The FACTS on Food Stamps

[Conservative65]

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

 

[Dad2three]

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

 

[Dad2three]

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

REALLY? They don't have income? lol

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

When the family of four with 2 adults and 2 children doesn't pay a dime of income taxes until the income is almost $48,000 you have no argument. It's sad when those that don't pay demand those that do pay have more taken.

False premise, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have


Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Are you saying that my income amount is false? A family of four with 2 adults and 2 children don't pay income taxes until the income is what I said. Willing to accept the proof? A better question is when I prove it are you man enough to admit I'm right and you're wrong?

Give me a CREDIBLE link Bubba


Yes, I say YOU LIE

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

REALLY? They don't have income? lol

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

When the family of four with 2 adults and 2 children doesn't pay a dime of income taxes until the income is almost $48,000 you have no argument. It's sad when those that don't pay demand those that do pay have more taken.

False premise, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have


Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Are you saying that my income amount is false? A family of four with 2 adults and 2 children don't pay income taxes until the income is what I said. Willing to accept the proof? A better question is when I prove it are you man enough to admit I'm right and you're wrong?

Give me a CREDIBLE link Bubba


Yes, I say YOU LIE

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

I'll do you one better. I'll actually go through the 1040 form using the lines that matter.

Line 6d = 4. That's the number of exemptions for that family of four

Line 7 = $47,099.

Lines 22 and 37 = $47,099. That family has no other sources of income that go on lines 8 - 21 or deductions that go on lines 23 - 36.

Line 38 is the same as 37 for you dumbasses that can't remember what you put on line 37.

Line 41 = $34,899. That's the $47,099 income minus the standard deduction of $12,200.

Line 42 = $15,600. That's the 4 exemptions from line 6d of $3900 each.

Line 43 = $19,299. That's the $34,899 - $15,600.

Line 44 = $19,299 from the tax tables and is considered the taxable income. From the tables using married filing jointly the tax owed is $1,999.

Line 51 and 54 = $2000. That's the child tax credit for the 2 kids at $1000 each and the total credits for this family.

Line 55 now = $0. That $2000 credit is deducted from the tax owed leaving this family having a ZERO tax liability.

Summary
1) The family of four pays zero income taxes with an income of $47,099. My estimate of $48,000 took into account that the actual amount of $47,099 was from tax year 2013 and the standard deduction and exemption amount will go up for the 2014 tax year.

2) You made a claim that I have completely refuted after you having called me a liar.

3) Either be a man and admit I was right or continue to prove that retards like you are why this country is screwed up. YOUR choice son. Before you accuse someone of lying, know what you're talking about or STFU.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

People like you that want to continue to tax those more and more those who create jobs them blame them for not creating them are the stupid people. You sound like the moron who believes that wonders why when interest rates go up people buy less on credit.

 

[Conservative65]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

47 million people are on food stamps. I don't know where this 48% is coming from.

Thanks, I got my terms confused. Still, that is a shocking number don't you think?

When the GOP digs a hole deep, they dig it wide too


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So a party that has controlled only one of the three bodies that is involved in lawmaking can control a party that has control of 2 of them? Typical Liberal excuses. People like you that are good for excuses are good for nothing else.

 

[zeke]

Hey, I bet you think the people making 48k wrote the tax law so their taxes were low.

Want me to show you where a family of 4 making 100k a year pays about 6.4% in Federal income tax?

What the **** is the point of this little exercise? That the country has lowered tax revenues to the lowest level in years and years.

Hell look at the deficit. We already know that income taxes are way low.
So what is your point.

btw, your claim was that the family didn't pay tax. They did in fact "pay" income tax on each and every paycheck they received. Then whey they FILED their taxes, they got a refund.

But the low income people making the money and doing the work didn't write the tax legislation. Why you pissed at them?
You think they rich and ultra rich don't use every ******* deduction and reduction available? You pissed at them?
And the ultra wealthy have the Congress looking out for them. You pissed at Congress for proposing and passing tax legislation like we have?

Or are you one of those that just want the country to go bankrupt? You know, get rid of ALL taxes. That's you isn't it. No taxes no taxes. Like a mantra.

 

[Dad2three]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

47 million people are on food stamps. I don't know where this 48% is coming from.

Thanks, I got my terms confused. Still, that is a shocking number don't you think?

When the GOP digs a hole deep, they dig it wide too


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So a party that has controlled only one of the three bodies that is involved in lawmaking can control a party that has control of 2 of them? Typical Liberal excuses. People like you that are good for excuses are good for nothing else.

So you don't know how Gov't works? I'm NOT surprised. In the Senate a minority can block things fairly easily, as the GOP has done

 

[Dad2three]

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

People like you that want to continue to tax those more and more those who create jobs them blame them for not creating them are the stupid people. You sound like the moron who believes that wonders why when interest rates go up people buy less on credit.

Weird, lowest SUSTAINED tax burden in 80+ years, almost half the effective rates 1950's and 1960's on the top 1/10th of 1% when there WERE jobs, jobs, job?

PLEASE explain what the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate in generations stops the 'job creators'?

 

[Conservative65]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

47 million people are on food stamps. I don't know where this 48% is coming from.

Thanks, I got my terms confused. Still, that is a shocking number don't you think?

When the GOP digs a hole deep, they dig it wide too


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So a party that has controlled only one of the three bodies that is involved in lawmaking can control a party that has control of 2 of them? Typical Liberal excuses. People like you that are good for excuses are good for nothing else.

So you don't know how Gov't works? I'm NOT surprised. In the Senate a minority can block things fairly easily, as the GOP has done

The minority party doesn't have to block anything when the son of a ***** Reid doesn't bring things up for vote the majority in the House sends him. He does that and butt puppets like you call it something it isn't. Keep puckering up to the Democrat ass boy.

 

[Conservative65]

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

People like you that want to continue to tax those more and more those who create jobs them blame them for not creating them are the stupid people. You sound like the moron who believes that wonders why when interest rates go up people buy less on credit.

Weird, lowest SUSTAINED tax burden in 80+ years, almost half the effective rates 1950's and 1960's on the top 1/10th of 1% when there WERE jobs, jobs, job?

PLEASE explain what the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate in generations stops the 'job creators'?

You fail to take into account all the regulations on business and requirements that costs them outside of taxes. It adds up but I suspect you can't add that high.

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

People like you that want to continue to tax those more and more those who create jobs them blame them for not creating them are the stupid people. You sound like the moron who believes that wonders why when interest rates go up people buy less on credit.

Weird, lowest SUSTAINED tax burden in 80+ years, almost half the effective rates 1950's and 1960's on the top 1/10th of 1% when there WERE jobs, jobs, job?

PLEASE explain what the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate in generations stops the 'job creators'?

You fail to take into account all the regulations on business and requirements that costs them outside of taxes. It adds up but I suspect you can't add that high.

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans’ oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell.


These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.


. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.


These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average. Unemployment is much higher in those industries that one would expect to suffer most from a lack of aggregate demand: construction, leisure and hospitality, business services, wholesale and retail trade, and durable goods.

Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, asserts that if businesses were really concerned about rising regulations, they would be investing now to avoid them. But there is no indication that this is the case. “The real reason for anemic investment and hiring is that businesses are not confident there will be enough potential customers to justify expansion or even routine capital replacement right now,” he says.


In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/?_r=0

 

[Conservative65]

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

To be at the top requires a greater percentage of time and education to be at the top. To be at the bottom, one has to do nothing. That means if the pie for those on the higher end has increased it's because what they've had to do to get their has grown. When the only requirement for someone to be able to do low end jobs is breathing, it's not hard to understand why they make low wages. For some of us it's easy. For people like you, you won't ever understand because you don't want to understand.

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

People like you that want to continue to tax those more and more those who create jobs them blame them for not creating them are the stupid people. You sound like the moron who believes that wonders why when interest rates go up people buy less on credit.

Weird, lowest SUSTAINED tax burden in 80+ years, almost half the effective rates 1950's and 1960's on the top 1/10th of 1% when there WERE jobs, jobs, job?

PLEASE explain what the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate in generations stops the 'job creators'?

You fail to take into account all the regulations on business and requirements that costs them outside of taxes. It adds up but I suspect you can't add that high.

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans’ oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell.


These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.


. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.


These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average. Unemployment is much higher in those industries that one would expect to suffer most from a lack of aggregate demand: construction, leisure and hospitality, business services, wholesale and retail trade, and durable goods.

Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, asserts that if businesses were really concerned about rising regulations, they would be investing now to avoid them. But there is no indication that this is the case. “The real reason for anemic investment and hiring is that businesses are not confident there will be enough potential customers to justify expansion or even routine capital replacement right now,” he says.


In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/?_r=0

As usual, your opinions don't mean shit.

 

[Dad2three]

47 million people are on food stamps. I don't know where this 48% is coming from.

Thanks, I got my terms confused. Still, that is a shocking number don't you think?

When the GOP digs a hole deep, they dig it wide too


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So a party that has controlled only one of the three bodies that is involved in lawmaking can control a party that has control of 2 of them? Typical Liberal excuses. People like you that are good for excuses are good for nothing else.

So you don't know how Gov't works? I'm NOT surprised. In the Senate a minority can block things fairly easily, as the GOP has done

The minority party doesn't have to block anything when the son of a ***** Reid doesn't bring things up for vote the majority in the House sends him. He does that and butt puppets like you call it something it isn't. Keep puckering up to the Democrat ass boy.

Got it, false premises, distortions and lies are ALL you have

Timeline of Republican Obstruction
A Tick-Tock of House Republican Obstruction Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi



Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.


It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

Let s just say it The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

So you think the top 1% who had 6%-9% of ALL US income 1945-1980 were lazy and less uneducated than those that take 20% of the pie today (but 23% in 2007)?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

People like you that want to continue to tax those more and more those who create jobs them blame them for not creating them are the stupid people. You sound like the moron who believes that wonders why when interest rates go up people buy less on credit.

Weird, lowest SUSTAINED tax burden in 80+ years, almost half the effective rates 1950's and 1960's on the top 1/10th of 1% when there WERE jobs, jobs, job?

PLEASE explain what the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate in generations stops the 'job creators'?

You fail to take into account all the regulations on business and requirements that costs them outside of taxes. It adds up but I suspect you can't add that high.

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans’ oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell.


These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.


. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.


These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average. Unemployment is much higher in those industries that one would expect to suffer most from a lack of aggregate demand: construction, leisure and hospitality, business services, wholesale and retail trade, and durable goods.

Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, asserts that if businesses were really concerned about rising regulations, they would be investing now to avoid them. But there is no indication that this is the case. “The real reason for anemic investment and hiring is that businesses are not confident there will be enough potential customers to justify expansion or even routine capital replacement right now,” he says.


In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/?_r=0

As usual, your opinions don't mean shit.

MY opinions? lol

Gawwwdddam low info wingnutters sucking off the Koch's/Plutocrats. You Klowns NEVER learn and are NEVER honest. Shocking

 

[Conservative65]

Thanks, I got my terms confused. Still, that is a shocking number don't you think?

When the GOP digs a hole deep, they dig it wide too


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So a party that has controlled only one of the three bodies that is involved in lawmaking can control a party that has control of 2 of them? Typical Liberal excuses. People like you that are good for excuses are good for nothing else.

So you don't know how Gov't works? I'm NOT surprised. In the Senate a minority can block things fairly easily, as the GOP has done

The minority party doesn't have to block anything when the son of a ***** Reid doesn't bring things up for vote the majority in the House sends him. He does that and butt puppets like you call it something it isn't. Keep puckering up to the Democrat ass boy.

Got it, false premises, distortions and lies are ALL you have

Timeline of Republican Obstruction
A Tick-Tock of House Republican Obstruction Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi



Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.


It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

Let s just say it The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post

More excuses from you.

 

[Conservative65]

People like you that want to continue to tax those more and more those who create jobs them blame them for not creating them are the stupid people. You sound like the moron who believes that wonders why when interest rates go up people buy less on credit.

Weird, lowest SUSTAINED tax burden in 80+ years, almost half the effective rates 1950's and 1960's on the top 1/10th of 1% when there WERE jobs, jobs, job?

PLEASE explain what the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate in generations stops the 'job creators'?

You fail to take into account all the regulations on business and requirements that costs them outside of taxes. It adds up but I suspect you can't add that high.

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans’ oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell.


These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.


. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.


These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average. Unemployment is much higher in those industries that one would expect to suffer most from a lack of aggregate demand: construction, leisure and hospitality, business services, wholesale and retail trade, and durable goods.

Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, asserts that if businesses were really concerned about rising regulations, they would be investing now to avoid them. But there is no indication that this is the case. “The real reason for anemic investment and hiring is that businesses are not confident there will be enough potential customers to justify expansion or even routine capital replacement right now,” he says.


In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/?_r=0

As usual, your opinions don't mean shit.

MY opinions? lol

Gawwwdddam low info wingnutters sucking off the Koch's/Plutocrats. You Klowns NEVER learn and are NEVER honest. Shocking

That's right. You don't have an opinion. You are told what to believe by your monkey handlers boy the biggest monkey being your half runaway baby daddy half white trash President.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, lowest SUSTAINED tax burden in 80+ years, almost half the effective rates 1950's and 1960's on the top 1/10th of 1% when there WERE jobs, jobs, job?

PLEASE explain what the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate in generations stops the 'job creators'?

You fail to take into account all the regulations on business and requirements that costs them outside of taxes. It adds up but I suspect you can't add that high.

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans’ oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell.


These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.


. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.


These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of industries where regulation has been increasing: the financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually well below the national average. Unemployment is much higher in those industries that one would expect to suffer most from a lack of aggregate demand: construction, leisure and hospitality, business services, wholesale and retail trade, and durable goods.

Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, asserts that if businesses were really concerned about rising regulations, they would be investing now to avoid them. But there is no indication that this is the case. “The real reason for anemic investment and hiring is that businesses are not confident there will be enough potential customers to justify expansion or even routine capital replacement right now,” he says.


In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/?_r=0

As usual, your opinions don't mean shit.

MY opinions? lol

Gawwwdddam low info wingnutters sucking off the Koch's/Plutocrats. You Klowns NEVER learn and are NEVER honest. Shocking

That's right. You don't have an opinion. You are told what to believe by your monkey handlers boy the biggest monkey being your half runaway baby daddy half white trash President.

Ah, the race whistle comes out of you. Shocking

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fact on food stamps:
The state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation, creating a condition of state-enforced involuntary servitude.

 

[Dad2three]

When the GOP digs a hole deep, they dig it wide too


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So a party that has controlled only one of the three bodies that is involved in lawmaking can control a party that has control of 2 of them? Typical Liberal excuses. People like you that are good for excuses are good for nothing else.

So you don't know how Gov't works? I'm NOT surprised. In the Senate a minority can block things fairly easily, as the GOP has done

The minority party doesn't have to block anything when the son of a ***** Reid doesn't bring things up for vote the majority in the House sends him. He does that and butt puppets like you call it something it isn't. Keep puckering up to the Democrat ass boy.

Got it, false premises, distortions and lies are ALL you have

Timeline of Republican Obstruction
A Tick-Tock of House Republican Obstruction Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi



Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.


It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

Let s just say it The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post

More excuses from you.

Facts and real data have ZERO effect on 20% of US who 'believe in' conservative/libertarian ideology. It's ALL about feelings and ideology for them