US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

That's right.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

You gotta stop. Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party.

"...Old and fat gay Jew..." Really, R-Derp? It's always interesting when one of you "tolerant" liberals pulls back the curtain and reveals your real feelings about homosexuals and Jews.

I may call them faggots but I want them to be able to get married, share social security with their spouses, adopt, not get fired for being gay.

We may make an occasional jew or gay joke but that doesn't make us as bad as you not even close.

Since I also want them to be able to get married and have the same rights as everyone else...but I don't tell "jew or gay" jokes or refer to them as "faggots"...you'll have to explain how it is that I'm worse than you!

To steal a line from Love Story...it seems that being a Progressive means never having to say you're sorry even when you're a homophobic anti Semite.

I may not be better than you. I'm just better than all the Republicans you side with.

Very modest of you. But you are better than oldstyle. You try to be honest and rational, oldstyle does not bother.

 

[Rshermr]

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers. He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.

Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.

It isn't true. All that nonsense are the excuses that Barack Obama's supporters have come up with to explain his failures as President. This is the man who appointed Jeffrey Immelt...the CEO of General Electric...to be his "Jobs Czar" when it was General Electric that was one of the biggest exporters of jobs to China! That's how clueless Barry is...and how brainwashed you are for not seeing it. This is the man who's Presidency began with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. What did he give us with all that power? ObamaCare...the Obama Stimulus...AND A WHOLE LOT OF EXCUSES!

Wow. Who would think that oldstyle would post a whole list of right wing talking points with NO links or proof of anything. Am I missing something, or is this a totally useless post. Relative to the success or failure of the administration, that would be your opinion [actually what you are told to believe) and you know how much we respect your opinion.

 

[Rshermr]

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...

What a shame you just can't stop lying. Not in your character, huh?

Again....

Those words appeared in his plan before it was implemented. Accusing him of creating that term because you think his plan failed doesn't even make sense since the the term predates the implementation.

As far as your question of which prior administration used that term.... the Bush administration did when pushing CAFTA...

This will save jobs and make U.S. exports much more competitive.

... now will this get you to stop lying? No, of course not. Why?

Because if the truth and the facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

Really, Faun? Did you just attempt to say that because the Bush Administration used the words "save jobs" when pushing legislation...then that equates to the Obama Administration changing the measuring statistic from jobs created to jobs created or saved?

Once again...show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as part of their employment statistics. You can't because nobody else would have the stones to push such an obvious cover up of failed policy as Barry's folks did.

Too funny. I show you how Bush used the term, "save jobs," to push CAFTA just like Obama used that term to push ARRA; and to a con tool like you, that doesn't meet your standards to show the Obama administration is not even the first administration to use that term to measure jobs saved.



Regardless of your lack of integrity, you challenged me to show you a prior administration using the term, "saved jobs," as a measurement to push legislation; and I did. I certainly do not require your approval now because you're not happy I met your challenge.

What I asked you was to show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as their primary means of measuring job creation. What you did was Google "save jobs" and desperately try to come up with an example of Bush or any other Republican using "jobs created or saved". You obviously couldn't come up with anything so you provided the "save jobs" CAFTA reference and pretended that it was the same thing.
Why. You have seen it, and it does no good. Let me try to explain to you what is obvious to those interested in the truth. Which I know, does not include you. If you save jobs, me boy, unemployment does not increase. If you do not save jobs, unemployment DOES increase.
If you crate jobs, unemployment decreases. If you do not create jobs, unemployment stays high.
Now most, me boy, see the similarity. They are the same, you see, because they determine if ue rates raise or fall. Hope that is not too dificult for you.
Why do you not see jobs saved among many other administrations. Simple, me poor ignorant con tool. Because saving jobs is a function of stimulus efforts. There has not been a stimulus effort of any size at all since the great republican depression of 1929. And, under republican administrations, the republican mind did not believe in stimulus or saving jobs. So, economists is where the term came from which is why it was prevelent during the great republican recession of 2008. It was, me boy, considered the worst jobs related recession since the great republican depression of 1929.

This isn't about Obama using the term "jobs created or saved" to push the ARRA...it's about his Administration replacing the previously used economic statistic jobs created....something which was a concrete and measurable number...with jobs created or saved...which is nothing more than a guess. And why would they want a guess instead of a measurable number? Because they spent almost a trillion dollars of tax payer money and created very few jobs. THAT is what "jobs created or saved" is all about...THAT is what it's always been about! It's smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.

Neither the cbo or any other impartial econoic source I am aware of believes what you just posted. Only the well paid right wing bat shit crazy cons creating the talking points you spout believe what you just posted. Thanks for not changing and being a paid conservative tool.

Consider:
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration.
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf
And I can provide you many more similat quotes. All of which show you are not worth trying to help. Because you are, me boy, a paid con tool.

Me poor ignorant con tool.

 

[edthecynic]

You gotta stop. Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party.

AND while a member of the MINORITY Party!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Show me how the Congress was "Republican led" when Bush made those statements!

Well the GOP controlled the House, Senate and White House at the time.

 

[Markle]

Last time it was this low was 1973

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

As you know...or should know, President Clinton never had a surplus. What APPEARED as a surplus was money going into the general fund from Social Security and Medicare withholding taxes.

 

[Markle]

Numbers are great. But, I deal in reality. If the economy was in good shape, it would not be the primary concern of many Americans going into the November elections, and Obama's ratings would be comparable to what Reagan had when he ran for his second term.

Why is it that unemployment is down but so many Americans feel like our economy is floundering?

Apparently, the unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Mark

Of course unemployment is only part of the picture. But unemployment is way down under Obama. So while there are still problems with the economy, unemployment isn't one of them as we are now at full employment.

Of course, you know you are wrong so why do you make such false statements? You might consider chucking the Kool Aid!

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat. Notice the plunge since Lame Duck President Obama took office.

 

[edthecynic]

As you know...or should know, President Clinton never had a surplus. What APPEARED as a surplus was money going into the general fund from Social Security and Medicare withholding taxes.

Then by that same accounting Bush never had a $161 billion deficit in 2007 that The Right habitually touts.
Do you agree?

 

[Markle]

Cons would rather go back to Ronald Reagan socialism.

Obama wins again.

I remember telling Republicans about real unemployment back when bush had us in a 8 year recession. But the economy is near zero unemployment. What do they want Obama to do about unemployment? Do they want Obama to make companies hire the unemployable?

 

[edthecynic]

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.

That means you are a stupid DittoTard mindlessly parroting a Limbaugh Lie.

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

 

[Faun]

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers. He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.

Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.

It isn't true. All that nonsense are the excuses that Barack Obama's supporters have come up with to explain his failures as President. This is the man who appointed Jeffrey Immelt...the CEO of General Electric...to be his "Jobs Czar" when it was General Electric that was one of the biggest exporters of jobs to China! That's how clueless Barry is...and how brainwashed you are for not seeing it. This is the man who's Presidency began with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. What did he give us with all that power? ObamaCare...the Obama Stimulus...AND A WHOLE LOT OF EXCUSES!

What excuses? His job approval is right up there with Reagan's at this point in his presidency. And other than that, no other Republican president except for Eisenhower had a higher JAR than Obama after 87 months in office.

If Obama has failed ... what does that say about all those Republican presidents with lower job approval ratings?

Librul media??

 

[Faun]

That's right.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?

Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....

[cue the Barney song...]

So you admit that Bush did indeed warn Congress that there was a problem? Pass that nugget along to Rshermr...that buffoon is clueless as usual.

I never denied Bush warned Congress.

Now then, about my question which you intentionally avoided answering....

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

Show me how the Congress was "Republican led" when Bush made those statements!

Sorry, but I can't teach you something as basic as knowing Republicans controlled the House in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006; and the Senate in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and the first half of 2001 -- the year Bush first began warning the Congress that reform of the GSEs was needed.

So for a third time, since you avoided answering twice now...

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

 

[Markle]

Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...

.


I'm sure you thought you had a point when you posted only the first year of the Lame Duck Obama administration. Might you share it with us?

 

[Markle]

But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015

1. Percentage of Americans Now on Welfare Paints a ...
   economyincrisis.org/.../percentage-of-americans-now-on-welfare-paints-a-d...

Typical dishonest stat. They counted 6 different programs and if one person was eligible for all 6 they were counted as 6 different people. Most poor people were eligible for more than 1 poverty program, in fact, when the Right like to claim that poor people make more than people who work, they count all 6 poverty programs combined.

Same way it has always been counted. Do you have a point?

 

[Faun]

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...

What a shame you just can't stop lying. Not in your character, huh?

Again....

Those words appeared in his plan before it was implemented. Accusing him of creating that term because you think his plan failed doesn't even make sense since the the term predates the implementation.

As far as your question of which prior administration used that term.... the Bush administration did when pushing CAFTA...

This will save jobs and make U.S. exports much more competitive.

... now will this get you to stop lying? No, of course not. Why?

Because if the truth and the facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

Really, Faun? Did you just attempt to say that because the Bush Administration used the words "save jobs" when pushing legislation...then that equates to the Obama Administration changing the measuring statistic from jobs created to jobs created or saved?

Once again...show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as part of their employment statistics. You can't because nobody else would have the stones to push such an obvious cover up of failed policy as Barry's folks did.

Too funny. I show you how Bush used the term, "save jobs," to push CAFTA just like Obama used that term to push ARRA; and to a con tool like you, that doesn't meet your standards to show the Obama administration is not even the first administration to use that term to measure jobs saved.



Regardless of your lack of integrity, you challenged me to show you a prior administration using the term, "saved jobs," as a measurement to push legislation; and I did. I certainly do not require your approval now because you're not happy I met your challenge.

What I asked you was to show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as their primary means of measuring job creation. What you did was Google "save jobs" and desperately try to come up with an example of Bush or any other Republican using "jobs created or saved". You obviously couldn't come up with anything so you provided the "save jobs" CAFTA reference and pretended that it was the same thing.

This isn't about Obama using the term "jobs created or saved" to push the ARRA...it's about his Administration replacing the previously used economic statistic jobs created....something which was a concrete and measurable number...with jobs created or saved...which is nothing more than a guess. And why would they want a guess instead of a measurable number? Because they spent almost a trillion dollars of tax payer money and created very few jobs. THAT is what "jobs created or saved" is all about...THAT is what it's always been about! It's smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.

Holyfuckingshit!

The lengths you'll go to to maintain your idiocy.

They both used saving jobs as a reason for pushing through legislation. Even Bush, who promoted such a measure to get CAFTA passed. You complained there is no way to measure jobs saved (which is just another falsehood of yours anyway since the CBO managed to measure it) yet had that been true, there would have been no way to measure Bush's claim to save jobs.

And again, just to expose your lie again how Obama made up that term (that Bush used) Because you think his stimulus plan failed ... he used that term BEFORE any jobs were saved or created under his plan. How could he possibly use that term to compensate for a failed plan that hadn't Ben implemented yet??

You really have no fucking clue of what you're talking about.

 

[Markle]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

 

[Dale Smith]

Rshermr, you asked about the 8 things we could do that would return this country to greatness.....here it is but I added three more. I was revisiting the thread and just saw your question...all of these are very doable.

#1 Top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve and publicly name the 12 families that are the shareholders. Then we nationalize it, tell the banking oligarchs that the debt belongs to USA.INC which is being dissolved and not the debt of the people. Then we confiscate the ill-gotten wealth and put it into a trust AFTER dissolving USA.INC. We repatriate the golden that was confiscated and stolen from the people due to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933. We will follow the paper trail and I suspect that the nation's gold is sitting in a vault in the Bank Of London. We then audit the IMF, the Bank For International Settlements and the World Bank and write off any and all debt this thieves have stolen from the third world countries.

#2 We then open up ALL Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and the hidden holdings of USA.INC and it's 185,000 subsidiaries. What you would find is that they are sitting on 145 TRILLION dollars in assets not just in U.S holdings but overseas corporations as well that pays them a hefty dividend every year. USA.INC and it's subsidiaries take in more wealth in a year than the entire GDP of the private sector. That money is also put into a trust and that is what will finance the nineteen essential services that the IMF contracted for when USA.INC was taken into receivership when it went bankrupt in 1950.

#3 Then we nullify all the unfair "fair trade agreements" that has allowed a flood of cheap goods into this country made by what is basically slave labor and we place tariffs on it like we did before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This would eliminate the need for any taxation whatsoever and Allodial rights to property could be restored to the people....which means they own it outright...no property tax whatsoever.

#4 There are over 6,000 patents for everything from zero point energy to a better way of creating GOOD food that has been suppressed under the guise of "National Security". We release them and allow a TRUE free market to run with them which would create MILLIONS of jobs without harming the environment at all.

#5 We bring every soldier back that has been working overseas protecting the interests of the multinational corporations and use them to secure our southern border. Only those that came here legally and signed the guest book should benefit from the changes...not those that came over here, flopped and sucked off of the public teat.


#6 We use our influence to bring about these changes in every other country that is under the thumb of the banking oligarchs and return the wealth and resources that were stolen from them by the IMF and Bank For International Settlements back to the people from which it was stolen. It would be a domino effect. Once we expose the thievery of the IMF, BIS and World Bank, we put that money into a world trust to rebuild the infrastructure of these third world counties.


#7 We put every globalist on trial for their crimes against humanity and confiscate their wealth. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers come immediately to mind, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Beatrice, Prince Phillip, etc, etc. Everyone that sits on the Committee of 300. It's a very tiny group of powerful elites that have foisted this debt slavery system upon humanity at the expense of 100's of millions of lives and it's way past time that they paid for their crimes. It would be Nuremburg on steroids.


#8 We restore the Republic which means a return to Common Law which is the law of the land instead of admiralty law which is the law of the sea with all it's acts, statutes and codes. Re-train the administrators that were acting on behalf of the bank under the guise of being a judge that was raising revenue for the corporation.... into administering Common law.

#9 Hire peace officers instead of police that have been nothing but glorified mall cops and enforcers of acts, statutes and codes that produced revenue while producing no real victim of violations of said acts, statutes and codes.

#10 Make the people the trustee of their corporate fiction that was created the day they were born with the birth certificate that was written on bond paper.... as a bond was created in that all caps name that has gained value over the life of that corporate fiction and instead use it to fund the retirement of the real man or woman of the land...thus eliminating the need for any kind of social security tax on both the employee and the employer freeing the employer to pay more since he/she will not have to figure that cost into what he/she decides to pay you. Only under real time hardship cases like disability would the funds from this bond be released if it's not at the age of retirement......like the age of 60? Heck, we might even be able to lower it to 55.

#11. Legalize hemp....it has a 1000 and 1 uses from being a bio-fuel to curing many forms of cancer.

We have been abused, we have been raped, pillaged and plundered by a debt slavery system that rivals that of Rome before the birth of Christ and we don't even realize it.

BTW, there are millions of people that know the things I do...especially in Europe....America? Not so much but there are some. The tipping point is about to be reached and the point of no return is approaching unless people wake up as to what is being done to them. We ARE the change...we are the solution. These bought and paid for lackeys in D.C that is the corporate headquarters of USA.INC have no power...it's all theater. KNOWLEDGE is power and trust me, they do not want you to know what I have posted here. If you want change, you are not going to get it as long as the for profit corporate entity exists in D.C ...etch that in stone.

 

[Markle]

Many people abort so they don't have to go on welfare. If they had the kid the need to go on food stamps. Lots of People abort because they can't afford a child

 

[edthecynic]

Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...

.


I'm sure you thought you had a point when you posted only the first year of the Lame Duck Obama administration. Might you share it with us?

Do you really think increased corporate profits produces more jobs in this day and age????

Clearly cutting corporate taxes to increase their profit will NOT produce more jobs!
Get it?

 

[Faun]

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat. Notice the plunge since Lame Duck President Obama took office.

Emphasis added to shine a spotlight on the dumbest post of the week.

The drop in the labor force participation rate means no such thing. That you think it does only serves to reveal just how ignorant you are on the subject.

Here are just a few examples of people who would not be counted in the labor force, contributing to its decline -- none of whom just gave up looking for work...

• senior citizens retiring
  
• teenagers turning 16
  
• people getting hurt on the job and taking disability
  
• women having babies and choosing to stay at home to raise them
  
• men choosing to stay at home to raise their kids because their wives or girlfriends make more money
  
• folks who come into a windfall and choose to stop working
  
• folks who work in the shadow economy and don't report their income

While there are certainly some who, for whatever reason, can't find a job and gave up looking, the vast majority are among those listed above. And those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

I can't believe you actually said something that stupid. It's mind-boggling that there are people like you who think that way.