Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
These are simply absurd rationalizations even though many of them are demonstrably true.
The continuation of the Empire after the end of the European empires in about 1968 was and is an unnecessary massive drain on the economy. Money spent outside the US reduces the money spent and therefore the jobs created here in the US. Even in Japan which does spend big bucks to subsidize US troops stationed there, even those garrisons are probably a drain on the domestic US economy. Want the economy to turn around, phase out the imperial outposts to what is needed for intelligence gathering.
Second the drive to increase financial leverage while attacking savings with the tax code and inflation has reduced real investment. That has been continuous since the last deflationary year of 1958. What creates jobs is real aftertax savings invested in real capital equipment that provides goods and services at ever lower prices.
Third policies that ignore population will cause trouble. The huge jump in "Furlough babies" in 1943 has been a known depressant of economic activity in 2010 and years following since guess what, 1943. Early retirement into social security was known to be a problem for 2005 and years following for just as long yet Greenspan tried and succeeded to keep the housing bubble going as the leading edge of the baby boom was trading down.
Now do you get it?
I get THAT, but now answer why, in spite of all the history elaborated above, the economy soared in the 90's with a higher tax rate and it's now in the tank with a lower tax rate, and none of the variables were significantly different.
PLENTY variables were widely different, starting with access to capital and a watershed moment of technology development.
You're Babbling.
Melt Down, Isle 3!!!!
In case you still fail to notice, when one babbles to me, I expect the only thing he'll understand is a response in babble. Grow up, say something smart instead of smartASS, and you'll have my respect (as you know).
Hey, I told you a while back what the name of the game was: Distract Americans with Soak The Rich Taxes, so voters won't notice the Insane Level Government Spending.
Pretty simple.
For some reason, this makes your head spin around uttering some nonsense about BUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTONIRAQ before you begin to levitate over the Tea Party.
Perhaps we can exorcise your demons.....
You seem to have overlooked next years data. December 2008 7.4%[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]November 18, 2005 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NEW YORK - Despite considerable opposition from lawmakers, including some within his Republican party, President George W. Bush seems determined to push ahead with plans to introduce further cuts in taxes for the rich, continuing to assert that it would create more jobs for the poor. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the findings of a new study suggest that Bush's claim on job creation is based more on political rhetoric than actual facts related to the nation's economic realities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It's a great sound bite that unfortunately does not hold true in the real world economy," say authors of the report, entitled, "Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Changes in tax policy suggest no evidence of their impact on job creation or destruction, according to the 22-page study released Tuesday by United for a Fair Economy (UFE), an independent group that tracks the growing economic divide between the nation's haves and have-nots.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since 1950, significant tax increases and decreases have both been followed by job losses and job gains, say the researchers. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Based on statistical analysis of changes in tax polices and rates of job growth in the past 60 years, the report points out that tax reduction does, however, disproportionately lead to economic disparity between the rich and poor.[/FONT]
Research Dispels Bush Claims That Tax Cuts Create Jobs
US unemployment 2005:5.1%
US unemployment 2006:4.6%
US unemployment 2007: 4.6%
Looks like your sources are all wrong and Bush was right.
I get THAT, but now answer why, in spite of all the history elaborated above, the economy soared in the 90's with a higher tax rate and it's now in the tank with a lower tax rate, and none of the variables were significantly different.
PLENTY variables were widely different, starting with access to capital and a watershed moment of technology development.
I was addressing just those variables mentioned. But since you mention two more, there's still a problem with the scenario. Why wasn't there more access to capital for small businesses, minority entrepreneurs, etc., during the Bush administration?
How much further has technology evolved in the last 10 years than it did in the 10 year before it?
Computer technology is moving a light-speed these days.
You seem to have overlooked next years data. December 2008 7.4%[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]November 18, 2005 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NEW YORK - Despite considerable opposition from lawmakers, including some within his Republican party, President George W. Bush seems determined to push ahead with plans to introduce further cuts in taxes for the rich, continuing to assert that it would create more jobs for the poor. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the findings of a new study suggest that Bush's claim on job creation is based more on political rhetoric than actual facts related to the nation's economic realities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It's a great sound bite that unfortunately does not hold true in the real world economy," say authors of the report, entitled, "Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Changes in tax policy suggest no evidence of their impact on job creation or destruction, according to the 22-page study released Tuesday by United for a Fair Economy (UFE), an independent group that tracks the growing economic divide between the nation's haves and have-nots.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since 1950, significant tax increases and decreases have both been followed by job losses and job gains, say the researchers. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Based on statistical analysis of changes in tax polices and rates of job growth in the past 60 years, the report points out that tax reduction does, however, disproportionately lead to economic disparity between the rich and poor.[/FONT]
Research Dispels Bush Claims That Tax Cuts Create Jobs
US unemployment 2005:5.1%
US unemployment 2006:4.6%
US unemployment 2007: 4.6%
Looks like your sources are all wrong and Bush was right.
You seem to have overlooked next years data. December 2008 7.4%US unemployment 2005:5.1%
US unemployment 2006:4.6%
US unemployment 2007: 4.6%
Looks like your sources are all wrong and Bush was right.
A valid point, the worst rate of the Bush years is way better than anything even the Obama propagandists project.
You seem to have overlooked next years data. December 2008 7.4%
A valid point, the worst rate of the Bush years is way better than anything even the Obama propagandists project.
If Bush wasn't aware that the economy was teetering on the edge, why would HE have authorized a stimulus in the summer of 08? Remember those $250 cash checks to everyone?
It's really sad that smart people still don't seem to understand that those kinds of unemployment numbers don't just jump from satisfactory to serious (GREAT to BAD)in a month, or even a full quarter. The slide began in the spring of 2008, and continued creeping up to the point where by the end of the last quarter of 2008, the hemorrhaging began with 524,000 jobs lost in December alone, bringing the total for the last quarter to 2.6 million unemployed.
A valid point, the worst rate of the Bush years is way better than anything even the Obama propagandists project.
If Bush wasn't aware that the economy was teetering on the edge, why would HE have authorized a stimulus in the summer of 08? Remember those $250 cash checks to everyone?
It's really sad that smart people still don't seem to understand that those kinds of unemployment numbers don't just jump from satisfactory to serious (GREAT to BAD)in a month, or even a full quarter. The slide began in the spring of 2008, and continued creeping up to the point where by the end of the last quarter of 2008, the hemorrhaging began with 524,000 jobs lost in December alone, bringing the total for the last quarter to 2.6 million unemployed.
And then what happened?
