Are democrats intentionally trying to lose the 2016 election?

[Seawytch]

 

[pinqy]

yes they are, thats why I picked june 09 and june 13 to compare.

But you used the seasonally adjusted numbers. Comparing the same month in different years is when you want to use the UNadjusted numbers: June 2009 had 140,826,000 employed and June 2013 was 144,841,000 an increase of 4 million.

Properly using the adjusted numbers to compare Jan 2009 and Jun 2013, we get the number of employed going from 142,153,000 to 144,058,000 an increase of 1.9 million. So much for your claim of fewer working now.

let me see if I understand. you want to use the seasonally adjusted numbers if they help obama, but not if they make him look like a failure at creating jobs???

No, I want to use the proper numbers in the proper context. Unadjusted numbers should be used for comparing the same month in different years and for calculating an annual average. Otherwise seasonal adjustment should be used.

And using the actual numbers of seasonal adjustment from June 2009 to June 2013, the change is still 144,058,000-140,005,000 = +4.05 million, compared to 4.02 million using unadjusted numbers. Hmmm so the numbers I used were WORSE than the seasonally adjusted, yet you accuse me of making it look better. Odd.

By any measure, there are more jobs and people employed now than when Obama took office, though still not back to pre-recession levels. You were posting pre-recession numbers, claiming they were from Obama, and then accuse me of dishonesty? Interesting.

 

[Redfish]

If they control 80% of the wealth, that is absolutely fair. And reasonable.






Do you know what the top rate was under that Commie Bastard, Dwight Eisenhower? It was 93% on the top bracket, which was over $400,000 in 1952 dollars.

Not to worry, Ronnie Reagan got that tax totally shifted to poor people and working families where it belongs.

when the top rate was 93% there were also thousands of deductions and exemptions that were in the tax code. No one paid 93%

What Reagan, and Carter, Ford, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 43 did was eliminate many deductions and exemptions and lower the tax rate. The very rich are actually paying a higher % today than the did in Ike's day.

as to shifting the burden to the poor----total bullshit. 47% pay no federal income tax. In fact most poor people have a negative tax bill due to EIC, they get money back even though they paid nothing in.

as usual, your left wing talking points are lies.

They still paid over 35%, much more than they pay now. There are still deductions that take the 35% they are supposed to pay down to the, what, 13-15% the Romneybot paid?

you are confused, wytchey. capital gains are taxed at 15%. If you don't like that call your congressmen and senators---they put that in the tax code.

BTW, senators and congressmen are rich guys, do you think they are going to do anything that makes them pay more taxes?

you are attacking conservatives about tax rates when the tax rates are put in place by congress, and congress has been controlled by liberal/democrats for most of the last 75 years.

your anger is misplaced

 

[Redfish]

But you used the seasonally adjusted numbers. Comparing the same month in different years is when you want to use the UNadjusted numbers: June 2009 had 140,826,000 employed and June 2013 was 144,841,000 an increase of 4 million.

Properly using the adjusted numbers to compare Jan 2009 and Jun 2013, we get the number of employed going from 142,153,000 to 144,058,000 an increase of 1.9 million. So much for your claim of fewer working now.

let me see if I understand. you want to use the seasonally adjusted numbers if they help obama, but not if they make him look like a failure at creating jobs???

No, I want to use the proper numbers in the proper context. Unadjusted numbers should be used for comparing the same month in different years and for calculating an annual average. Otherwise seasonal adjustment should be used.

And using the actual numbers of seasonal adjustment from June 2009 to June 2013, the change is still 144,058,000-140,005,000 = +4.05 million, compared to 4.02 million using unadjusted numbers. Hmmm so the numbers I used were WORSE than the seasonally adjusted, yet you accuse me of making it look better. Odd.

By any measure, there are more jobs and people employed now than when Obama took office, though still not back to pre-recession levels. You were posting pre-recession numbers, claiming they were from Obama, and then accuse me of dishonesty? Interesting.

OK, use whatever you want. the bottom line is that obama's policies have not created jobs. the unemployment rate has remained around 8%.

 

[Redfish]

your sig destroys what little credibility you once had. Grow up, face reality.

 

[Redfish]

when the top rate was 93% there were also thousands of deductions and exemptions that were in the tax code. No one paid 93%

What Reagan, and Carter, Ford, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 43 did was eliminate many deductions and exemptions and lower the tax rate. The very rich are actually paying a higher % today than the did in Ike's day.

as to shifting the burden to the poor----total bullshit. 47% pay no federal income tax. In fact most poor people have a negative tax bill due to EIC, they get money back even though they paid nothing in.

as usual, your left wing talking points are lies.

They still paid over 35%, much more than they pay now. There are still deductions that take the 35% they are supposed to pay down to the, what, 13-15% the Romneybot paid?

you are confused, wytchey. capital gains are taxed at 15%. If you don't like that call your congressmen and senators---they put that in the tax code.

BTW, senators and congressmen are rich guys, do you think they are going to do anything that makes them pay more taxes?

you are attacking conservatives about tax rates when the tax rates are put in place by congress, and congress has been controlled by liberal/democrats for most of the last 75 years.

your anger is misplaced

where did you go, wytchey? the truth run you off?

 

[pinqy]

let me see if I understand. you want to use the seasonally adjusted numbers if they help obama, but not if they make him look like a failure at creating jobs???

No, I want to use the proper numbers in the proper context. Unadjusted numbers should be used for comparing the same month in different years and for calculating an annual average. Otherwise seasonal adjustment should be used.

And using the actual numbers of seasonal adjustment from June 2009 to June 2013, the change is still 144,058,000-140,005,000 = +4.05 million, compared to 4.02 million using unadjusted numbers. Hmmm so the numbers I used were WORSE than the seasonally adjusted, yet you accuse me of making it look better. Odd.

By any measure, there are more jobs and people employed now than when Obama took office, though still not back to pre-recession levels. You were posting pre-recession numbers, claiming they were from Obama, and then accuse me of dishonesty? Interesting.

OK, use whatever you want. the bottom line is that obama's policies have not created jobs. the unemployment rate has remained around 8%.

Not quite. It was 7.8% when Obama took office, went up to 10% in October 2009 and then sloooowwwwwllly has gotten back down to 7.6% (7.5% in April 2013).

The problem with comparing things to when Obama took office is that it ignores that things got a lot worse in the next year. So while things haven't gotten a lot better in comparison to January 2009, they are a lot better compared to October 2009, when UE rate hit its highest, or February 2010, when jobs bottomed out.

How much if any of the improvement from the bottom was due to Obama's policies or in spite of his policies is mostly speculation.

 

[Redfish]

No, I want to use the proper numbers in the proper context. Unadjusted numbers should be used for comparing the same month in different years and for calculating an annual average. Otherwise seasonal adjustment should be used.

And using the actual numbers of seasonal adjustment from June 2009 to June 2013, the change is still 144,058,000-140,005,000 = +4.05 million, compared to 4.02 million using unadjusted numbers. Hmmm so the numbers I used were WORSE than the seasonally adjusted, yet you accuse me of making it look better. Odd.

By any measure, there are more jobs and people employed now than when Obama took office, though still not back to pre-recession levels. You were posting pre-recession numbers, claiming they were from Obama, and then accuse me of dishonesty? Interesting.

OK, use whatever you want. the bottom line is that obama's policies have not created jobs. the unemployment rate has remained around 8%.

Not quite. It was 7.8% when Obama took office, went up to 10% in October 2009 and then sloooowwwwwllly has gotten back down to 7.6% (7.5% in April 2013).

The problem with comparing things to when Obama took office is that it ignores that things got a lot worse in the next year. So while things haven't gotten a lot better in comparison to January 2009, they are a lot better compared to October 2009, when UE rate hit its highest, or February 2010, when jobs bottomed out.

How much if any of the improvement from the bottom was due to Obama's policies or in spite of his policies is mostly speculation.

true.

but the bottom line is that there are more people in poverty than ever before, more on food stamps than ever before, more working part time than ever before, black teens unable to find even temporary jobs, companies moving out of the country to in order to survive, the war on coal and oil destroying jobs, obamacare causing companies to lay off workers and hold up on expansion plans.

obama has been an economic disaster-------and its his, you guys can no longer blame bush, the last 5 years belong to obama.

 

[Redfish]

when the top rate was 93% there were also thousands of deductions and exemptions that were in the tax code. No one paid 93%

What Reagan, and Carter, Ford, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 43 did was eliminate many deductions and exemptions and lower the tax rate. The very rich are actually paying a higher % today than the did in Ike's day.

as to shifting the burden to the poor----total bullshit. 47% pay no federal income tax. In fact most poor people have a negative tax bill due to EIC, they get money back even though they paid nothing in.

as usual, your left wing talking points are lies.

They still paid over 35%, much more than they pay now. There are still deductions that take the 35% they are supposed to pay down to the, what, 13-15% the Romneybot paid?

you are confused, wytchey. capital gains are taxed at 15%. If you don't like that call your congressmen and senators---they put that in the tax code.

BTW, senators and congressmen are rich guys, do you think they are going to do anything that makes them pay more taxes?

you are attacking conservatives about tax rates when the tax rates are put in place by congress, and congress has been controlled by liberal/democrats for most of the last 75 years.

your anger is misplaced

here wytchey wytchey wytchey where did you go little wytch? hiding from the truth again?

 

[Redfish]

One last bump for my friend Seawytch. don't be fraid, wytchey. admit that you were totally wrong on this one. It won't hurt.

 

[Seawytch]

when the top rate was 93% there were also thousands of deductions and exemptions that were in the tax code. No one paid 93%

What Reagan, and Carter, Ford, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 43 did was eliminate many deductions and exemptions and lower the tax rate. The very rich are actually paying a higher % today than the did in Ike's day.

as to shifting the burden to the poor----total bullshit. 47% pay no federal income tax. In fact most poor people have a negative tax bill due to EIC, they get money back even though they paid nothing in.

as usual, your left wing talking points are lies.

They still paid over 35%, much more than they pay now. There are still deductions that take the 35% they are supposed to pay down to the, what, 13-15% the Romneybot paid?

you are confused, wytchey. capital gains are taxed at 15%. If you don't like that call your congressmen and senators---they put that in the tax code.

BTW, senators and congressmen are rich guys, do you think they are going to do anything that makes them pay more taxes?

you are attacking conservatives about tax rates when the tax rates are put in place by congress, and congress has been controlled by liberal/democrats for most of the last 75 years.

your anger is misplaced

I provided evidence that the rich aren't paying what they paid then, tax deductions or not. The wealthy paid more under freaking Reagan. They can and should pay more.

 

[Redfish]

They still paid over 35%, much more than they pay now. There are still deductions that take the 35% they are supposed to pay down to the, what, 13-15% the Romneybot paid?

you are confused, wytchey. capital gains are taxed at 15%. If you don't like that call your congressmen and senators---they put that in the tax code.

BTW, senators and congressmen are rich guys, do you think they are going to do anything that makes them pay more taxes?

you are attacking conservatives about tax rates when the tax rates are put in place by congress, and congress has been controlled by liberal/democrats for most of the last 75 years.

your anger is misplaced

I provided evidence that the rich aren't paying what they paid then, tax deductions or not. The wealthy paid more under freaking Reagan. They can and should pay more.

the problem is that you tried to blame that on republicans and conservatives, when the truth is the liberal democrats have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years. The tax code was written by democrats, the post-reagan changes were either written by democrats or voted for by democrats.

What tax rate should be paid on capital gains? If you raise the cap gains rate, what will happen to the stock market? where will the money go instead of being invested in the market? Answer: overseas.

your left wing jealousy of successful people is one reason why our economy is so screwed up. you want to punish success and reward failure. That philosophy will drive the inventors and innovators out of this country, in fact its already happening.

 

[Seawytch]

you are confused, wytchey. capital gains are taxed at 15%. If you don't like that call your congressmen and senators---they put that in the tax code.

BTW, senators and congressmen are rich guys, do you think they are going to do anything that makes them pay more taxes?

you are attacking conservatives about tax rates when the tax rates are put in place by congress, and congress has been controlled by liberal/democrats for most of the last 75 years.

your anger is misplaced

I provided evidence that the rich aren't paying what they paid then, tax deductions or not. The wealthy paid more under freaking Reagan. They can and should pay more.

the problem is that you tried to blame that on republicans and conservatives, when the truth is the liberal democrats have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years. The tax code was written by democrats, the post-reagan changes were either written by democrats or voted for by democrats.

What tax rate should be paid on capital gains? If you raise the cap gains rate, what will happen to the stock market? where will the money go instead of being invested in the market? Answer: overseas.

your left wing jealousy of successful people is one reason why our economy is so screwed up. you want to punish success and reward failure. That philosophy will drive the inventors and innovators out of this country, in fact its already happening.

Link to the post where I "blamed" it on anyone.

 

[Redfish]

I provided evidence that the rich aren't paying what they paid then, tax deductions or not. The wealthy paid more under freaking Reagan. They can and should pay more.

the problem is that you tried to blame that on republicans and conservatives, when the truth is the liberal democrats have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years. The tax code was written by democrats, the post-reagan changes were either written by democrats or voted for by democrats.

What tax rate should be paid on capital gains? If you raise the cap gains rate, what will happen to the stock market? where will the money go instead of being invested in the market? Answer: overseas.

your left wing jealousy of successful people is one reason why our economy is so screwed up. you want to punish success and reward failure. That philosophy will drive the inventors and innovators out of this country, in fact its already happening.

Link to the post where I "blamed" it on anyone.

my mistake, it was the idiot Joe in post #377. but you did take a shot at Romney in your earlier post, making the inference that he somehow cheated on his taxes, when the reality is that he filed in complete compliance with the tax code-----------written by democrats.


why do I get you and Joe confused with each other???? must be that you use the same talking points.

 

[Seawytch]

Romney is a douche and deserves shots.

 

[JoeB131]

[

when the top rate was 93% there were also thousands of deductions and exemptions that were in the tax code. No one paid 93%

What Reagan, and Carter, Ford, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 43 did was eliminate many deductions and exemptions and lower the tax rate. The very rich are actually paying a higher % today than the did in Ike's day.

as to shifting the burden to the poor----total bullshit. 47% pay no federal income tax. In fact most poor people have a negative tax bill due to EIC, they get money back even though they paid nothing in.

as usual, your left wing talking points are lies.

That's the point, guy. You don't want to steal from the poor with an income tax, dipstick.

And, not the rich are not paying more or anything near their fair share.

 

[Redfish]

[

when the top rate was 93% there were also thousands of deductions and exemptions that were in the tax code. No one paid 93%

What Reagan, and Carter, Ford, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 43 did was eliminate many deductions and exemptions and lower the tax rate. The very rich are actually paying a higher % today than the did in Ike's day.

as to shifting the burden to the poor----total bullshit. 47% pay no federal income tax. In fact most poor people have a negative tax bill due to EIC, they get money back even though they paid nothing in.

as usual, your left wing talking points are lies.

That's the point, guy. You don't want to steal from the poor with an income tax, dipstick.

And, not the rich are not paying more or anything near their fair share.

OK, you and wytchey don't like the tax code that allows a lower tax rate on capital gains, I get it.

BUT, who wrote the tax code? who put the cap gains rate in the tax code? Who had controlled congress for most of the last 75 years?

answer to all: democrats

your anger is misplaced, if you don't like the tax code call your democratic senators and congressmen--demand that they change it-------and then listen as they laugh at you.

 

[Redfish]

Joe and Wytch don't like that tax code (written mostly by democrats) because it treats capital gains differently from other forms of income.

But when challenged on why they blame republicans and conservatives for something done be democrats they run away like scolded children.

For any other dems who think the evil rich should not have a lower tax rate on cap gains-----have you contacted your democrat senators and congressmen and told them to raise the rate? NO? why not? Because they would laugh at you, the cap gains rate helps them and they are not about to raise their own taxes.

Its called hypocrisy when you fools rant and rave about the tax rate that Romney paid and ignore the fact that your democrat representatives are taking the same advantage of the tax code.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, I'm sure it would be Democrats fighting tax raises. Do you even read what you write Fishy?

 

[Redfish]

Yes, I'm sure it would be Democrats fighting tax raises. Do you even read what you write Fishy?

The dems had complete control during obama's first two years, why didn't they raise the cap gains tax rate then?

answer: because it would affect them and they do not want to pay more taxes, some of them are also smart enough to realize that raising cap gain rate would hurt the economy.

But your envy and jealousy of successful people is noted.