US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[sealybobo]

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Me poor ignorant con tool. Lets take your theory and wash it against history (you claim to be a history major, correct?) and theory. Theory first.
So you are still trying to say supply side economics works, when almost all economists have found it a bad idea. Because if you lower taxes, all that companies do with the savings is save. Not increase production. Your assumption is that in a recession, with aggregate demand down, and therefor inventory not selling, that the corporation is so stupid that it will increase production and therefor inventory and therefor cost and therefor reduced profit. Really way to simple to miss.
Historically, we could look at the stimulus and the great republican recession of 2008. There were several components of the stimulus, the one pushed by repubs being tax reductions. And a fair number of those tax reductions were targeted at the more well to do. According to the CBO, those tax reductions had little to no stimulus value. But we can assume they made the wealthy quite happy.
Then there was R. Reagan. You know the drill by now, dipshit. Huge tax decreases produced the highest unemployment rates since the great republican depression of 1929. That was, me boy, 10;8%. Now, since RR had been a huge proponent of supply side policies, one would assume he would pursue those policies, correct. But..../NO, he raised taxes 11 times to generate revenue for spending and spent more than all of the presidents before him combined, nearly trippled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the national debt. Proving, of course, that while Supply Side does not work, stimulus does!!!!
Which is why, me boy, we can be certain that supply side economics never, ever works. Even as a paid con tool, it should be obvious to you.

Republicans don't have a problem raising our taxes. If they cut taxes on the rich they tell us they don't have any money to pay for infrastructure and have to raise our taxes. I know Rick Snyder did this and so has every other Republican governor.

When Republicans say lower taxes they ALWAYS mean for the rich

Wow...you really do chug down that Kool Aid as fast as the Progressives spew it out don't you?

Hillary! Hillary!! Get used to 8 more years of the clintons. Maybe Paul Ryan and the new democratic Senate majority leader will work with hillary. Us liberals know she will triangulate negotiate and get er done

 

[Dale Smith]

Ummm... what "quivers" did Obama have when he came into office in 2009?

Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others. Reagan for instance. He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down. Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years. He's kept interest rates at almost zero. Why? Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money. He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates. Why? Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting. He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard. He does EASY. Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

Okay.

Reagan's GDP his last year in office was 7

Reagan's Unemployment rate was 5.5%, down from a maximum of 9.7%

Labor Participation Rate was 65.8% in April of 1988 and it is 63.0% under the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama.

Any way you want to describe it, President Obama's economy is another Carter malaise compared to that of President Reagan.

More?

Illegal immigration and NAFTA and breaking unions and outsourcing all started when the rich won the white house in 1980. Reagan seemed good at the time but little did people know bushanomics for started in Reaganomics. And Reagan would be a moderate Democrat today[/QUOTE

Nope, it started more than a decade before that with the formation of the Club of Rome which was an offshoot of the U.N. This group consisted of rich globalists like Maurice Strong, The Rockefellers and money from other tax free foundations like Carnigie and Ford and members of the Committee of 300. They decided that an affluent middle class and their lifestyle of high meat intake, "fossil fuel" and appliances wasn't sustainable so they devised a plan to dismantle it by shutting down decent blue collar jobs. They planted the seed in the early 70's that there were too many people and that we were polluting the planet and that it could not sustain life at this rate if we remained on this course. I remember watching Sunday morning TV back in the early 70's and the only thing for a kid to watch were these shows where they catered to kids but was programming them to believe that humanity was to blame for pollution and smog. They painted the most horrific picture and I remember when they claimed that we were on the verge of a new mini-ice age. Fast forawrd to 1976 and they started the dismantling of industry bit by bit...they went after steel production and moved that overseas, they dismantled the ship building industry...then the textile industry that permeated the east coast. Then they went after the car industry by allowing cheap imports with good gas mileage after the planned oil embargo that doubled the price of gas. That was all planned by the way. When Nixon took the dollar off of the gold standard , he created the petro-dollar by making a deal with OPEC. Then they went after the farmers with price controls....taxes, fees, acts, statutes and codes all designed to make it hard to run a profitable business. The influx of cheap manual labor by allowing an open border and the generous immigration laws that gave them seed money to start their own businesses on further served to hurt the average American.

In the mean time, USA.INC had been skimming off the top and using that money to invest and re-invest in massive corporations until they eventually owned controlling shares in every Fortune 500 company as well as their subsidiaries. War equals profit and they pass the bill onto us while using offshore accounts to protect their profits and these POS that get into office learn right away that they stand to profit in a massive way if they just go along with the game because that is just how this corporation rolls. We do not have a representative "gubermint"...it is simply an illusion to give you the impression that we do so that you will get up every day and go to your job. USA.INC filed Bankruptcy the last time in 1950 and was taken into receivership of the IMF, a banking institution that is also owned by the Fed bankers in order to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services and for profit while doing it. Since 1980, the victim less crime of violating any of their acts, statutes and codes has risen their revenues 600 percent. I haven't even scratched the surface of how badly we have been used and this same system is in place in every country that has a central bank. I have friends all over the world that I converse with and we share information and stories...it's all the same.

 

[Dale Smith]

Dude, you are beyond ******* clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a ******* indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some ******* thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

You're ******* deranged. The labor force participation rate measures demographics, not the health of the job market. It's lower now than it was in 2001, for the most part, because people are choosing not to work.

It grew in the sixties and seventies when many more blacks chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It went up again in the seventies and eighties as more women chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It began dropping in 2000 as more people began choosing to not work. That was due to demographics. That drop increased in rate in 2008 as Baby Boomers began hitting retirement age. That was due to demographics. There are many factors which drive the labor force participation rate, but mostly, it's people choosing on whether to work or not.

If it were an indicator of the job market, it would have dropped during Reagan's recession. It didn't. In fact it increased from 63.7% to 64.2% even as 2.7 million jobs were lost.

July, 1981 through November, 1982, we are mired in a deep recession. In terms of the job market, 2.7 million jobs were lost; the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 7.5% to 10.8% .... but imbeciles like you think the job markets were just peachy because the labor force participate rate went up.

Obviously you were not able to comprehend or understand a single word I posted...too many multi-syllable words for you to digest? It would'nt matter if 100 percent of the people were employed if they do not have enough to eek out a living. Blue collar jobs were shipped overseas, environmental laws of the most draconian type were put in place which was just fine for USA.INC because when they passed them into one of their acts, statutes or codes? They just shipped the jobs overseas by passing unfair "fair trade agreements" like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT while beating down corporations that they didn't own with more rules and regulations until they sold out and their companies became a subsidiary of this massive conglomerate....shit...there I go again...talking in words that you don't understand or concepts and truth that you can't even wrap your tiny mind around......carry on...sheeesh.

That you think toying with strawman arguments works for you speaks volumes. As before, you are arguing something other than what I am arguing. I have said nothing about the quality of jobs.I am talking about the health of the job market, which is at full employment; and the idiocies spouted how the labor force participation is the new unemployment indicator in place of the unemployment rate.

You have your own personal agenda, which at this time, interests me not. You're obviously welcome to spew your logorrhea to your heart's content. I shall do nothing more than remind you it has little, if anything, to do with what I'm talking about.

You REALLY believe that we have a healthy job market????? If you can't eek out a living, it doesn't matter how "healthy" it is....what part of that don't you get???? "Hey! I sleep in a box but I got 5 hours today at Burger King for 7.50 an hour...let the good times roll!!"......holy shit.....seriously.......

 

[Dale Smith]

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Me poor ignorant con tool. Lets take your theory and wash it against history (you claim to be a history major, correct?) and theory. Theory first.
So you are still trying to say supply side economics works, when almost all economists have found it a bad idea. Because if you lower taxes, all that companies do with the savings is save. Not increase production. Your assumption is that in a recession, with aggregate demand down, and therefor inventory not selling, that the corporation is so stupid that it will increase production and therefor inventory and therefor cost and therefor reduced profit. Really way to simple to miss.
Historically, we could look at the stimulus and the great republican recession of 2008. There were several components of the stimulus, the one pushed by repubs being tax reductions. And a fair number of those tax reductions were targeted at the more well to do. According to the CBO, those tax reductions had little to no stimulus value. But we can assume they made the wealthy quite happy.
Then there was R. Reagan. You know the drill by now, dipshit. Huge tax decreases produced the highest unemployment rates since the great republican depression of 1929. That was, me boy, 10;8%. Now, since RR had been a huge proponent of supply side policies, one would assume he would pursue those policies, correct. But..../NO, he raised taxes 11 times to generate revenue for spending and spent more than all of the presidents before him combined, nearly trippled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the national debt. Proving, of course, that while Supply Side does not work, stimulus does!!!!
Which is why, me boy, we can be certain that supply side economics never, ever works. Even as a paid con tool, it should be obvious to you.

Republicans don't have a problem raising our taxes. If they cut taxes on the rich they tell us they don't have any money to pay for infrastructure and have to raise our taxes. I know Rick Snyder did this and so has every other Republican governor.

When Republicans say lower taxes they ALWAYS mean for the rich

Wow...you really do chug down that Kool Aid as fast as the Progressives spew it out don't you?

Hillary! Hillary!! Get used to 8 more years of the clintons. Maybe Paul Ryan and the new democratic Senate majority leader will work with hillary. Us liberals know she will triangulate negotiate and get er done

New boss will be the same as the old boss...nothing will improve for the average Joe but what they will attempt to do is disarm the public. I have real doubts that you folks will even have an election. Yet another orchestrated dollar crash is on the horizon but if it doesn't happen by election time, it will happen soon after.

 

[sealybobo]

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Me poor ignorant con tool. Lets take your theory and wash it against history (you claim to be a history major, correct?) and theory. Theory first.
So you are still trying to say supply side economics works, when almost all economists have found it a bad idea. Because if you lower taxes, all that companies do with the savings is save. Not increase production. Your assumption is that in a recession, with aggregate demand down, and therefor inventory not selling, that the corporation is so stupid that it will increase production and therefor inventory and therefor cost and therefor reduced profit. Really way to simple to miss.
Historically, we could look at the stimulus and the great republican recession of 2008. There were several components of the stimulus, the one pushed by repubs being tax reductions. And a fair number of those tax reductions were targeted at the more well to do. According to the CBO, those tax reductions had little to no stimulus value. But we can assume they made the wealthy quite happy.
Then there was R. Reagan. You know the drill by now, dipshit. Huge tax decreases produced the highest unemployment rates since the great republican depression of 1929. That was, me boy, 10;8%. Now, since RR had been a huge proponent of supply side policies, one would assume he would pursue those policies, correct. But..../NO, he raised taxes 11 times to generate revenue for spending and spent more than all of the presidents before him combined, nearly trippled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the national debt. Proving, of course, that while Supply Side does not work, stimulus does!!!!
Which is why, me boy, we can be certain that supply side economics never, ever works. Even as a paid con tool, it should be obvious to you.

Republicans don't have a problem raising our taxes. If they cut taxes on the rich they tell us they don't have any money to pay for infrastructure and have to raise our taxes. I know Rick Snyder did this and so has every other Republican governor.

When Republicans say lower taxes they ALWAYS mean for the rich

Wow...you really do chug down that Kool Aid as fast as the Progressives spew it out don't you?

Hillary! Hillary!! Get used to 8 more years of the clintons. Maybe Paul Ryan and the new democratic Senate majority leader will work with hillary. Us liberals know she will triangulate negotiate and get er done

New boss will be the same as the old boss...nothing will improve for the average Joe but what they will attempt to do is disarm the public. I have real doubts that you folks will even have an election. Yet another orchestrated dollar crash is on the horizon but if it doesn't happen by election time, it will happen soon after.

Funny I saved a lot in the Clinton years and started saving again last year. I work in manufacturing and I know manufacturing is up. Sales are good. We can't find service techs. It blows me away because it pays $60k plus but you have to travel mon-fri. People are picky because companies are hiring and wages are going up.

Compare it now to 2007 when we were clearly in a recession and you and McCain were saying the fundamentals of our economy were strong.

 

[Faun]

Numbers are great. But, I deal in reality. If the economy was in good shape, it would not be the primary concern of many Americans going into the November elections, and Obama's ratings would be comparable to what Reagan had when he ran for his second term.

Why is it that unemployment is down but so many Americans feel like our economy is floundering?

Apparently, the unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Mark

Of course unemployment is only part of the picture. But unemployment is way down under Obama. So while there are still problems with the economy, unemployment isn't one of them as we are now at full employment.

Of course, you know you are wrong so why do you make such false statements? You might consider chucking the Kool Aid!

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat. Notice the plunge since Lame Duck President Obama took office.

You are in way over your head, me boy. The labor participation rate dropping 3% is not much of a problem normally, but economists have told us to expect it to drop and it did. And partially for reasons of the general economy. You seem to be insinuating it happened because a democratic president took over. But the truth, me boy, is that the downturn coincided with the great republican recession of 2008. Which caused a whole lot of unemployment as well as a large number of workers discouraged by same and waiting for improvement. Really, me boy, pretty obvious. Then, there was this other factor apparently you missed. Which was a whole large number of folks in the baby boom retiring early. Then, me poor ignorant tool, there were the results of being able to afford insurance outside of work under ACA. So, me boy, quit spreading gloom and doom about participation rates. Rather ignorant of you.
Oh, by the way, if you look at the rates at this time, you will find them improving. Must be Obama's influence, eh?????

Son, you are amusing.

Please show us where a THREE PERCENT DROP in the Labor Participation Rate has been normal.

Lame Duck President Obama gutted the 1996 Welfare Reform Act between the "Stimulus" package and Obamacare.

Progressives, like yourself, need to operate in a static economy. It is the only way they can con people into believing their malarkey.

You make a statement about baby boomers leaving the labor market is the cause of the Labor Participation Rate dropping so precipitously. What you, and other Progressives intentionally "ignore" is the FACT, that millions of 16-year-olds ENTER the Labor Market every year as the baby boomers retire.
I know...oops! Forgot that didn't you son?

No one is discounting that. It's just not enough to offset the aging population.

Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate continues to fall

A major factor responsible for this downward pressure on the overall labor force participation rate is the aging of the baby-boom generation.

 

[Dale Smith]

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a ******* indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some ******* thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

You're ******* deranged. The labor force participation rate measures demographics, not the health of the job market. It's lower now than it was in 2001, for the most part, because people are choosing not to work.

It grew in the sixties and seventies when many more blacks chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It went up again in the seventies and eighties as more women chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It began dropping in 2000 as more people began choosing to not work. That was due to demographics. That drop increased in rate in 2008 as Baby Boomers began hitting retirement age. That was due to demographics. There are many factors which drive the labor force participation rate, but mostly, it's people choosing on whether to work or not.

If it were an indicator of the job market, it would have dropped during Reagan's recession. It didn't. In fact it increased from 63.7% to 64.2% even as 2.7 million jobs were lost.

July, 1981 through November, 1982, we are mired in a deep recession. In terms of the job market, 2.7 million jobs were lost; the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 7.5% to 10.8% .... but imbeciles like you think the job markets were just peachy because the labor force participate rate went up.

Obviously you were not able to comprehend or understand a single word I posted...too many multi-syllable words for you to digest? It would'nt matter if 100 percent of the people were employed if they do not have enough to eek out a living. Blue collar jobs were shipped overseas, environmental laws of the most draconian type were put in place which was just fine for USA.INC because when they passed them into one of their acts, statutes or codes? They just shipped the jobs overseas by passing unfair "fair trade agreements" like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT while beating down corporations that they didn't own with more rules and regulations until they sold out and their companies became a subsidiary of this massive conglomerate....shit...there I go again...talking in words that you don't understand or concepts and truth that you can't even wrap your tiny mind around......carry on...sheeesh.

That you think toying with strawman arguments works for you speaks volumes. As before, you are arguing something other than what I am arguing. I have said nothing about the quality of jobs.I am talking about the health of the job market, which is at full employment; and the idiocies spouted how the labor force participation is the new unemployment indicator in place of the unemployment rate.

You have your own personal agenda, which at this time, interests me not. You're obviously welcome to spew your logorrhea to your heart's content. I shall do nothing more than remind you it has little, if anything, to do with what I'm talking about.

The same people who argued in 2007 that the economy was good while we were clearly falling into a great recession, are now telling you Obama's economy sucks. Never forget you are talking to fools and brainwashed liars. Certainly not being intellectually honest. Arrogant + ignorance = middle class republicans

The orchestrated housing bubble hadn't happened in 2007 and even though unbeknowst to most, we were about to step over the cliff.... the shit had yet to hit the fan. Just like the Crash of 1929, the bankers cleaned up on hard assets but claimed "empty pockets" so we bailed them out on our dime that Bushpuppet and Barrypuppet agreed was the right thing to do. As I recall, not one single banker stood trial for any fraud....seems that Eric Holder gave them a pass and it was business as usual...because after all, it's just one big club and we ain't in it....but that's ok for you because Barrypuppet is "demcrat"..... (rolls eyes).

2008 and 2009 was the best opportunity we had to rid ourselves of the parasitic entity that creates money out of nothing, loans it out and then wants to be paid back three times the Promissory note with our sweat equity....but no one had the balls to step up to the plate....must be because they don't want to take the chance of losing their ill-gotten wealth.

 

[Faun]

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

You're joking, right? If you are that clueless, how can you make any posts on a thread about economics?

Lemme guess.... you're of the ilk who believe ad hominem really is a substantive substitute for actual argument?

Anything but answer the question, right?

Since you failed there, maybe you can take a stab at ..... prove that most of the 12 million people added to the 'not in labor force' group since Obama's did so for reasons other than choice....

I answered that question.

Ahh, the ever popular declaration of answering when you didn't.

All you said was millions of 16 year olds turn 16. That doesn't answer the question. And a higher percentage of young (65-69) baby boomers are working than 16-17 year olds. More Baby Boomers are retiring than 16 year olds are going to work.

 

[Dale Smith]

Me poor ignorant con tool. Lets take your theory and wash it against history (you claim to be a history major, correct?) and theory. Theory first.
So you are still trying to say supply side economics works, when almost all economists have found it a bad idea. Because if you lower taxes, all that companies do with the savings is save. Not increase production. Your assumption is that in a recession, with aggregate demand down, and therefor inventory not selling, that the corporation is so stupid that it will increase production and therefor inventory and therefor cost and therefor reduced profit. Really way to simple to miss.
Historically, we could look at the stimulus and the great republican recession of 2008. There were several components of the stimulus, the one pushed by repubs being tax reductions. And a fair number of those tax reductions were targeted at the more well to do. According to the CBO, those tax reductions had little to no stimulus value. But we can assume they made the wealthy quite happy.
Then there was R. Reagan. You know the drill by now, dipshit. Huge tax decreases produced the highest unemployment rates since the great republican depression of 1929. That was, me boy, 10;8%. Now, since RR had been a huge proponent of supply side policies, one would assume he would pursue those policies, correct. But..../NO, he raised taxes 11 times to generate revenue for spending and spent more than all of the presidents before him combined, nearly trippled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the national debt. Proving, of course, that while Supply Side does not work, stimulus does!!!!
Which is why, me boy, we can be certain that supply side economics never, ever works. Even as a paid con tool, it should be obvious to you.

Republicans don't have a problem raising our taxes. If they cut taxes on the rich they tell us they don't have any money to pay for infrastructure and have to raise our taxes. I know Rick Snyder did this and so has every other Republican governor.

When Republicans say lower taxes they ALWAYS mean for the rich

Wow...you really do chug down that Kool Aid as fast as the Progressives spew it out don't you?

Hillary! Hillary!! Get used to 8 more years of the clintons. Maybe Paul Ryan and the new democratic Senate majority leader will work with hillary. Us liberals know she will triangulate negotiate and get er done

New boss will be the same as the old boss...nothing will improve for the average Joe but what they will attempt to do is disarm the public. I have real doubts that you folks will even have an election. Yet another orchestrated dollar crash is on the horizon but if it doesn't happen by election time, it will happen soon after.

Funny I saved a lot in the Clinton years and started saving again last year. I work in manufacturing and I know manufacturing is up. Sales are good. We can't find service techs. It blows me away because it pays $60k plus but you have to travel mon-fri. People are picky because companies are hiring and wages are going up.

Compare it now to 2007 when we were clearly in a recession and you and McCain were saying the fundamentals of our economy were strong.

Your particular industry may be up but not so much for the rest...and I am glad that you are doing ok....but if I were you, I would be using that money to attain some essentials for when the dollar bubble bursts. I am doing ok but I have 20 plus years in the industry that I am in and it's hard to find techs that knows the things I do. Young people are more interested in computer stuff then they are repairing equipment where they might get dirty...LOL!

 

[Dale Smith]

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

You're joking, right? If you are that clueless, how can you make any posts on a thread about economics?

Lemme guess.... you're of the ilk who believe ad hominem really is a substantive substitute for actual argument?

Anything but answer the question, right?

Since you failed there, maybe you can take a stab at ..... prove that most of the 12 million people added to the 'not in labor force' group since Obama's did so for reasons other than choice....

I answered that question.

Ahh, the ever popular declaration of answering when you didn't.

All you said was millions of 16 year olds turn 16. That doesn't answer the question. And a higher percentage of young (65-69) baby boomers are working than 16-17 year olds. More Baby Boomers are retiring than 16 year olds are going to work.

I sincerely doubt that.....with the shitty buying power of this fiat currency, more and more "baby boomers" are staying in the workforce because they can't count on what they have saved. I don't give a shit what your alleged stats show. I also know that on the rare occasion that I eat at a fast food joint, I can count on one hand with fingers to spare as to how many teenagers are working there. Life must be surreal with them rose colored glasses on...where might I buy a pair?

 

[Faun]

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.

That means you are a stupid DittoTard mindlessly parroting a Limbaugh Lie.

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

I provided the FACTS and the link. What was difficult for you to understand? I'll be happy to explain it to you.

You provided no facts and no link. All you did was parrot your MessiahRushie's lies.

Let me get this straight. You need a LINK to prove to you that millions of young people are turning 16 and entering the labor market. WOW! You are amusing!

In reality, it's about million teenagers turning 16 and entering the the labor market each year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

See what happens when you rely on links rather than opinion?

The truth emerges.

 

[sealybobo]

Republicans don't have a problem raising our taxes. If they cut taxes on the rich they tell us they don't have any money to pay for infrastructure and have to raise our taxes. I know Rick Snyder did this and so has every other Republican governor.

When Republicans say lower taxes they ALWAYS mean for the rich

Wow...you really do chug down that Kool Aid as fast as the Progressives spew it out don't you?

Hillary! Hillary!! Get used to 8 more years of the clintons. Maybe Paul Ryan and the new democratic Senate majority leader will work with hillary. Us liberals know she will triangulate negotiate and get er done

New boss will be the same as the old boss...nothing will improve for the average Joe but what they will attempt to do is disarm the public. I have real doubts that you folks will even have an election. Yet another orchestrated dollar crash is on the horizon but if it doesn't happen by election time, it will happen soon after.

Funny I saved a lot in the Clinton years and started saving again last year. I work in manufacturing and I know manufacturing is up. Sales are good. We can't find service techs. It blows me away because it pays $60k plus but you have to travel mon-fri. People are picky because companies are hiring and wages are going up.

Compare it now to 2007 when we were clearly in a recession and you and McCain were saying the fundamentals of our economy were strong.

Your particular industry may be up but not so much for the rest...and I am glad that you are doing ok....but if I were you, I would be using that money to attain some essentials for when the dollar bubble bursts. I am doing ok but I have 20 plus years in the industry that I am in and it's hard to find techs that knows the things I do. Young people are more interested in computer stuff then they are repairing equipment where they might get dirty...LOL!

I asked somebody at work if the recession hurt them and they said not really. Of course sales were down but people still need our products to measure parts. Aerospace, defense, auto, medical, manufacturing etc. I hope I never have to look for another job. 17 more years unless they raise the retirement age

 

[Faun]

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

You're joking, right? If you are that clueless, how can you make any posts on a thread about economics?

Lemme guess.... you're of the ilk who believe ad hominem really is a substantive substitute for actual argument?

Anything but answer the question, right?

Since you failed there, maybe you can take a stab at ..... prove that most of the 12 million people added to the 'not in labor force' group since Obama's did so for reasons other than choice....

I answered that question.

Ahh, the ever popular declaration of answering when you didn't.

All you said was millions of 16 year olds turn 16. That doesn't answer the question. And a higher percentage of young (65-69) baby boomers are working than 16-17 year olds. More Baby Boomers are retiring than 16 year olds are going to work.

I sincerely doubt that.....with the shitty buying power of this fiat currency, more and more "baby boomers" are staying in the workforce because they can't count on what they have saved. I don't give a shit what your alleged stats show. I also know that on the rare occasion that I eat at a fast food joint, I can count on one hand with fingers to spare as to how many teenagers are working there. Life must be surreal with them rose colored glasses on...where might I buy a pair?

You can doubt them all you want ... my alleged stats come from the BLS...

Employment Level - 16-17 yrs.
Population Level - 16-17 yrs.
Employment Level - 65-69 yrs.
Population Level - 65-69 yrs.

And I hate to break the news to ya -- but your personal anecdotal evidence is no match for any one of the numerous studies which attribute as much as half of the decline in the labor force participation rate to retiring baby boomers.

 

[rdean]

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers. He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.

Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.

It isn't true. All that nonsense are the excuses that Barack Obama's supporters have come up with to explain his failures as President. This is the man who appointed Jeffrey Immelt...the CEO of General Electric...to be his "Jobs Czar" when it was General Electric that was one of the biggest exporters of jobs to China! That's how clueless Barry is...and how brainwashed you are for not seeing it. This is the man who's Presidency began with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. What did he give us with all that power? ObamaCare...the Obama Stimulus...AND A WHOLE LOT OF EXCUSES!

Look at what Bush and the GOP left us and look at where we are now and you call that failure? You must be delusional. What else could it be?

Why won't the GOP invite Bush to their convention?

 

[Dale Smith]

You're joking, right? If you are that clueless, how can you make any posts on a thread about economics?

Lemme guess.... you're of the ilk who believe ad hominem really is a substantive substitute for actual argument?

Anything but answer the question, right?

Since you failed there, maybe you can take a stab at ..... prove that most of the 12 million people added to the 'not in labor force' group since Obama's did so for reasons other than choice....

I answered that question.

Ahh, the ever popular declaration of answering when you didn't.

All you said was millions of 16 year olds turn 16. That doesn't answer the question. And a higher percentage of young (65-69) baby boomers are working than 16-17 year olds. More Baby Boomers are retiring than 16 year olds are going to work.

I sincerely doubt that.....with the shitty buying power of this fiat currency, more and more "baby boomers" are staying in the workforce because they can't count on what they have saved. I don't give a shit what your alleged stats show. I also know that on the rare occasion that I eat at a fast food joint, I can count on one hand with fingers to spare as to how many teenagers are working there. Life must be surreal with them rose colored glasses on...where might I buy a pair?

You can doubt them all you want ... my alleged stats come from the BLS...

Employment Level - 16-17 yrs.
Population Level - 16-17 yrs.
Employment Level - 65-69 yrs.
Population Level - 65-69 yrs.

And I hate to break the news to ya -- but your personal anecdotal evidence is no match for any one of the numerous studies which attribute as much as half of the decline in the labor force participation rate to retiring baby boomers.

Keep on believing that things are looking up and that the average Joe is just one more election cycle away from prosperity. I am in the real world, I see the real world. I was in Detroit, Michigan from January of 2013 to July of 2015 and I never saw a ******* thing get better for those people there. I came back to Dallas Texas and I see the cracks in the economy and friends of mine hoping to get even so much as part-time gig at Home Depot or Lowes and it's much worse than when I left in 2013. I am here in Florida where there is a HUGE divide between the haves and the have nots and if you are a "have" you are gonna pay through the nose and this system will drain you for every dime they can......it is ******* insane....but morons like you act like we are sitting in high cotton. You must be doing coke....no one could have the optimistic attitude that you have concerning the condition of this country unless they were on some kind of drug....seriously.

Studies? Have these "professionals" go out into the real world instead of crunching numbers this corporate "gubermint" gives them in order to paint a rosy picture that doesn't ******* exist in the real world

 

[Dale Smith]

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers. He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.

Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.

It isn't true. All that nonsense are the excuses that Barack Obama's supporters have come up with to explain his failures as President. This is the man who appointed Jeffrey Immelt...the CEO of General Electric...to be his "Jobs Czar" when it was General Electric that was one of the biggest exporters of jobs to China! That's how clueless Barry is...and how brainwashed you are for not seeing it. This is the man who's Presidency began with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. What did he give us with all that power? ObamaCare...the Obama Stimulus...AND A WHOLE LOT OF EXCUSES!

Look at what Bush and the GOP left us and look at where we are now and you call that failure? You must be delusional. What else could it be?

Why won't the GOP invite Bush to their convention?

Politics is nothing but theater because the bankers that pulled the rug out from under the economy are the ones that call the shots and the ones that prospered from our pain...but just so I can bust on you...I will play your little game. Leftards controlled both Houses of Congress the last two years of Bushpuppet's term. They gave Bushpuppet every dime he asked for to continue the raping, pillaging and plundering of Iraq while attaching pork for their constituents in each and every funding bill that they signed off on. None of them gave a shit about the ever growing bubble and neither party gave so much as a fly's fart about the GSE that was Fannie and Freddie because hey, if it fails? No sweat off of their ass...they will simply send the bill to us....which they did. Neither party gives a flying **** about you.....those like you are just useful idiots. You wave your little rainbow colored leftard flag while never bothering to look around you. You are the biggest "buck passing" troll on this site. You are so ******* blinded by ideology that Barrypuppet could sexually assault someone for the whole world to see and you would swear up and down that it was a neocon plot. Anyone that takes your rants seriously is just as ignorant as you are........carry on, "comrade".....

 

[Rshermr]

Well, for starters...we need to gradually raise interest rates to something sane. I say that for two reasons. First of all it will give us a real idea of how strong the economy really is...but more importantly...if we do have another financial crisis we'll have that tool (lowering interest rates) to combat it. As it stands right now...if we have another recession...our "quiver" of economic arrows to address that is basically empty. All we've done for the past eight years is artificially prop up the stock market which allowed wealthy people who had credit to invest with to make a fortune. You want to know why there is such "inequality" between the wealthy and the Lower Class? It's because of things like what the Fed has done with interest rates. Poor people didn't gain from the stock market rebound...wealthy people sure as heck did!

Ummm... what "quivers" did Obama have when he came into office in 2009?

Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others. Reagan for instance. He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down. Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years. He's kept interest rates at almost zero. Why? Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money. He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates. Why? Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting. He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard. He does EASY. Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

Okay.

Reagan's GDP his last year in office was 7

Reagan's Unemployment rate was 5.5%, down from a maximum of 9.7%

Labor Participation Rate was 65.8% in April of 1988 and it is 63.0% under the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama.

Any way you want to describe it, President Obama's economy is another Carter malaise compared to that of President Reagan.

More?

How about some truth:
GDP his last year was not 7, it was, of course, $8.9 Billion.
Reagans maximum unemployment rate was 10.8%, second highest in US history.
His labor participation rate ranged from 64.1% to 66.4%.
President Reagan did not have a near depression, and enter the term with the previous president loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.
Ron Reagan, after his great tax decrease in 1981, achieved his record unemployment level of 10.8%. He then acted like an actual democrat, raising taxes 11 times, using that revenue to spend stimulatively to the point that he nearly tripled the national debt. He actually spent more than all the previous presidents in US History. And, during that period of tax and spend, he achieved an economy nearly as good as that of President Clinton.
Now, that, me boy, is the honest truth.

 

[Oldstyle]

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers. He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.

Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.

It isn't true. All that nonsense are the excuses that Barack Obama's supporters have come up with to explain his failures as President. This is the man who appointed Jeffrey Immelt...the CEO of General Electric...to be his "Jobs Czar" when it was General Electric that was one of the biggest exporters of jobs to China! That's how clueless Barry is...and how brainwashed you are for not seeing it. This is the man who's Presidency began with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. What did he give us with all that power? ObamaCare...the Obama Stimulus...AND A WHOLE LOT OF EXCUSES!

Look at what Bush and the GOP left us and look at where we are now and you call that failure? You must be delusional. What else could it be?

Why won't the GOP invite Bush to their convention?

What's amusing, R-Derp...is that you honestly believe that Obama's stewardship of the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression is a plus for Barry! Where we are now is a testament to the strength of the American economy not to Barack Obama's fiscal policies. Our economy has managed to come back DESPITE having a President who is utterly clueless about job creation, economics in general and hasn't had a plan to create jobs or grow the economy since Larry Summers left six years ago!

 

[Dale Smith]

Ummm... what "quivers" did Obama have when he came into office in 2009?

Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others. Reagan for instance. He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down. Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years. He's kept interest rates at almost zero. Why? Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money. He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates. Why? Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting. He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard. He does EASY. Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

Okay.

Reagan's GDP his last year in office was 7

Reagan's Unemployment rate was 5.5%, down from a maximum of 9.7%

Labor Participation Rate was 65.8% in April of 1988 and it is 63.0% under the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama.

Any way you want to describe it, President Obama's economy is another Carter malaise compared to that of President Reagan.

More?

How about some truth:
GDP his last year was not 7, it was, of course, $8.9 Billion.
Reagans maximum unemployment rate was 10.8%, second highest in US history.
His labor participation rate ranged from 64.1% to 66.4%.
President Reagan did not have a near depression, and enter the term with the previous president loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.
Ron Reagan, after his great tax decrease in 1981, achieved his record unemployment level of 10.8%. He then acted like an actual democrat, raising taxes 11 times, using that revenue to spend stimulatively to the point that he nearly tripled the national debt. He actually spent more than all the previous presidents in US History. And, during that period of tax and spend, he achieved an economy nearly as good as that of President Clinton.
Now, that, me boy, is the honest truth.

Hey, moron......income taxes does not go towards funding this corporate entity that is USA.INC, it goes towards paying interest to the Fed bankers for the privilege of using a fiat currency extended by credit that they pull out of thin air. USA.INC has always had their own source of revenue on and off the books from which to draw from. I guess you have no clue as to what the CAFR is.........no wonder you avoid my posts....you just keep getting your ass thoroughly kicked....(snicker)

 

[Oldstyle]

That's right.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

You gotta stop. Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party.

"...Old and fat gay Jew..." Really, R-Derp? It's always interesting when one of you "tolerant" liberals pulls back the curtain and reveals your real feelings about homosexuals and Jews.

I may call them faggots but I want them to be able to get married, share social security with their spouses, adopt, not get fired for being gay.

We may make an occasional jew or gay joke but that doesn't make us as bad as you not even close.

Since I also want them to be able to get married and have the same rights as everyone else...but I don't tell "jew or gay" jokes or refer to them as "faggots"...you'll have to explain how it is that I'm worse than you!

To steal a line from Love Story...it seems that being a Progressive means never having to say you're sorry even when you're a homophobic anti Semite.

I may not be better than you. I'm just better than all the Republicans you side with.

There's no "may" about it, Sealy! You're worse than me...you simply refuse to admit it.