Unemployment at a 44 month low

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    I think Thatwasme and 12 Angry men should meet in an alley and settle this like men. But i get the sneaking suspicion that 12 would Puss out like the little b1tch lib he is. Talks a big game on the internet but when it comes down to it hes just a little b1tch hiding behind a keyboard.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Poor jmel..Can't accept reality, and now has become a BLS truther who sees malfeasance everywhere without proof.

    [/QUOTE]


    Dumb as a post you are!  You could see live footage of your messiah in bed with a teen-age girl, smoking a bone, watching Iran test nuclear missiles, and you would still blindly and stupidly support this fool.

    Do yourself a favor............read some news today.  Watch a news show.  Learn for yourself with an open mind that it is impossible for the US to add 114,000 jobs and unemployment to come down.

    Stop lying for one day.

    [/QUOTE]


    The July number was revised from 140,000 to 180, 000.
    August, from 96,000 to 140,000.

    That's 85,000 previously unrecorded jobs, plus the new number, so we're up by around 200,000.

    I know that because I read the news.

    [/QUOTE]


    And you believe that 85,000 jobs were MIRACULOUSLY missed?  You believe that for the first time ever 3 months of job data was MIRACULOUSLY revised at the same time?

    You should have to take a civics test before you`re allowed to vote.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually..as someone who has a decent professional background in finance..I have no trouble believing that numbers get revised. Companies do this with their financials more often than one would think.

    In addition..revisions to the numbers retroactively by the division of labor and statistics is something that has taken place fairly regularly over the past few decades. It is not new behavior.and therefore no politically motivated. I think most of the general public lacks an understanding of just how hard it is to put this enormous amount of information together in just 30 days.

    Beyond that..it is somewhat disheartening to read some of the comments on this thread. It seems the well being of people and the economy takes a back seat to poltics and the hatred of Obama. People on the right should keep in mind that these numbers are a positive reflection of goverment in general..including republicans.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Hatred of him for what he has done to the country and where we're headed if he is relelected.

    He doesn't have a clue.

    [/QUOTE]


    You had the same stuff before the last election.

    Unemployment is at a 44 month low.  Down .5%.


    Dance.  On the table.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]Actually..as someone who has a decent professional background in finance..I have no trouble believing that numbers get revised. Companies do this with their financials more often than one would think.

    In addition..revisions to the numbers retroactively by the division of labor and statistics is something that has taken place fairly regularly over the past few decades. It is not new behavior.and therefore no politically motivated. I think most of the general public lacks an understanding of just how hard it is to put this enormous amount of information together in just 30 days.

    Beyond that..it is somewhat disheartening to read some of the comments on this thread. It seems the well being of people and the economy takes a back seat to poltics and the hatred of Obama. People on the right should keep in mind that these numbers are a positive reflection of goverment in general..including republicans.[/QUOTE]

    Ironic that the guy most famous for revising numbers, back in his day, was Mr. Welch.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    From the Samuelson article;

    The trouble is that there's a major snag (in Mittens tax plan), argued the TPC in an August report. In practice, the tax breaks affecting the rich (generally, those with incomes exceeding $200,000) aren't sufficient to offset all their tax savings from lower rates. Achieving revenue neutrality would compel Romney to raise taxes on the middle class – something he has also vowed not to do.

    [/QUOTE]


    and????

    I clearly heard Romney say the "rich"  (i.e. anyone but you) will pay the same.  How about we give him a chance, seeingthat Obama, fours years later, STILL doesn't have a clue.

    BTW:  This is one point where Samuelson is wrong, dead wrong.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    From the Samuelson article;

    The trouble is that there's a major snag (in Mittens tax plan), argued the TPC in an August report. In practice, the tax breaks affecting the rich (generally, those with incomes exceeding $200,000) aren't sufficient to offset all their tax savings from lower rates. Achieving revenue neutrality would compel Romney to raise taxes on the middle class – something he has also vowed not to do.

    [/QUOTE]


    and????

    I clearly heard Romney say the "rich"  (i.e. anyone but you) will pay the same.  How about we give him a chance, seeingthat Obama, fours years later, STILL doesn't have a clue.

    BTW:  This is one point where Samuelson is wrong, dead wrong.

    [/QUOTE]


    This argument doesn't really pass the common sense test - even if you find loop-holes to close for the rich, you not only have to find enough loop-holes to compensate for the 20% marginal rate cut on the rich, but also on the rest of the population, and the reduction in corporate tax rates, and the elimination of capital gains taxes for the middle class.  Romney has said new tax revenue is off the table - he doesn't want to lower taxes for the rich, but he doesn't want to raise them either.  He's going to make up for the additional cuts by getting the economy moving again.   Well, we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue - to compensate for that kind of loss, the GDP would have to increase by more than a trillion dollars a year.  And with all the Republican pledges to never, ever raise taxes, we can never again afford to slow down.  Even in the artificial bubble economies of the past decade, we didn't see that kind of growth.  This is really the dictionary definition of an empty promise.

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Romney has said new tax revenue is off the table

    ----------------------

    Thats dem-speak for idiots who think revenue only = more taxes.

    It doesn't

    [/QUOTE]

    Revenue can come from GDP growth, but to make this plan deficit neutral without raising anybody's taxes, we would have to grow at more than a trillion dollars a year.  Never in our history have we grown a trillion dollars in one year.

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Tax revenues increased every year under those Bush tax cuts that were so horrible that Obambi extends them every year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Where's the point in that statement?  A flat tax of 1% would result in year over year increases, so long as GDP grows.  Tax revenue in 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts) was higher than 2001.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Romney has said new tax revenue is off the table

    ----------------------

    Thats dem-speak for idiots who think revenue only = more taxes.

    It doesn't

    [/QUOTE]

    Revenue can come from GDP growth, but to make this plan deficit neutral without raising anybody's taxes, we would have to grow at more than a trillion dollars a year.  Never in our history have we grown a trillion dollars in one year.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Raising taxes to 50% on families making over $250k would bring in approx $70 billion per year.  Obama has us going $9 BILLION more in debt EVERY DAY!  A tax increase to 50% (which would be exorbitant and unheard of) would pay about 8 DAYS PER YEAR of our debt.  What do we do the other 357 days?

    Stopping Democrat spending is the only solution.  Get your head out!

    [/QUOTE]


    Obama just demogogues the issue he knows taxing the rich will not solve the debt problem but playing the class warfare gets his base out to vote.

    Pitting one group of citizens against another.

    The war against women who want free birth control another canard to get dumb liberal women out to vote.

    He doesn't care what he does to the country nor do the democrats they just want to get re-elected.

    Romney is an evil greedy rich liar, this is all hope and change.

    Who cares what their doing to the country by lying about the rich not paying their fair share.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    From the Samuelson article;

    The trouble is that there's a major snag (in Mittens tax plan), argued the TPC in an August report. In practice, the tax breaks affecting the rich (generally, those with incomes exceeding $200,000) aren't sufficient to offset all their tax savings from lower rates. Achieving revenue neutrality would compel Romney to raise taxes on the middle class – something he has also vowed not to do.

    [/QUOTE]


    and????

    I clearly heard Romney say the "rich"  (i.e. anyone but you) will pay the same.  How about we give him a chance, seeingthat Obama, fours years later, STILL doesn't have a clue.

    BTW:  This is one point where Samuelson is wrong, dead wrong.

    [/QUOTE]


    This argument doesn't really pass the common sense test - even if you find loop-holes to close for the rich, you not only have to find enough loop-holes to compensate for the 20% marginal rate cut on the rich, but also on the rest of the population, and the reduction in corporate tax rates, and the elimination of capital gains taxes for the middle class.  Romney has said new tax revenue is off the table - he doesn't want to lower taxes for the rich, but he doesn't want to raise them either.  He's going to make up for the additional cuts by getting the economy moving again.   Well, we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue - to compensate for that kind of loss, the GDP would have to increase by more than a trillion dollars a year.  And with all the Republican pledges to never, ever raise taxes, we can never again afford to slow down.  Even in the artificial bubble economies of the past decade, we didn't see that kind of growth.  This is really the dictionary definition of an empty promise.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Economic growht, more jobs, more tax revenue.  You see, unlike Obama, Romney understands this.

    Problem #1, your model is static. 

     

    The next problem is not understanding the drop in deductions, i.e. loopholes.

    20% reduction in tax rate, complete reduction in deductions (up to 17K) and somehow you think there is not enough there to offset the 20% reduction in rate.  It is a reduction in rate, not a new rate.  20% off 35% is @30%.  So,do the math, 30K in mortgage deduction other deductions, probably get the income down to about 150K taxable, or about 50-60K in taxes at 35%.  Now 250K at 30%, 17K limit of allowable deductions, or about 230K taxable, about 60-70K in taxes.  that's the change, using a straighforward example off the top of my head.  Actual mileage may differ.  

    So, the claim is that the rich will pay less in taxes.  My example shows that they will likely pay the same or more.  Samuelson and the left leaning TPC is flat out wrong.  In order for these guys to be correct,  rich people don't have all the loopholes and deductions the liberals claim. 

    So, you can't have it both ways.  Either they are getting away with murder on loopholes and deductions, and Romney's plan will work, or they don't have the loopholes (i.e. being taxed fairly currently), so, Romney's plan won't work.

    Which is it?

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Romney has said new tax revenue is off the table

    ----------------------

    Thats dem-speak for idiots who think revenue only = more taxes.

    It doesn't

    [/QUOTE]

    Revenue can come from GDP growth, but to make this plan deficit neutral without raising anybody's taxes, we would have to grow at more than a trillion dollars a year.  Never in our history have we grown a trillion dollars in one year.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Raising taxes to 50% on families making over $250k would bring in approx $70 billion per year.  Obama has us going $9 BILLION more in debt EVERY DAY!  A tax increase to 50% (which would be exorbitant and unheard of) would pay about 8 DAYS PER YEAR of our debt.  What do we do the other 357 days?

    Stopping Democrat spending is the only solution.  Get your head out!

    [/QUOTE]


    Romney's plan for cutting spending is brilliant:  Is it worth borrowing money from China for NPR?

    The obvious answer is NO.

    Cut NPR, or anythign else we borrow to spend.

    Deficits were never meant to make up for lack of revenue, just smooth out the revenue stream.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Economic growht, more jobs, more tax revenue.  You see, unlike Obama, Romney understands this. Problem #1, your model is static. The next problem is not understanding the drop in deductions, i.e. loopholes. 20% reduction in tax rate, complete reduction in deductions (up to 17K) and somehow you think there is not enough there to offset the 20% reduction in rate.  It is a reduction in rate, not a new rate.  20% off 35% is @30%.  So,do the math, 30K in mortgage deduction other deductions, probably get the income down to about 150K taxable, or about 50-60K in taxes at 35%.  Now 250K at 30%, 17K limit of allowable deductions, or about 230K taxable, about 60-70K in taxes.  that's the change, using a straighforward example off the top of my head.  Actual mileage may differ. So, the claim is that the rich will pay less in taxes.  My example shows that they will likely pay the same or more.  Samuelson and the left leaning TPC is flat out wrong.  In order for these guys to be correct,  rich people don't have all the loopholes and deductions the liberals claim. So, you can't have it both ways.  Either they are getting away with murder on loopholes and deductions, and Romney's plan will work, or they don't have the loopholes (i.e. being taxed fairly currently), so, Romney's plan won't work. Which is it? 




    Wow!

     

    That's some crazy whacko wingnut fantasy land there spanky.

    First of all your 'dynamic scoring' is bullcrap. That is why Congress mandates that the CBO not use 'dynamic scoring' because it is a farce and easily manipulated to show just about anything.

    Second, Mittens tax farce not only lowers revenue from individuals but also corporations making the $5 trillion dollar number accurate.

    Third, Just concentrating on income tax...the indisputable numbers show that; 

    Cutting individual income tax rates by 20 percent from today’s levels would reduce tax burdens by $251 billion per year  among households with income above $200,000.

    There are only $165 billion of available tax expenditures to close in that group if tax rates are cut.

    So even if you close every loophole for that tax group there is still an $86 billion annual shortfall.

    Those are the FACTS. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, no, those are not facts.  I just gave you the facts.  I'm beginning to think you can't do math.  Nor did I reference the CBO, but the TPC, a liberal group with a weak grasp on economics.

    Besides, are you saying the rich really don't have enough deductions?  I thought they got away with murder.  The only conclusion I can draw is that we can't depend on the tax revenue stream from the rich under you scenario.  So, Obama is going to raise taxes on the middle class, buring them further, use Bidens phrase.  He has to, based on your numbers, right?  Besides, Biden said that Obama was going to raise taxes on the middle class by a TRILLION dollars, did he not?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    After inheriting the worst recession in 70 years, President Obama has managed to stabilize the economy in a relatively short period of time.  The President is doing very well in spite of a Congress that is seditionist and has no regard for country, patriotism or doing the right thing.  Republicans are party first.

    Imagine how well we'd be doing if he had a Congress he could work with.

    -------------

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate declined because more people found work, a trend that could have an impact on undecided voters in the final month before the presidential election.

    The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, imagine if we didn't have a do-nothing republican majority in the House of Reps?

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    From the Samuelson article;

    The trouble is that there's a major snag (in Mittens tax plan), argued the TPC in an August report. In practice, the tax breaks affecting the rich (generally, those with incomes exceeding $200,000) aren't sufficient to offset all their tax savings from lower rates. Achieving revenue neutrality would compel Romney to raise taxes on the middle class – something he has also vowed not to do.

    [/QUOTE]


    and????

    I clearly heard Romney say the "rich"  (i.e. anyone but you) will pay the same.  How about we give him a chance, seeingthat Obama, fours years later, STILL doesn't have a clue.

    BTW:  This is one point where Samuelson is wrong, dead wrong.

    [/QUOTE]


    This argument doesn't really pass the common sense test - even if you find loop-holes to close for the rich, you not only have to find enough loop-holes to compensate for the 20% marginal rate cut on the rich, but also on the rest of the population, and the reduction in corporate tax rates, and the elimination of capital gains taxes for the middle class.  Romney has said new tax revenue is off the table - he doesn't want to lower taxes for the rich, but he doesn't want to raise them either.  He's going to make up for the additional cuts by getting the economy moving again.   Well, we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue - to compensate for that kind of loss, the GDP would have to increase by more than a trillion dollars a year.  And with all the Republican pledges to never, ever raise taxes, we can never again afford to slow down.  Even in the artificial bubble economies of the past decade, we didn't see that kind of growth.  This is really the dictionary definition of an empty promise.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Economic growht, more jobs, more tax revenue.  You see, unlike Obama, Romney understands this.

    Problem #1, your model is static. 

     

    The next problem is not understanding the drop in deductions, i.e. loopholes.

    20% reduction in tax rate, complete reduction in deductions (up to 17K) and somehow you think there is not enough there to offset the 20% reduction in rate.  It is a reduction in rate, not a new rate.  20% off 35% is @30%.  So,do the math, 30K in mortgage deduction other deductions, probably get the income down to about 150K taxable, or about 50-60K in taxes at 35%.  Now 250K at 30%, 17K limit of allowable deductions, or about 230K taxable, about 60-70K in taxes.  that's the change, using a straighforward example off the top of my head.  Actual mileage may differ.  

    So, the claim is that the rich will pay less in taxes.  My example shows that they will likely pay the same or more.  Samuelson and the left leaning TPC is flat out wrong.  In order for these guys to be correct,  rich people don't have all the loopholes and deductions the liberals claim. 

    So, you can't have it both ways.  Either they are getting away with murder on loopholes and deductions, and Romney's plan will work, or they don't have the loopholes (i.e. being taxed fairly currently), so, Romney's plan won't work.

    Which is it?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Eliminating the deductions in your example may make the tax revenue for the wealthy stay about the same, but you can't also make up for the 30% cut to the corporate tax, the elimination of capital gains tax for the middle class, the elimination of the AMT and corporate AMT, and the 20% cut in marginal rates for the rest of the country, unless you assume unprecedented growth in GDP.  My model is not static - GDP will grow, but not at over a trillion dollars a year.

    If you are really serious about closing loop-holes, and reforming the tax code, eliminate the charitable contribution deductions, and treat capital gains like normal income.  That is something I could support whole-heartedly, but it's hard to imagine that Romney is going to reform the tax code in such a way that he and all his buddies and backers pay three times their current tax rates. 

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    After inheriting the worst recession in 70 years, President Obama has managed to stabilize the economy in a relatively short period of time.  The President is doing very well in spite of a Congress that is seditionist and has no regard for country, patriotism or doing the right thing.  Republicans are party first.

    Imagine how well we'd be doing if he had a Congress he could work with.

    -------------

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate declined because more people found work, a trend that could have an impact on undecided voters in the final month before the presidential election.

    The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, imagine if we didn't have a do-nothing republican majority in the House of Reps?

    [/QUOTE]

    Or, imagine if the first 2 years of OBummer`s reign of terror he had Dem majorities in  all 3 chambers........oooops.  And, imagine if he had a Senate majority and just a thin Rep majority in the House for the last 2 years, all those budgets he could pass.........oooops.

    STFU you freakin` dope!

    [/QUOTE]

    During obama's first 2 years, he got HCR, reformed student loan regs, stimulous bill, saved the economy from depression, saved the auto industry, new regs for finance.

    once he lst the house, the economic recovery ground to a near halt.  If he'd done a better job selling HCR, he would have kept the house, and maybe the UR would by under 7%.

    so put the in your pipe and smoke it you freakin' moron.

    if it weren't for the repubs, we'd have a good economy.  

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    "Vote for us, and we'll end the blockade."

     

    Unemployment is at a 44 month low.  Down .5%.

     

Share