8% unemployment - more like 20% actually

ginscpy

Senior Member
Sep 10, 2010
7,950
228
48
How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.
 
How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.

I thought that for a bit...But think about this.Look at how the liberal media talks about what a great job this guy has done.They will push for him again in 2012 and although he should NOT get re elected he probably will. :(
 
Romney will tear him to shreds on the economy - Mitt has creds/track record on that issue.
 
How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.

I thought that for a bit...But think about this.Look at how the liberal media talks about what a great job this guy has done.They will push for him again in 2012 and although he should NOT get re elected he probably will. :(

I hope he fails. :eusa_angel:
 
Maybe that's why Obama is mfg more wars - hope they will bail him out like WW2 did for FDR.
 
How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.

What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?
 
OBAMA IS A FAILED PRESIDENT!!!!!!!

One feather in his cap is the killing of bin Laden - give the guy his props.

Unlike Clinton - who called off the strikeagainst bin Laden in 1998 when he was distracted

Other than that - his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster
 
8%? The figure last week said 9.1%. Of course, you are right, it's much higher.
 
8%? The figure last week said 9.1%. Of course, you are right, it's much higher.

No it's not. Unless of course you change the definitions and starting adding in different groups who are not unemployed, etc etc.

You mean if we went back to the original definition instead of this carefully crafted one designed to make it look like we have higher employment than we really have to mask the problem?
 
8%? The figure last week said 9.1%. Of course, you are right, it's much higher.

No it's not. Unless of course you change the definitions and starting adding in different groups who are not unemployed, etc etc.

You mean if we went back to the original definition instead of this carefully crafted one designed to make it look like we have higher employment than we really have to mask the problem?

Go ahead and post the original and the current and let's compare them then.
 
Romney will tear him to shreds on the economy - Mitt has creds/track record on that issue.
No DOUBT!!

241.png


With his background, in job-creation & profits.....decades-ago, he could have been equally-skilled as a......


:clap2:
 
How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.

What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?
.....While just the OPPOSITE has been....



web-Bill-Clinton-2.jpg
 
The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

That U-6 unemployment number published bythe BLS if more like 18%.

Even that number, I think, probably understates the real state of employment in the USA

This anonymous group of self proclaiming economists believes the real rate of unemployment is now about 22%

That number, which includes forced part time workers and discouraged workers as well.
 
How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.
you
What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?

Are these the tax codes you call tax breaks for the wealthy?

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.

Just so you will know, wealth is not taxed in the US, income is. And, unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?
 
Last edited:
How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.
you
What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?

Are these the tax codes you call tax breaks for the wealthy?

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.


Just so you will know, wealth is not taxed in the US, income is. And, unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

Yeah......let's hear it for job-creation....BUSHCO-style!!!

golfanyone.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top