks to baby boomers.

Three: our welfare roles expanded under DumBama; he doubled the food stamp participation rate alone. Those welfare roles have not reduced very much in spite of this so-called great economy of ours.

I spend my working days in industrial areas. Those areas are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They can't find American workers willing to do the job. The ones that are willing to work can't because they are unable to pass a drug test. Smoking pot is more important than working for many younger people today.

None of this is even true let alone relevant to full employment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

I never implied that at all. In fact, there are a lot of jobs out there. The problem is people have alternative means of living namely government.

You are correct, we have always included the people not working in our unemployment numbers. But as I stated, the lower the labor participation rate, the lower the unemployment numbers. With record low labor participation in this country, the unemployment numbers have to go down. But that doesn't mean it's because of all the great jobs out there and a strong working class.

 

[IcebergSlim]

You don't even need to go look anything up when it comes to labor participation and the work force. It's such common knowledge.

No matter what state the economy is in, baby boomers are retiring. That's just a fact everyone knows.

We knew there are 5.8 million unfilled jobs. The highest in history as far as I know. Those jobs aren't filled because people don't have the skills.

Many younger adults are staying in college longer (probably not Republicans) so they can get a good and well paying jobs.

With such a large population and people retiring, of course there are more disabled than ever before. Disabled who aren't working.

Many liberal women have dropped out of the labor force to stay at home and raise their children because their well educated husband makes enough.

I've known three well educated women over the last couple of years who's husbands stay at home to raise the kids because the wife makes much more.

Then many of those youngsters Republicans sent off to Iraq have come back disabled.

And I'm sure there are many more reasons I never thought of. But I suspect I got the bulk.

You are just making up crap off the top of your head with no evidence to support any of your claims.

One: many college students have always worked, and should be working more than ever with the unaffordable costs of going to college today.

Two: Senior Citizens have always worked past retirement age. In fact they are now predicting a higher than ever labor participation rate from Seniors in the near future thanks to baby boomers.

Three: our welfare roles expanded under DumBama; he doubled the food stamp participation rate alone. Those welfare roles have not reduced very much in spite of this so-called great economy of ours.

I spend my working days in industrial areas. Those areas are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They can't find American workers willing to do the job. The ones that are willing to work can't because they are unable to pass a drug test. Smoking pot is more important than working for many younger people today.

Three: our welfare roles expanded under DumBama; he doubled the food stamp participation rate alone.


Uh....no.....Eligibility was expanded in 2003, under a different POTUS.......and participation nearly doubled between 2001 and 2009.....It did NOT double thereafter...

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

When the Roll of the Incurably Stupid is called.....

Winner x 3 SassyIrishLass gipper kaz​

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 are simply and completely wrong. Those not in the labor force are not counted in the unemployment formula. Unemployment is the percentage of people IN THE WORKFORCE who are unemployed and looking for work.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Only a Breitbart reader would be stupid enough to post that meme.....

A black First Lady?

Seriously?

Were you pithed at birth?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

I never implied that at all. In fact, there are a lot of jobs out there. The problem is people have alternative means of living namely government.

You are correct, we have always included the people not working in our unemployment numbers. But as I stated, the lower the labor participation rate, the lower the unemployment numbers. With record low labor participation in this country, the unemployment numbers have to go down. But that doesn't mean it's because of all the great jobs out there and a strong working class.

there are a lot of jobs out there


and you don't think this is RADICALLY different from the conditions in January 2009?

 

[nat4900]

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?

"Gay boy" ?? "Faggot" ??? .....Really???? LOL

Oh, and I don't give a crap whatever you label yourself.....you'd still be a right wing idiot.

My responses are NOT only directed to you, but for whomever wishes to judge your imbecilities.

(BTW, since those 1% are treated so "unfairly" send Trump or someone within that economic bracket a couple of cans of beans and some crackers since they're so destitute from that mean government's tax policies."

 

[LeftofLeft]

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?

How can Democrats be upset at Republicans for showing Obama the same level of respect and decorum that Democrats showed Bush, when Obama departs January 2017 from Office?