traveler52
Active Member
I cannot put it any better
IF the the shrub's tax cuts to the rich worked, why were over Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Jobs lost in the Quarter of 2008?
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.
I cannot put it any better
I cannot put it any better
IF the the shrub's tax cuts to the rich worked, why were over Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Jobs lost in the Quarter of 2008?
I cannot put it any better
IF the the shrub's tax cuts to the rich worked, why were over Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Jobs lost in the Quarter of 2008?
BEcause the tax cuts were 7 years earlier and the Dems controlled Congress from 06 on?
IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?
It did what it was designed to do.
Do you have any idea how many Banksters jobs were saved by the Bush II/Obama Stimulus Package?
At least 14 CEOs.
Bush had nothing to do with this failed stimulus
NOTHING
oh, you want some specifics? Here ya go:
a tax increase and a spending increase have the exact opposite effect on the economy, perfectly backwards to what you said. Now again, it could be your own ignorance - but either way, it's not true. It's a lie.
6 Million jobs have not been lost since the stimulus passed. That's a lie.
The recession you attribute to Clinton started in March of 2001 and ended in October of that year - Bush was not "fighting back" a recession from Clinton.
The protection of private intellectual and physical property is the most basic function of government and the most critical component of wealth creation.
It's possible you were just misinformed the first time you made the claim. When the facts were demonstrated and you continued to repeat it, you lied.
.
That is sheer folly. The other entities impacted include:
The government budget, which must reduce spending, increase other revenues or borrow funds when tax receipts decline.
Other private entitities, which respond when changes in taxes change consumption patterns.
Far less than 700B was ever distributed through TARP and as of late 2009, the total fiscal impact was about 80B including repayments (with interest) by most parties involved.
This is just a flat-out, no-question lie.
There is a way - and that way involves requiring recipients to track the number of jobs saved.
Pure folly. in the last two months of 2000, the economy created 231,000 and 138,000 jobs respectively. In the year 2000, it created 1,953,000 jobs.
job loss: end of 2008 thru the end of 2010, 7 million jobs were lost
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847
2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
In case you are unaware:
A. You're using annual figures.
B. The stimulus was passed in late March 2009. In the first three months of 2009, the economy shed about 1.9M jobs.
all but 80B has been "put back in the treasury".
No, the 2001 recession had nothing to do with Clinton (or at the most very, very, preciously little).
The 2007 recession had very, very little to do with Bush.
Remember when you were arguing that presidents aren't responsible for the economy?
Ok, every problem Obama faced after 3/01/09 had nothing to do with GWB, fair enough?
No, not fair enough. The President DOES control some things.
2000 job count?
OK, every job lost from 1/01/2009 belongs to BHO and and no time did anything GWB do have anything to do with any job lost after 1/01/2009, fair enough?
Yes, the 2000 job count. Bush took office in Jan of 2001. And no, the president isn't responsible for every job loss - no president is.
Keep lying, JRK. You prove your worth with every post.
I have over 1000 post and this is it?
I mean really,?
It's bad enough that the nation's jobless rate is 9.7%.
2007? what does that have to do with anything?
you claimed I lied because having a recession 60 days after becoming president has nothing to do with the former president,
IF the the shrub's tax cuts to the rich worked, why were over Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Jobs lost in the Quarter of 2008?
BEcause the tax cuts were 7 years earlier and the Dems controlled Congress from 06 on?
2008-2003 = 5.
So, we need continual tax cuts in order to sustain the economy?
I have over 1000 post and this is it?
I mean really,?
I only looked at this thread. And I found almost a dozen in this thread alone.
It's bad enough that the nation's jobless rate is 9.7%.
you seem incapable of a single honest post. The unemployment rate is not 9.7%.
And on a sidenote, I love when so-called conservatives want to start including people who aren't even looking for work in the UE figures. Not even looking! but we should count them b/c it makes Obama look bad.
Let me ask ya: Did you talk about Bush's 10% unemployment rate when he was in office?
2007? what does that have to do with anything?
That's when the recession started.
you claimed I lied because having a recession 60 days after becoming president has nothing to do with the former president,
I said nothing of the sort. I said you lied because...you lied. You said that Bush was "fighting back from Clinton's recession. (1) that's a lie because the recession started after Clinton left office. and (2) you at once claim that presidents aren't responsible and that Clinton and Obama ARE responsible.
That's because you lie.
I have over 1000 post and this is it?
I mean really,?
I only looked at this thread. And I found almost a dozen in this thread alone.
you seem incapable of a single honest post. The unemployment rate is not 9.7%.
And on a sidenote, I love when so-called conservatives want to start including people who aren't even looking for work in the UE figures. Not even looking! but we should count them b/c it makes Obama look bad.
Let me ask ya: Did you talk about Bush's 10% unemployment rate when he was in office?
That's when the recession started.
you claimed I lied because having a recession 60 days after becoming president has nothing to do with the former president,
I said nothing of the sort. I said you lied because...you lied. You said that Bush was "fighting back from Clinton's recession. (1) that's a lie because the recession started after Clinton left office. and (2) you at once claim that presidents aren't responsible and that Clinton and Obama ARE responsible.
That's because you lie.
I have posted 1111 times
in that you claim that a recession in 2001 that began 2 months after Clinton left office, had nothing to do with Clinton
I claimed presidents are not responsible for what?
I do not recall that one.
You know what, your making yourself look good here
I don't concern myself with what to believe in. That's your role. I believe in facts. I concern myself with the facts.Concern yourself with the things to believe in. You cannot change the facts young man
I only looked at this thread. And I found almost a dozen in this thread alone.
you seem incapable of a single honest post. The unemployment rate is not 9.7%.
And on a sidenote, I love when so-called conservatives want to start including people who aren't even looking for work in the UE figures. Not even looking! but we should count them b/c it makes Obama look bad.
Let me ask ya: Did you talk about Bush's 10% unemployment rate when he was in office?
That's when the recession started.
I said nothing of the sort. I said you lied because...you lied. You said that Bush was "fighting back from Clinton's recession. (1) that's a lie because the recession started after Clinton left office. and (2) you at once claim that presidents aren't responsible and that Clinton and Obama ARE responsible.
That's because you lie.
I have posted 1111 times
I have no interest in reading all 1111 posts in order to demonstrate the repeated lies.
in that you claim that a recession in 2001 that began 2 months after Clinton left office, had nothing to do with Clinton
I claimed presidents are not responsible for what?
I do not recall that one.
You know what, your making yourself look good here
You claim in some posts that presidents are responsible for the economy / recessions....and in others claim otherwise. it's convenient because you always seem to hold Dems accountable for bad economies (Obama) and never give them credit for good ones. Funny observation.
I don't concern myself with what to believe in. That's your role. I believe in facts. I concern myself with the facts.Concern yourself with the things to believe in. You cannot change the facts young man
Your silly condescending makes you look smart big guy.
Remember when President Oprah said he was going to spend 787 Billion to create jobs then turned around and gave it Democrat interests fucking over the American unemployed so they lost their homes?
It didn't fail but who said highr taxes create jobs?
If you concern yourself with the facts then why is it you never debate about Obama?
every person on this message board can state a simple fact
like we have lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million sense the stimulus began
Yet you would call people a liar about any of this instead of dealing with the facts
how is Obama going to pay for Obama care and cut Medicare spending 500 billion?
Your going to have a hard time explaining how GM has paid us back when GMAC gets thrown in there, borrowing more tarp to make the first payment a
If you concern yourself with the facts then why is it you never debate about Obama?
every person on this message board can state a simple fact
like we have lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million sense the stimulus began
Because it's a lie. According to the BLS, there were 132,041,000 jobs when the stimulus passed.
There are currently 131,028,000 jobs.
That's a total loss of 1,013,000 jobs.
If you concern yourself with the facts then why is it you never debate about Obama?
every person on this message board can state a simple fact
like we have lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million sense the stimulus began
Because it's a lie. According to the BLS, there were 132,041,000 jobs when the stimulus passed.
There are currently 131,028,000 jobs.
That's a total loss of 1,013,000 jobs.
You obviously don't know how to count.
Do not post numbers from a source without a link. Let others see for themselves.If you concern yourself with the facts then why is it you never debate about Obama?
every person on this message board can state a simple fact
like we have lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million sense the stimulus began
Because it's a lie. According to the BLS, there were 132,041,000 jobs when the stimulus passed.
There are currently 131,028,000 jobs.
That's a total loss of 1,013,000 jobs.
Yet you would call people a liar about any of this instead of dealing with the facts
That's because your "Facts" are a lie. See above numbers.
how is Obama going to pay for Obama care and cut Medicare spending 500 billion?
All of the various revenue components of health care reform have been laid out in detail and scored by the CBO.
Your going to have a hard time explaining how GM has paid us back when GMAC gets thrown in there, borrowing more tarp to make the first payment a
GM has paid back the debt portion of their loan. They have not paid back the equity portion, obviously, and I don't know why you keep claiming otherwise.
Do not post numbers from a source without a link. Let others see for themselves.
For all we know, those BLS numbers are a raw count of jobs available and not the number of people working. They could be part time. Or seasonal. Agricultural.
For example your side continues to complain about the loss of manufacturing jobs and especially those which used to be union jobs. Yet at the same time you are boasting at how few jobs have been lost.
You can't have it both ways just to suit your political agenda.
So now, where did you get those BLS numbers
BTW,, GM has paid back a very small portion of their bailout and had to borrow money form other sources to pay that. GM is still owned by the American taxpayer.
Don't tell us that the CBO scored anything.
March of 2009. It was part of the stimulus package.
They cut taxes? I don't recall a tax cut for the wealthy in 2009.
The stimulus package contained around $300B in tax cuts including items such as a payroll tax deduction, sales tax deductions for vehicle purchases and an extension of the AMT patch. All of those, and others, cut taxes for the rich.