GOP jobs agenda

[Faun]

Apples and oranges? lol

OK, Dubya had a loss of 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years with his and the GOP's 'job creator' policies., Even stopping Dec 2007, it was a miserable 4 million in 7 years

That socialist Obama has 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since passing the 'job killer' Obamacares in Feb 2010, that's a NET of 7 million PRIVATE sector jobs since Obama came into office (since Dubya/.GOP policy lost 4 million in 2009)!

Besides you Bircher bullshit, do you have ANYTHING???

YOU KNOW what I have (from Post #660) and that's all I need to have. As far as the 15 million unemployed Americans, are concerned, Obama's job creation hasn't done squat for them, because his immigration policies has them going to millions of illegal invaders (he sees as votes for his people), and many more legal ones on work visas. He has no job creation credential AT ALL because of that.
And I supported Obama's infrastructure jobs bills which the House Republicans vetoed, so you can skip the Bircher routine,

As a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population, those 15 million people represent about 6.1%.

When Bush became president, that number was 4.9%

When Bush left office, it was 7.6%

That means under Bush, it increased by 55%; whereas under Obama, it's decreased 20%.

This is why I laugh whenever a rightwinger whines about Obama's economy.

You can scatter as many numbers around as you want, if it makes you feel better. Fact remains, when Obama creates jobs, FOREIGNERS get them. And he's actively making that situation worse, not better.

Those were the numbers YOU wanted to talk about. You see now that we've improved under Obama so now you don't like them anymore?? Sorry those numbers hurt you so much .... but 6.1% is far lower than what it was when Obama became president.

Funny how unemployment almost always goes up when the president is Republican and almost always comes down when they're Democrat.

Have you noticed that?

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

I see, so now you think it's the Congress and not the president with control over the job market? You sure are fickle depending on which way the wind blows. Meanwhile, the current stretch of job growth precedes the Republican Congress. So much for your whack theory.

And in the history of the BLS recording job statistics, there has been only one Republican president who had unemployment drop on his watch.

Reagan. The only one.

By comparison, there has never been a Democrat president who left office with a higher unemployment rate than when they started during that same time period.

Not one.

 

[Oldstyle]

So what you've done is take 2 billion dollars out of the pockets of American consumers in the form of a "surcharge" that is paid to service providers which is then paid as a tax to the Federal Government which then spends it to give people free phones.

For you to sit here and claim that isn't a tax is about as duplicitous as it gets. If you're going to steal money from Americans to pay for your entitlements, Faun...at least have the political courage to admit what it is you're doing instead of hiding behind schemes like this one.

Look at the pretzel you're twisting yourself into to maintain your idiocy that your taxes pay for ObamaPhones. A charge is not a tax. There are all sorts of charges for all sorts of reasons so companies can turn a profit, that doesn't make them taxes.

And as stated on the FCC website, the 'universal service' fee is optional. Not every company applies it. I'm sure some don't, but collect that fee in other ways.

Sure, you're still paying ... but it's not coming out of your taxes.

A charge is not a tax? Is a fee a tax? When Massachusetts taxpayers revolted and passed legislation that prohibited their State politicians from raising taxes more than a certain percentage the government responded by raising "fees" on virtually everything the public needed to do through their government. The cost of getting a drivers license doubled...every single video game in night club that used to have a $15 year license fee suddenly cost $50.

What is being done with the "Universal Service Fund" is especially sleazy. The government wants to give free phones away but they KNOW that if they pay for that out of taxpayer monies that it will create an uproar from taxpayers who are already struggling to pay their bills. So what they DO is tax the companies who provide all of us with phone service and tell them that if they want to they can recoup that cost by charging us.

Now you've just stated that some companies don't apply the Universal Service Fund Surcharge to their customers. Would you like to tell us the name of that telephone service provider? The truth is they ALL pass that charge along! They also get paid a fee for each new ObamaPhone customer that they sign up for the program...a fee that IS paid by the Federal Government! I suppose you're now going to tell me THAT isn't coming out of my taxes either?

The LifeLine program is not, nor has ever been, funded by tax dollars.

Your inability to understand that, or accept it, really makes no difference.

The LifeLine program is funded by fees tacked on to each and everyone of our phone bills! Now you can call them anything you want to, Faun but that's simply semantics. In reality it's a tax on our phones that we pay to the phone service providers and then they pay to the Federal Government. It's a sleazy way for the government to hit us up with yet another tax without having to admit that THEY are doing so! Instead they declare that it's totally up to the phone service providers whether or not to pass that cost along (wink...wink) and they have nothing to do with it!

 

[Oldstyle]

YOU KNOW what I have (from Post #660) and that's all I need to have. As far as the 15 million unemployed Americans, are concerned, Obama's job creation hasn't done squat for them, because his immigration policies has them going to millions of illegal invaders (he sees as votes for his people), and many more legal ones on work visas. He has no job creation credential AT ALL because of that.
And I supported Obama's infrastructure jobs bills which the House Republicans vetoed, so you can skip the Bircher routine,

As a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population, those 15 million people represent about 6.1%.

When Bush became president, that number was 4.9%

When Bush left office, it was 7.6%

That means under Bush, it increased by 55%; whereas under Obama, it's decreased 20%.

This is why I laugh whenever a rightwinger whines about Obama's economy.

You can scatter as many numbers around as you want, if it makes you feel better. Fact remains, when Obama creates jobs, FOREIGNERS get them. And he's actively making that situation worse, not better.

Those were the numbers YOU wanted to talk about. You see now that we've improved under Obama so now you don't like them anymore?? Sorry those numbers hurt you so much .... but 6.1% is far lower than what it was when Obama became president.

Funny how unemployment almost always goes up when the president is Republican and almost always comes down when they're Democrat.

Have you noticed that?

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

I see, so now you think it's the Congress and not the president with control over the job market? You sure are fickle depending on which way the wind blows. Meanwhile, the current stretch of job growth precedes the Republican Congress. So much for your whack theory.

And in the history of the BLS recording job statistics, there has been only one Republican president who had unemployment drop on his watch.

Reagan. The only one.

By comparison, there has never been a Democrat president who left office with a higher unemployment rate than when they started during that same time period.

Not one.

Which two Presidents had the highest levels of unemployment for their time in office, Faun? I'll give you a hint...they aren't Republicans.

 

[Faun]

So what you've done is take 2 billion dollars out of the pockets of American consumers in the form of a "surcharge" that is paid to service providers which is then paid as a tax to the Federal Government which then spends it to give people free phones.

For you to sit here and claim that isn't a tax is about as duplicitous as it gets. If you're going to steal money from Americans to pay for your entitlements, Faun...at least have the political courage to admit what it is you're doing instead of hiding behind schemes like this one.

Look at the pretzel you're twisting yourself into to maintain your idiocy that your taxes pay for ObamaPhones. A charge is not a tax. There are all sorts of charges for all sorts of reasons so companies can turn a profit, that doesn't make them taxes.

And as stated on the FCC website, the 'universal service' fee is optional. Not every company applies it. I'm sure some don't, but collect that fee in other ways.

Sure, you're still paying ... but it's not coming out of your taxes.

A charge is not a tax? Is a fee a tax? When Massachusetts taxpayers revolted and passed legislation that prohibited their State politicians from raising taxes more than a certain percentage the government responded by raising "fees" on virtually everything the public needed to do through their government. The cost of getting a drivers license doubled...every single video game in night club that used to have a $15 year license fee suddenly cost $50.

What is being done with the "Universal Service Fund" is especially sleazy. The government wants to give free phones away but they KNOW that if they pay for that out of taxpayer monies that it will create an uproar from taxpayers who are already struggling to pay their bills. So what they DO is tax the companies who provide all of us with phone service and tell them that if they want to they can recoup that cost by charging us.

Now you've just stated that some companies don't apply the Universal Service Fund Surcharge to their customers. Would you like to tell us the name of that telephone service provider? The truth is they ALL pass that charge along! They also get paid a fee for each new ObamaPhone customer that they sign up for the program...a fee that IS paid by the Federal Government! I suppose you're now going to tell me THAT isn't coming out of my taxes either?

The LifeLine program is not, nor has ever been, funded by tax dollars.

Your inability to understand that, or accept it, really makes no difference.

The LifeLine program is funded by fees tacked on to each and everyone of our phone bills! Now you can call them anything you want to, Faun but that's simply semantics. In reality it's a tax on our phones that we pay to the phone service providers and then they pay to the Federal Government. It's a sleazy way for the government to hit us up with yet another tax without having to admit that THEY are doing so! Instead they declare that it's totally up to the phone service providers whether or not to pass that cost along (wink...wink) and they have nothing to do with it!

It's still not a tax just because you want it to be one since you made an ass of yourself claiming you pay for it out of your taxes. But whatever.

I guess you're really pissed at Reagan than for starting the program, huh?

Or maybe it's Bush you're pissed at for extending the program to cell phones?

Or maybe you're pissed at Bush for leading the country into a recession which resulted in millions of more people becoming eligible for the phones?

Nah ... you're a sycophant .... you're pissed at Obama because he's a Democrat.

 

[Oldstyle]

YOU KNOW what I have (from Post #660) and that's all I need to have. As far as the 15 million unemployed Americans, are concerned, Obama's job creation hasn't done squat for them, because his immigration policies has them going to millions of illegal invaders (he sees as votes for his people), and many more legal ones on work visas. He has no job creation credential AT ALL because of that.
And I supported Obama's infrastructure jobs bills which the House Republicans vetoed, so you can skip the Bircher routine,

As a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population, those 15 million people represent about 6.1%.

When Bush became president, that number was 4.9%

When Bush left office, it was 7.6%

That means under Bush, it increased by 55%; whereas under Obama, it's decreased 20%.

This is why I laugh whenever a rightwinger whines about Obama's economy.

You can scatter as many numbers around as you want, if it makes you feel better. Fact remains, when Obama creates jobs, FOREIGNERS get them. And he's actively making that situation worse, not better.

Those were the numbers YOU wanted to talk about. You see now that we've improved under Obama so now you don't like them anymore?? Sorry those numbers hurt you so much .... but 6.1% is far lower than what it was when Obama became president.

Funny how unemployment almost always goes up when the president is Republican and almost always comes down when they're Democrat.

Have you noticed that?

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

I see, so now you think it's the Congress and not the president with control over the job market? You sure are fickle depending on which way the wind blows. Meanwhile, the current stretch of job growth precedes the Republican Congress. So much for your whack theory.

And in the history of the BLS recording job statistics, there has been only one Republican president who had unemployment drop on his watch.

Reagan. The only one.

By comparison, there has never been a Democrat president who left office with a higher unemployment rate than when they started during that same time period.

Not one.

No, I think that having a GOP dominated Congress keeps Barry from pushing the Progressive agenda that so scared business owners. When Barack the Clueless was asking for passage of Cap & Trade legislation it made it impossible for US industries to estimate what their energy costs would be if they built or expanded a business here. Now that Democrats no longer can ram legislation like ObamaCare through...the Private Sector has a better idea of what they have to work with.

 

[Oldstyle]

So what you've done is take 2 billion dollars out of the pockets of American consumers in the form of a "surcharge" that is paid to service providers which is then paid as a tax to the Federal Government which then spends it to give people free phones.

For you to sit here and claim that isn't a tax is about as duplicitous as it gets. If you're going to steal money from Americans to pay for your entitlements, Faun...at least have the political courage to admit what it is you're doing instead of hiding behind schemes like this one.

Look at the pretzel you're twisting yourself into to maintain your idiocy that your taxes pay for ObamaPhones. A charge is not a tax. There are all sorts of charges for all sorts of reasons so companies can turn a profit, that doesn't make them taxes.

And as stated on the FCC website, the 'universal service' fee is optional. Not every company applies it. I'm sure some don't, but collect that fee in other ways.

Sure, you're still paying ... but it's not coming out of your taxes.

A charge is not a tax? Is a fee a tax? When Massachusetts taxpayers revolted and passed legislation that prohibited their State politicians from raising taxes more than a certain percentage the government responded by raising "fees" on virtually everything the public needed to do through their government. The cost of getting a drivers license doubled...every single video game in night club that used to have a $15 year license fee suddenly cost $50.

What is being done with the "Universal Service Fund" is especially sleazy. The government wants to give free phones away but they KNOW that if they pay for that out of taxpayer monies that it will create an uproar from taxpayers who are already struggling to pay their bills. So what they DO is tax the companies who provide all of us with phone service and tell them that if they want to they can recoup that cost by charging us.

Now you've just stated that some companies don't apply the Universal Service Fund Surcharge to their customers. Would you like to tell us the name of that telephone service provider? The truth is they ALL pass that charge along! They also get paid a fee for each new ObamaPhone customer that they sign up for the program...a fee that IS paid by the Federal Government! I suppose you're now going to tell me THAT isn't coming out of my taxes either?

The LifeLine program is not, nor has ever been, funded by tax dollars.

Your inability to understand that, or accept it, really makes no difference.

The LifeLine program is funded by fees tacked on to each and everyone of our phone bills! Now you can call them anything you want to, Faun but that's simply semantics. In reality it's a tax on our phones that we pay to the phone service providers and then they pay to the Federal Government. It's a sleazy way for the government to hit us up with yet another tax without having to admit that THEY are doing so! Instead they declare that it's totally up to the phone service providers whether or not to pass that cost along (wink...wink) and they have nothing to do with it!

It's still not a tax just because you want it to be one since you made an ass of yourself claiming you pay for it out of your taxes. But whatever.

I guess you're really pissed at Reagan than for starting the program, huh?

Or maybe it's Bush you're pissed at for extending the program to cell phones?

Or maybe you're pissed at Bush for leading the country into a recession which resulted in millions of more people becoming eligible for the phones?

Nah ... you're a sycophant .... you're pissed at Obama because he's a Democrat.

All of the above! It's well meaning programs like this one that end up becoming tax payer funded boondoggles. Reagan should have known better.

 

[Oldstyle]

And it still is a tax that you, I and everyone else who pays for phone service now has to shell out each and every month. Calling it a "surcharge" and using a middleman before the Feds get their hands on it doesn't change that one bit.

 

[Faun]

As a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population, those 15 million people represent about 6.1%.

When Bush became president, that number was 4.9%

When Bush left office, it was 7.6%

That means under Bush, it increased by 55%; whereas under Obama, it's decreased 20%.

This is why I laugh whenever a rightwinger whines about Obama's economy.

You can scatter as many numbers around as you want, if it makes you feel better. Fact remains, when Obama creates jobs, FOREIGNERS get them. And he's actively making that situation worse, not better.

Those were the numbers YOU wanted to talk about. You see now that we've improved under Obama so now you don't like them anymore?? Sorry those numbers hurt you so much .... but 6.1% is far lower than what it was when Obama became president.

Funny how unemployment almost always goes up when the president is Republican and almost always comes down when they're Democrat.

Have you noticed that?

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

I see, so now you think it's the Congress and not the president with control over the job market? You sure are fickle depending on which way the wind blows. Meanwhile, the current stretch of job growth precedes the Republican Congress. So much for your whack theory.

And in the history of the BLS recording job statistics, there has been only one Republican president who had unemployment drop on his watch.

Reagan. The only one.

By comparison, there has never been a Democrat president who left office with a higher unemployment rate than when they started during that same time period.

Not one.

Which two Presidents had the highest levels of unemployment for their time in office, Faun? I'll give you a hint...they aren't Republicans.

As usual, you have no fucking clue to what you're talking about ...

Johnson	4.2% ​
Truman	4.2% ​
Eisenhower	4.9% ​
Nixon	5.1% ​
Clinton	5.2% ​
Bush	5.3% ​
Kennedy	6.0% ​
GHW Bush	6.0% ​
Carter	6.6% ​
Reagan	7.5% ​
Ford	8.1% ​
Obama	8.2% ​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

... and even that is higher for Democrats since Republicans keep raising the unemployment rate; and lower for Republicans since Democrats keep lowering it.

Oh, and while Obama's average is 8.2%, at this point in his presidency, Reagan was 8.1%

 

[Faun]

As a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population, those 15 million people represent about 6.1%.

When Bush became president, that number was 4.9%

When Bush left office, it was 7.6%

That means under Bush, it increased by 55%; whereas under Obama, it's decreased 20%.

This is why I laugh whenever a rightwinger whines about Obama's economy.

You can scatter as many numbers around as you want, if it makes you feel better. Fact remains, when Obama creates jobs, FOREIGNERS get them. And he's actively making that situation worse, not better.

Those were the numbers YOU wanted to talk about. You see now that we've improved under Obama so now you don't like them anymore?? Sorry those numbers hurt you so much .... but 6.1% is far lower than what it was when Obama became president.

Funny how unemployment almost always goes up when the president is Republican and almost always comes down when they're Democrat.

Have you noticed that?

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

I see, so now you think it's the Congress and not the president with control over the job market? You sure are fickle depending on which way the wind blows. Meanwhile, the current stretch of job growth precedes the Republican Congress. So much for your whack theory.

And in the history of the BLS recording job statistics, there has been only one Republican president who had unemployment drop on his watch.

Reagan. The only one.

By comparison, there has never been a Democrat president who left office with a higher unemployment rate than when they started during that same time period.

Not one.

No, I think that having a GOP dominated Congress keeps Barry from pushing the Progressive agenda that so scared business owners. When Barack the Clueless was asking for passage of Cap & Trade legislation it made it impossible for US industries to estimate what their energy costs would be if they built or expanded a business here. Now that Democrats no longer can ram legislation like ObamaCare through...the Private Sector has a better idea of what they have to work with.

Again, like it or not, the current trend began prior to the Republicans taking over the Congress; so clearly, your assessment is made up of whole cloth.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah cause an optional charge on my dinner tab is the same as a FORCED CHARGE ON MY CELL PHONE BILL THAT THE GOD DAMN GOVERNMENT SHOVED DOWN MY THROAT TO REDISTRIBUTE MY HARD EARNED INCOME TO DEADBEATS LIKE YOU.

a) tips are not always optional.

b) having a phone is optional.

c) calling a fee a tax is no different than calling a tip a tax. Or calling any fee for any reason, a tax.

Tips are always optional.
Having a phone is a modern necessity.
A fee for services rendered for your bill for your food that you willfully purchased and willfully payed, is worlds apart from a fee for which you have no god damn choice for paying for SOMEONELSES BILL for services that you did not enjoy and for which you had no choice.

Your comparison is like saying rape is the same thing as a hand shake.

Tips are not always optional...

Couple arrested over 'theft' for refusing to tip in restaurant

And again, it can be any fee for any reason. It could be the delivery fee when you have an appliance delivered. Call that a tax because the person or company collecting it pays taxes.

Buying food at a restaurant is always optional to eating at a different place. Thus for at least that reason tips are always optional. Additionally, tips are almost always optional and when they are not you can go somewhere else.

Using that same logic, again, phone service is also optional.

A delivery fee for delivery of an appliance that you pay for to get your item delivered is not the same as paying for delivery of an appliance that you did not buy to be delivered to someone else's home.

Now you're trying to switch the argument how tax revenues are applied. Sticking on topic, it doesn't matter. Either way, you're paying someone a fee which they in turn use to pay their taxes.

I'll say it again. Your comparison is like saying is like saying a vicious violent rape of a child is the same thing as a hand shake with your best friend.

Cries the idiot claiming fees are taxes.

No, DUMB ASS.

We are claiming FEDERAL FEES ARE FEDERAL TAXES.

Really, how stupid are you?

FEDERAL TAXES ARE NOT THE SAME AS PRIVATE SERVICE FEES.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PRIVATE ENTITY

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH BY OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS FREE ENTERPRISE.

 

[Oldstyle]

If there was a box on my phone bill that I had the "option" of checking if I wanted to support a Universal Service Fund then it wouldn't be a tax disguised to look like something else. But I don't have that option because the phone provider doesn't have that option. If I don't pay that "surcharge" they will turn off my phone and I'll hear from a collection agency. If the phone company doesn't pay that tax to the Feds then they will end up in tax court. As I said before...you can call this whatever you like...it doesn't change the fact that all of us who pay for phone service also pay for ObamaPhones.

 

[Dad2three]

Apples and oranges? lol

OK, Dubya had a loss of 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years with his and the GOP's 'job creator' policies., Even stopping Dec 2007, it was a miserable 4 million in 7 years

That socialist Obama has 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since passing the 'job killer' Obamacares in Feb 2010, that's a NET of 7 million PRIVATE sector jobs since Obama came into office (since Dubya/.GOP policy lost 4 million in 2009)!

Besides you Bircher bullshit, do you have ANYTHING???

YOU KNOW what I have (from Post #660) and that's all I need to have. As far as the 15 million unemployed Americans, are concerned, Obama's job creation hasn't done squat for them, because his immigration policies has them going to millions of illegal invaders (he sees as votes for his people), and many more legal ones on work visas. He has no job creation credential AT ALL because of that.
And I supported Obama's infrastructure jobs bills which the House Republicans vetoed, so you can skip the Bircher routine,

As a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population, those 15 million people represent about 6.1%.

When Bush became president, that number was 4.9%

When Bush left office, it was 7.6%

That means under Bush, it increased by 55%; whereas under Obama, it's decreased 20%.

This is why I laugh whenever a rightwinger whines about Obama's economy.

You can scatter as many numbers around as you want, if it makes you feel better. Fact remains, when Obama creates jobs, FOREIGNERS get them. And he's actively making that situation worse, not better.

Those were the numbers YOU wanted to talk about. You see now that we've improved under Obama so now you don't like them anymore?? Sorry those numbers hurt you so much .... but 6.1% is far lower than what it was when Obama became president.

Funny how unemployment almost always goes up when the president is Republican and almost always comes down when they're Democrat.

Have you noticed that?

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

Private sector 'feels'? Weird how about like your posit has been about Obama, POLICY THE GOP CONGRESS PASSES? lol

 

[Oldstyle]

You can scatter as many numbers around as you want, if it makes you feel better. Fact remains, when Obama creates jobs, FOREIGNERS get them. And he's actively making that situation worse, not better.

Those were the numbers YOU wanted to talk about. You see now that we've improved under Obama so now you don't like them anymore?? Sorry those numbers hurt you so much .... but 6.1% is far lower than what it was when Obama became president.

Funny how unemployment almost always goes up when the president is Republican and almost always comes down when they're Democrat.

Have you noticed that?

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

I see, so now you think it's the Congress and not the president with control over the job market? You sure are fickle depending on which way the wind blows. Meanwhile, the current stretch of job growth precedes the Republican Congress. So much for your whack theory.

And in the history of the BLS recording job statistics, there has been only one Republican president who had unemployment drop on his watch.

Reagan. The only one.

By comparison, there has never been a Democrat president who left office with a higher unemployment rate than when they started during that same time period.

Not one.

Which two Presidents had the highest levels of unemployment for their time in office, Faun? I'll give you a hint...they aren't Republicans.

As usual, you have no fucking clue to what you're talking about ...

Johnson	4.2% ​
Truman	4.2% ​
Eisenhower	4.9% ​
Nixon	5.1% ​
Clinton	5.2% ​
Bush	5.3% ​
Kennedy	6.0% ​
GHW Bush	6.0% ​
Carter	6.6% ​
Reagan	7.5% ​
Ford	8.1% ​
Obama	8.2% ​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

... and even that is higher for Democrats since Republicans keep raising the unemployment rate; and lower for Republicans since Democrats keep lowering it.

Oh, and while Obama's average is 8.2%, at this point in his presidency, Reagan was 8.1%

At this point in his Presidency, Ronald Reagan was creating 1.1 million jobs a month and that number would continue to grow. The number of people in Labor Force Participation was also growing substantially under Reagan while it is now shrinking substantially under Obama. Those were not part time jobs...those were not mainly service industry jobs...they were full time jobs and across the job market.

Obama's unemployment numbers may be pulled up from the pathetic range to respectable but the questions still remain...was it a policy of his that did so or is the Private Sector confident enough now that the GOP will keep Barry under control enough to make it safe to create new businesses or expand existing ones? Was it Barry's energy policies that created the boom in energy production that is now driving the economy...or was it DESPITE his policies that it took place?

 

[Oldstyle]

YOU KNOW what I have (from Post #660) and that's all I need to have. As far as the 15 million unemployed Americans, are concerned, Obama's job creation hasn't done squat for them, because his immigration policies has them going to millions of illegal invaders (he sees as votes for his people), and many more legal ones on work visas. He has no job creation credential AT ALL because of that.
And I supported Obama's infrastructure jobs bills which the House Republicans vetoed, so you can skip the Bircher routine,

As a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population, those 15 million people represent about 6.1%.

When Bush became president, that number was 4.9%

When Bush left office, it was 7.6%

That means under Bush, it increased by 55%; whereas under Obama, it's decreased 20%.

This is why I laugh whenever a rightwinger whines about Obama's economy.

You can scatter as many numbers around as you want, if it makes you feel better. Fact remains, when Obama creates jobs, FOREIGNERS get them. And he's actively making that situation worse, not better.

Those were the numbers YOU wanted to talk about. You see now that we've improved under Obama so now you don't like them anymore?? Sorry those numbers hurt you so much .... but 6.1% is far lower than what it was when Obama became president.

Funny how unemployment almost always goes up when the president is Republican and almost always comes down when they're Democrat.

Have you noticed that?

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

Private sector 'feels'? Weird how about like your posit has been about Obama, POLICY THE GOP CONGRESS PASSES? lol

Did that in any way make sense to you when you typed it? Better stick to spamming cut and pastes from Think Progress, Dad!

 

[Faun]

If there was a box on my phone bill that I had the "option" of checking if I wanted to support a Universal Service Fund then it wouldn't be a tax disguised to look like something else. But I don't have that option because the phone provider doesn't have that option. If I don't pay that "surcharge" they will turn off my phone and I'll hear from a collection agency. If the phone company doesn't pay that tax to the Feds then they will end up in tax court. As I said before...you can call this whatever you like...it doesn't change the fact that all of us who pay for phone service also pay for ObamaPhones.

I never denied you contribute. I was merely highlighting how uneducated you were on the subject, thinking it was paid for out of your taxes.

 

[Faun]

a) tips are not always optional.

b) having a phone is optional.

c) calling a fee a tax is no different than calling a tip a tax. Or calling any fee for any reason, a tax.

Tips are always optional.
Having a phone is a modern necessity.
A fee for services rendered for your bill for your food that you willfully purchased and willfully payed, is worlds apart from a fee for which you have no god damn choice for paying for SOMEONELSES BILL for services that you did not enjoy and for which you had no choice.

Your comparison is like saying rape is the same thing as a hand shake.

Tips are not always optional...

Couple arrested over 'theft' for refusing to tip in restaurant

And again, it can be any fee for any reason. It could be the delivery fee when you have an appliance delivered. Call that a tax because the person or company collecting it pays taxes.

Buying food at a restaurant is always optional to eating at a different place. Thus for at least that reason tips are always optional. Additionally, tips are almost always optional and when they are not you can go somewhere else.

Using that same logic, again, phone service is also optional.

A delivery fee for delivery of an appliance that you pay for to get your item delivered is not the same as paying for delivery of an appliance that you did not buy to be delivered to someone else's home.

Now you're trying to switch the argument how tax revenues are applied. Sticking on topic, it doesn't matter. Either way, you're paying someone a fee which they in turn use to pay their taxes.

I'll say it again. Your comparison is like saying is like saying a vicious violent rape of a child is the same thing as a hand shake with your best friend.

Cries the idiot claiming fees are taxes.

No, DUMB ASS.

We are claiming FEDERAL FEES ARE FEDERAL TAXES.

Really, how stupid are you?

FEDERAL TAXES ARE NOT THE SAME AS PRIVATE SERVICE FEES.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PRIVATE ENTITY

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH BY OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS FREE ENTERPRISE.

Imbecile.... caps only make you appear more unhinged than you already are. And those "federal fees" are to phone companies ... not you. And while they may increase your service charges to cover those costs, it's no different than any other service fees they pass on to you to cover their federal obligations.

 

[Faun]

Those were the numbers YOU wanted to talk about. You see now that we've improved under Obama so now you don't like them anymore?? Sorry those numbers hurt you so much .... but 6.1% is far lower than what it was when Obama became president.

Funny how unemployment almost always goes up when the president is Republican and almost always comes down when they're Democrat.

Have you noticed that?

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

I see, so now you think it's the Congress and not the president with control over the job market? You sure are fickle depending on which way the wind blows. Meanwhile, the current stretch of job growth precedes the Republican Congress. So much for your whack theory.

And in the history of the BLS recording job statistics, there has been only one Republican president who had unemployment drop on his watch.

Reagan. The only one.

By comparison, there has never been a Democrat president who left office with a higher unemployment rate than when they started during that same time period.

Not one.

Which two Presidents had the highest levels of unemployment for their time in office, Faun? I'll give you a hint...they aren't Republicans.

As usual, you have no fucking clue to what you're talking about ...

Johnson	4.2% ​
Truman	4.2% ​
Eisenhower	4.9% ​
Nixon	5.1% ​
Clinton	5.2% ​
Bush	5.3% ​
Kennedy	6.0% ​
GHW Bush	6.0% ​
Carter	6.6% ​
Reagan	7.5% ​
Ford	8.1% ​
Obama	8.2% ​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

... and even that is higher for Democrats since Republicans keep raising the unemployment rate; and lower for Republicans since Democrats keep lowering it.

Oh, and while Obama's average is 8.2%, at this point in his presidency, Reagan was 8.1%

At this point in his Presidency, Ronald Reagan was creating 1.1 million jobs a month and that number would continue to grow. The number of people in Labor Force Participation was also growing substantially under Reagan while it is now shrinking substantially under Obama. Those were not part time jobs...those were not mainly service industry jobs...they were full time jobs and across the job market.

Obama's unemployment numbers may be pulled up from the pathetic range to respectable but the questions still remain...was it a policy of his that did so or is the Private Sector confident enough now that the GOP will keep Barry under control enough to make it safe to create new businesses or expand existing ones? Was it Barry's energy policies that created the boom in energy production that is now driving the economy...or was it DESPITE his policies that it took place?

You must be insane. Really? Reagan created 1.1 million jobs at this point? Where?

11/1986: 110,475,000
12/1986: 110,728,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

looks like 253,000 to me. Still very good ... but nowhere near your claim of 1.1 million.

Like your ridiculous claim that Democrats held the top 2 spots for the highest average unemployment, this too is a figment of your fervent imagination.

 

[Oldstyle]

If there was a box on my phone bill that I had the "option" of checking if I wanted to support a Universal Service Fund then it wouldn't be a tax disguised to look like something else. But I don't have that option because the phone provider doesn't have that option. If I don't pay that "surcharge" they will turn off my phone and I'll hear from a collection agency. If the phone company doesn't pay that tax to the Feds then they will end up in tax court. As I said before...you can call this whatever you like...it doesn't change the fact that all of us who pay for phone service also pay for ObamaPhones.

I never denied you contribute. I was merely highlighting how uneducated you were on the subject, thinking it was paid for out of your taxes.

Who's uneducated...someone who thinks they aren't paying a tax because the Federal Government uses a middleman to collect money from them and calls it a "surcharge" instead of a "tax"...or someone who recognizes that they are indeed paying a tax on their phone service...a tax that ends up going to the Federal Government?

And I don't "contribute"! A contribution is voluntary. I'm billed for this. I don't have a choice to pay it or not unless I want to have my phone turned off. To call it a "contribution" is like saying you made a "contribution" to the guy who robbed you at gun point on the street!

 

[Oldstyle]

Funny how unemployment has come down when Democrats no longer control the Congress so the Private Sector feels safe to invest again!

I see, so now you think it's the Congress and not the president with control over the job market? You sure are fickle depending on which way the wind blows. Meanwhile, the current stretch of job growth precedes the Republican Congress. So much for your whack theory.

And in the history of the BLS recording job statistics, there has been only one Republican president who had unemployment drop on his watch.

Reagan. The only one.

By comparison, there has never been a Democrat president who left office with a higher unemployment rate than when they started during that same time period.

Not one.

Which two Presidents had the highest levels of unemployment for their time in office, Faun? I'll give you a hint...they aren't Republicans.

As usual, you have no fucking clue to what you're talking about ...

Johnson	4.2% ​
Truman	4.2% ​
Eisenhower	4.9% ​
Nixon	5.1% ​
Clinton	5.2% ​
Bush	5.3% ​
Kennedy	6.0% ​
GHW Bush	6.0% ​
Carter	6.6% ​
Reagan	7.5% ​
Ford	8.1% ​
Obama	8.2% ​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

... and even that is higher for Democrats since Republicans keep raising the unemployment rate; and lower for Republicans since Democrats keep lowering it.

Oh, and while Obama's average is 8.2%, at this point in his presidency, Reagan was 8.1%

At this point in his Presidency, Ronald Reagan was creating 1.1 million jobs a month and that number would continue to grow. The number of people in Labor Force Participation was also growing substantially under Reagan while it is now shrinking substantially under Obama. Those were not part time jobs...those were not mainly service industry jobs...they were full time jobs and across the job market.

Obama's unemployment numbers may be pulled up from the pathetic range to respectable but the questions still remain...was it a policy of his that did so or is the Private Sector confident enough now that the GOP will keep Barry under control enough to make it safe to create new businesses or expand existing ones? Was it Barry's energy policies that created the boom in energy production that is now driving the economy...or was it DESPITE his policies that it took place?

You must be insane. Really? Reagan created 1.1 million jobs at this point? Where?

11/1986: 110,475,000
12/1986: 110,728,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

looks like 253,000 to me. Still very good ... but nowhere near your claim of 1.1 million.

Like your ridiculous claim that Democrats held the top 2 spots for the highest average unemployment, this too is a figment of your fervent imagination.

Reagan's best job month garnered the very top ranking since WWII with 1,114,000 jobs added in September 1983.

 

[Faun]

I see, so now you think it's the Congress and not the president with control over the job market? You sure are fickle depending on which way the wind blows. Meanwhile, the current stretch of job growth precedes the Republican Congress. So much for your whack theory.

And in the history of the BLS recording job statistics, there has been only one Republican president who had unemployment drop on his watch.

Reagan. The only one.

By comparison, there has never been a Democrat president who left office with a higher unemployment rate than when they started during that same time period.

Not one.

Which two Presidents had the highest levels of unemployment for their time in office, Faun? I'll give you a hint...they aren't Republicans.

As usual, you have no fucking clue to what you're talking about ...

Johnson	4.2% ​
Truman	4.2% ​
Eisenhower	4.9% ​
Nixon	5.1% ​
Clinton	5.2% ​
Bush	5.3% ​
Kennedy	6.0% ​
GHW Bush	6.0% ​
Carter	6.6% ​
Reagan	7.5% ​
Ford	8.1% ​
Obama	8.2% ​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

... and even that is higher for Democrats since Republicans keep raising the unemployment rate; and lower for Republicans since Democrats keep lowering it.

Oh, and while Obama's average is 8.2%, at this point in his presidency, Reagan was 8.1%

At this point in his Presidency, Ronald Reagan was creating 1.1 million jobs a month and that number would continue to grow. The number of people in Labor Force Participation was also growing substantially under Reagan while it is now shrinking substantially under Obama. Those were not part time jobs...those were not mainly service industry jobs...they were full time jobs and across the job market.

Obama's unemployment numbers may be pulled up from the pathetic range to respectable but the questions still remain...was it a policy of his that did so or is the Private Sector confident enough now that the GOP will keep Barry under control enough to make it safe to create new businesses or expand existing ones? Was it Barry's energy policies that created the boom in energy production that is now driving the economy...or was it DESPITE his policies that it took place?

You must be insane. Really? Reagan created 1.1 million jobs at this point? Where?

11/1986: 110,475,000
12/1986: 110,728,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

looks like 253,000 to me. Still very good ... but nowhere near your claim of 1.1 million.

Like your ridiculous claim that Democrats held the top 2 spots for the highest average unemployment, this too is a figment of your fervent imagination.

Reagan's best job month garnered the very top ranking since WWII with 1,114,000 jobs added in September 1983.

You said, "at this point in his presidency,"[/] bless your heart. I guess you think this is September, 2011, huh?

Regardless of the time warp you're in, "at this point in his presidency," the average unemployment rate under Reagan was barely lower than it is now under Obama. Only Obama inherited a higher unemployment rate than Reagan did; along with an economy in recession.