Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Do you really think it's Obama's fault? Maybe it's Bigbird's fault.
excon
|
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Do you really think it's Obama's fault? Maybe it's Bigbird's fault.
excon
Pointing out where I blamed Obama for losing that $1.2 billion would be a good start.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Well, there were a few posts I didn't read.. Isn't this about Obama? Why are you talking about Corzine? Here, have a hit of this.. Then we'll be on the same page..
excon
Don't tempt me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Obama has 5 million jobs created in less than 4 years
A big(pathetic) 114,000 jobs added this month . That added to the fact that over 1.1 million people left the labor force this year has brought the magic unemployment number down below that 8% threshold . Why is that number significant ? Because Presidents who preside over an economy that is riding an 8% unemployment rate don't get re-elected .Quote:
What a sham ! The recovery under his watch has been weak at best and is underperforming all historic comparisons .
So Obama told the Labor Dept to sharpen their # 2 Ticonderogas and make the numbers favorable for his chances(from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent).
James Pethokoukis nails it :
The sickly, stagnant September jobs report | AEIdeasQuote:
Only in an era of depressingly diminished expectations could the September jobs report be called a good one. It really isn’t. Not at all...
Yes, the U-3 unemployment rate fell to 7.8%, the first time it has been below 8% since January 2009. But that’s only due to a flood of 582,000 part-time jobs...
Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by just 1.8 percent. When you take inflation into account, wages are flat to down...
The broader U-6 rate — which takes into account part-time workers who want full-time work and lots of discouraged workers who’ve given up looking — stayed unchanged at 14.7%. That’s a better gauge of the true unemployment rate and state of the American labor market.
The shrunken workforce remains shrunken. If the labor force participation rate was the same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%. If the participation rate had just stayed steady since the start of the year, the unemployment rate would be 8.4% vs. 8.3%...
The 114,000 jobs created would have been a good number … but for 1962, not 2012. The U.S. economy needs 2-3 times that number every month to close the jobs gap (which is the number of jobs that the U.S. economy needs to create in order to return to pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who enter the labor force each month.)...
We are still on pace to create fewer jobs this year than last year.
I knew as soon as I heard the guy announce it that something was screwy. CNBC and CNN both have said something isn't right about this jobs report.
Also added to the fact that the President strong armed the Defense contractors to delay pink slips until after the election .
Hello again,
Boy, since Romny's win, I thought the desperation was gone.. No, huh? First the polls are rigged and now the jobs report...
You guys are silly.
excon
Dude, it's math. His numbers don't add up.
But that's the same issue with Romney's plan - surely you need to take Romney to task for that too, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Romney isn't president, he isn't the one in charge of bogus official statistics. Try and keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
And if you mean the bogus $5 trillion tax cut that team Obama keeps lying about his campaign spokeschick admitted it was bogus to CNN.
Good job Erin Burnett. See how that works when the media does their job? A little bit of the truth gets out.Quote:
BURNETT: Let me play this one and then get your reaction.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When I got on to the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn’t know anything about that.
BURNETT: Stephanie, let me ask you about that. Because here at CNN, we fact checked that, that $5 trillion in tax cuts and we’ve come and said that’s not true. Mitt Romney has not promised that. because he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions. So his tax cut wouldn’t be anywhere near that size.
CUTTER: So you’re disputing the size of the tax cut? Or are you disputing also how he’s going to pay for it?
BURNETT: We’re disputing the size.
CUTTER: Erin, he has campaigned on lowering tax rates by 20% for everybody, including those in the top 1%. That was one of the main selling points in the Republican primary.
BURNETT: So you’re saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right?
CUTTER: It’s a $5 trillion tab.
BURNETT: But when he closes deductions he won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.
CUTTER: Well with, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close.
So the presidential hopeful who wants to get elected can say what he wants without being fact-checked? I'll never understand fanatic ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I just gave you your fact check above. Try and keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It said nothing about Romney's numbers not adding up.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
How come you keep saying "try to keep up"? What's that supposed to mean when consistently dodge questions?
Hello again,
Let me do some math here... You know basic stuff. Addition, subtraction.. Maybe a little multiplication...
Let's say you're an average worker with an average mortgage.. For simplicity sake, let's say you make about $50k. Your mortgage is $150k. Your present tax rate is 25%. Your monthly payment is $1,000. Your mortgage deduction brings your taxable income down to $38k, and your tax due would be $9,500. If you rate was dropped 20%, and you no longer have a mortgage deduction, your taxable income is still $50k, and your tax would $10,000.
That's $500 MORE you'd have to pay under Romney's plan. It looks like a tax INCREASE to me for the middle class.. If he closes more loopholes, the middle class will pay even MORE.
But, it's just numbers... How important are they?
excon
I don't recall Romney saying he'd target the mortgage deduction. That is more Dem spin without evidence.
Me ? I would grandfather the deduction out ;and most others in favor of lower flatter rates . But I isn't Romney .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3290521Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Team Obama says his numbers don't add up. Until today when his spokeschick admitted the charge was bogus. Got it now?
More on the jobs report...
Now wonder median income fell by $4000, everyone has a McJob now...Quote:
During the robust Reagan jobs recovery in the 1980s, liberals regularly dismissed good news by attributing it to the creation of “McJobs.” So it’s interesting to see liberals celebrating the September jobs report, in which the headline unemployment figure fell to 7.8 percent, largely because of an increase in Americans settling for low paying part-time jobs.
Once a month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports two main sets of employment numbers. Under one measure, based on a survey of employers, the economy added 114,000 jobs in September. Under another measure, based on a smaller survey of households, the economy added 873,000. But a more detailed look at these numbers shows that 572,000 — or about 67 percent — of the reported job gains that contributed to the reduction in the unemployment rate came from workers who had to settle for part time work. BLS explains that, “The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.” This is why a broader measure of unemployment, which takes into account those who were forced to accept inferior jobs, remained flat at 14.7 percent.
This report is part of a broader trend that we’ve seen over the past few years, in which job gains have been concentrated in lower-wage positions. And this isn’t just spin from the Romney campaign. Over the summer, the liberal National Employment Law Project released a report that was highlighted in the Atlantic, which focused on this trend. The report found that:
– Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.
– Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
This is illustrated by the NELP chart above. Though Obama has touted modest job gains during the recovery as evidence things are getting better, looking merely at the headline jobs and unemployment number obscures the fact that the middle class has still struggled to find quality jobs, while more Americans are settling for lower-paying work.
What are the tax deductions, who are they for, what are the deductions and which loopholes will be closed?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What are Obama's specifics for a 2nd term?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I don't think the specific deductions are the big point. The additional revenues from the economic growth will negate any concern about any losses from the rate reductions .
That's a foreign concept tom, increased growth leading to more revenue for everyone including the government.
Yeah I know . Even though there is a proven track record from JFK ,Reagan ,and GW Bush ,that supply side cuts stimulate the economy ,they don't believe the evidence.
Any deficit increases from those eras can be directly linked to uncontrolled spending ;not the tax cuts.
The latest debate theory, Romney cheated.
"Hankygate."Quote:
There is a scandal brewing that suggests that Mitt Romney used crib notes for the debate. This is of course, C-H-E-A-T-I-N-G! and would be awful if true.
I believe the candidates are only supposed to have a blank piece of paper (pad) and a pen at the podium, provided by the CPD. No notes, this isn't "open book."
In a move that might remind many of Joe Niekro 's flying emery board Romney seems to have gotten caught taking notes from his pocket and later unfolding it on the podium.
Watch Romney's right hand, very early in the video starting at 0:00:09
Mitt takes something out of his pocket and tosses it on the podium. It seems as if he maybe using his body to try and screen the movement. It's very fast, the whole thing is over by 0:00:12
I would think that ex, the business owner, would understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Can you specifically define that uncontrolled spending for us please? You may exclude tax cuts for corporations if that helps you, or funding for all the bubbles and crashes that they went through, and the business cycle as well. So what's left? Military? Wars? Booze/women? What are those uncontrolled spending by JFK. Reagan, and Bush?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah I know . Even though there is a proven track record from JFK ,Reagan ,and GW Bush ,that supply side cuts stimulate the economy ,they don't believe the evidence.
Any deficit increases from those eras can be directly linked to uncontrolled spending ;not the tax cuts.
Deflect, deflect, deflect... NEVER directly answer a question.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nope, just waiting for you to answer anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Issues - An economy built to last -- Barack ObamaQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Where are Romney's specifics?
This one I believe... Obama sucked because he wasn't allowed to use TOTUS.
Hello again, Steve:
Obama sucked because he's a lousy debater. But, he's a GOOD campaigner and Romney isn't.. That's why he's going to WIN.
excon
That, and his base is clueless.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't know... We don't have congressmen who think slavery was a blessing for black people.. And, we don't have congressmen who think the Big Bang and evolution are 'Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell'.
But YOU do.
excon
Yup, that is indeed how it seems the right perceives anyone who does not share their ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Is that a straw argument, or a brain fart?
Man I hope romney wins obamas a comunist and a lier and doesn't eserve another term
Can you define communism?Quote:
Originally Posted by eman134
What does a spelling challenged 14 year old know about communism?? Or his own government for that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by eman134
Well Tal he knows what he has been taught, something about a system that is the only way and a government that is the only way and that despite his personal challenges he is better than anyoneelse. Lots of people confuse socialism with communism, the difference is really in the degree of control over the individual. You can have state owned enterprise without controlling the individual. I think the Chinese have learned this lesson well even if it took forty yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:43 PM. |