May Unemployment Rises to 9.1%

[CycloWizard]

Not at all. I suspect that they really didn't realize how bad it might get, and that *even if they did* they needed to shore up confidence by taking the optimistic projections rather than the the pessimistic ones. As we can deduce from the past, recession becomes depression when confidence is lost

That's the same damn thing. If someone submitted an economics article and used the lower confidence interval as their "prediction" rather than the actual model prediction, the paper would never get published because that's not how it works. It's a lie, statistical manipulation, whatever you want to call it - it's dishonest and it's BS. So either Obama had no idea what he was doing, or he's a lying POS. I can't blame him for not knowing, but if you need to repeatedly assert your mantra that he is omniscient, you have to accept that the corollary to your position is that he's a lying douchebag.

I think the whole song and dance about "first cut spending, then we'll talk about taxes" is hogwash, simply because of the way Repub leaders deal with the world. If we cut spending, they'll declare victory & dig in their heels on taxes.

When was the last time Repubs allowed temporary top tier tax cuts to expire or top tier taxes to be raised when it was in their power to do otherwise? 1993?

That has nothing to do with my post, but thanks anyway.

 

[chucky2]

And there we have the biggest fear of the right. That somehow the economy will get better without them fucking around with it. That somehow the church of trickle down will be forever proven false. Then where will you have your belief structure be? Of course the economy getting better would be the worst possible thing because a black guy might get reelected. The horrors!

Your posts of stupidity continue. The economy isn't going to get better without people - whoever they may be - "Fing with it". How do you think year after year multi-Trillion budget deficits and the multi-multi-Trillion national debt is going to magically right itself w/o politicians doing what needs to be done and fixing it (as only they can, as they control the system that collects the money, prints the money, and most importantly, spends the money)?

Oh little looney Lib, none of that is going to fix itself.

I could give two sh1ts if trickle down or any other economic theory is proven true, false, or inconsequential. Personally I think any theory is basically BS in Reality, because while these super smart economic guys practice theory, the real world practices Reality. You can make all the studies, theory, and whatever the F else you want up, but in Realityland, everything will not work as ones theory presumes. So it doesn't really matter in the end who was right or wrong, what matters is we've got balanced budgets and a national debt that doesn't sink us entirely.

And dumb dumb, the "black guy" (who's half white) is going to get re-elected anyways, regardless if the economy is sh1t or not, it's basically a given. O'Bummer is your O'Bummer, not mine. I'm really disappointed actually that the Dem's didn't pick up even more seats in 2010...now we've got a stalemate, the worst thing. THe best thing that could have happened was for the Dem's to get an even better supermajority, that way they could have passed literally whatevertheF they wanted. The sooner one party destroys this country the better, then we can start over.

Now we're going to rot that much longer, and dumbF's like you want to drag it out with your "Raise taxes, Raise spending!" attitude. Super. How about you sell everything you own, donate that $ to the Gov., put your money where you mouth is. I'll wait to sign up for your increased taxation plan until I see some semblance of sanity from the Gov, I won't hold my breath though...

 

[JSt0rm]

dont expect me to read that ramble lmao

 

[KlokWyze]

dont expect me to read that ramble lmao

You throw out a lot of ramble. Pretty hypocritical for you to not respond adequately. :hmm:

 

[JSt0rm]

You throw out a lot of ramble. Pretty hypocritical for you to not respond adequately. :hmm:

I dont throw out walls of text.

 

[BeauJangles]

I dont throw out walls of text.

Four paragraphs and ~30 sentences is too much for you to read? Wow.

 

[Jhhnn]

Four paragraphs and ~30 sentences is too much for you to read? Wow.

when it's empty headed emotionally loaded raving like you offered, just a few words get the message across. No need to be verbose.

 

[Throckmorton]

Man, the country is seriously fucked. Apparently a large chunk of the population thinks you stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment by cutting spending and laying people off...


Kind of like how outsourcing jobs creates jobs, and like how tax cuts for the rich cause wealth to trickle down on the poor.

Just more of the same rightwing fail. The one equivalent I can think of on the left is the belief that reducing troop levels reduces casualties.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Man, the country is seriously fucked. Apparently a large chunk of the population thinks you stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment by cutting spending and laying people off...


Kind of like how outsourcing jobs creates jobs, and like how tax cuts for the rich cause wealth to trickle down on the poor.

Just more of the same rightwing fail. The one equivalent I can think of on the left is the belief that reducing troop levels reduces casualties.

I can't wait for a republican to be asked in a debate. How will cutting government spending (reducing headcounts) improve he unemployment picture?

 

[1prophet]

You guys do realize highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) had the highest marginal tax rates, 70 to 92 percent, right? Almost debt free too.

Those tax rates are misleading because the very rich back then paid very little tax thanks to all the loopholes.

The AMT was enacted by the Tax Reform Act of 1969[15] and went into effect in 1970. Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr prompted the enactment action with an announcement that 155 high-income households had not paid a dime of federal income taxes.[16] The households had taken advantage of so many tax benefits and deductions that reduced their tax liabilities to zero.[17] Congress responded by creating an add-on tax on high-income households, equal to 10% of the sum of tax preferences in excess of $30,000 plus the taxpayer’s regular tax liability.[18]
The explanation of the 1969 Act prepared by Congress's Staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation described the reason for the AMT as follows:

"The prior treatment imposed no limit on the amount of income which an individual or corporation could exclude from tax as the result of various tax preferences. As a result, there were large variations in the tax burdens placed on individuals or corporations with similar economic incomes, depending upon the size of their preference income. In general, those individual or corporate taxpayers who received the bulk of their income from personal services or manufacturing were taxed at relatively higher tax rates than others. On the other hand, individuals or corporations which received the bulk of their income from such sources as capital gains or were in a position to benefit from net lease arrangements, from accelerated depreciation on real estate, from percentage depletion, or from other tax-preferred activities tended to pay relatively low rates of tax. In fact, many individuals with high incomes who could benefit from these provisions paid lower effective rates of tax than many individuals with modest incomes. In extreme cases, individuals enjoyed large economic incomes without paying any tax at all. This was true for example in the case of 154 returns in 1966 with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 a year (apart from those with income exclusions which do not show on the returns filed). Similarly, a number of large corporations paid either no tax at all or taxes which represented very low effective rates."[19]​

 

[Jhhnn]

I can't wait for a republican to be asked in a debate. How will cutting government spending (reducing headcounts) improve he unemployment picture?

They'll probably counter that we need to reduce the govt that's strangling sacred private enterprise so that we can cut taxes for the pitiful rich so that they'll be able to act as "Job Creators!"

And that everybody needs to "sacrifice" & "tighten their belts" except for the rich, because all this "government waste" & "uncertainty" is "bad for business" making for a '"bad investment climate".

Not that any of it is true, or that much of it matters at all, but their base will be down on their knees to receive it faster than a cheap hooker jumps on a $50 bill...

Kee-rist. We're talking about people who think that Sarah! actually makes sense... and who are completely out of their anti-tax minds.

 

[ShawnD1]

I can't wait for a republican to be asked in a debate. How will cutting government spending (reducing headcounts) improve he unemployment picture?

Republicans and democrats just have different ideas on how to stimulate things. Democrats want to give money to people so they can sit around and do nothing while republicans want people to build a giant army that sits around and does nothing. If you suggest something like improving the roads in shitty parts of town, both parties label it wasteful spending.

 

[chucky2]

Well, one side hires overpaid workers - who just happen to donate to their campaigns in overwhelming numbers - to fix the road in the most shitty fashion, so the same overpaid workers who donate to their campaigns can fix it again 3 years later, and then gets uppity when suggesting that possibly this is a bad idea and that maybe we shouldn't keep spending money by the Chinese superfreighter load...

...the other side does nothing to make it extremely painful for their rich buddies who are sending the low to mid paying blue collar jobs overseas so they can charge exactly the same for <insert something here> and rake in the profits hand over fist.

Which one is worse is really up for grabs, personally, I think both sides need to be minigun'd into a pink mist, then we can start over with something somewhat less corrupt.

 

[Jhhnn]

Those tax rates are misleading because the very rich back then paid very little tax thanks to all the loopholes.

Those at the top nonetheless paid much higher federal tax rates prior to Reagan than they do today, and you have no idea who's actually affected by AMT. It's not extremely high earners, at all-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

Read it until your eyes glaze over, but the modern AMT affects mostly upper middle class earners who live in high tax states, own homes, & have children, not the truly wealthy.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The current AMT on LTCG's is the same as the regular tax rate, btw- 15%, which is where ultra high earners derive the greatest part of their income.

 

[Jhhnn]

Republicans and democrats just have different ideas on how to stimulate things. Democrats want to give money to people so they can sit around and do nothing while republicans want people to build a giant army that sits around and does nothing. If you suggest something like improving the roads in shitty parts of town, both parties label it wasteful spending.

False attribution is unbecoming on you. Dems want to spend money on jobs of damned near any sort, even ones that Repubs see as useless. It's all "work" that generates incomes supporting the general economy nonetheless.

Alternatively, this is how anti-tax mowrons to the south of Denver are dealing with it. It's the Republican way-

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

 

[JSt0rm]

False attribution is unbecoming on you. Dems want to spend money on jobs of damned near any sort, even ones that Repubs see as useless. It's all "work" that generates incomes supporting the general economy nonetheless.

Alternatively, this is how anti-tax mowrons to the south of Denver are dealing with it. It's the Republican way-

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

lmao. A penny saved is a penny earned!

 

[CycloWizard]

Man, the country is seriously fucked. Apparently a large chunk of the population thinks you stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment by cutting spending and laying people off...


Kind of like how outsourcing jobs creates jobs, and like how tax cuts for the rich cause wealth to trickle down on the poor.

Just more of the same rightwing fail. The one equivalent I can think of on the left is the belief that reducing troop levels reduces casualties.

Who do you think is footing the bill for stimulus and government employment? The answer, of course, is everyone else.

 

[wuliheron]

lmao. A penny saved is a penny earned!

Cowboys just love ghost towns, outlaws, and pissing off the porch.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

False attribution is unbecoming on you. Dems want to spend money on jobs of damned near any sort, even ones that Repubs see as useless. It's all "work" that generates incomes supporting the general economy nonetheless.

Alternatively, this is how anti-tax mowrons to the south of Denver are dealing with it. It's the Republican way-

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

Cuzz if the government were to hire everyone (even though government itself is broke) that would be wonderful! We could create damn near 100&#37; employment that way right? I bet wouldn't even effect our economy in a negative way.

LOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOL!!!

 

[JSt0rm]

Cuzz if the government were to hire everyone (even though government itself is broke) that would be wonderful! We could create damn near 100% employment that way right? I bet wouldn't even effect our economy in a negative way.

LOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOL!!!

dur. Hiring basic city workers is the same as hiring everyone on da planet.

 

[randomrogue]

Unemployment numbers are controversial. I'm pretty sure they've changed the way they report them several times. People that aren't working but aren't looking for work are not considered unemployed. People that quit their jobs are not considered unemployed. Given up on finding a job and back in school? You're not unemployed. Discouraged workers who have given up on finding work are not counted. Now it doesn't matter what you think of this but clearly there are a lot of people who are unemployed and are not being counted.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, one side hires overpaid workers - who just happen to donate to their campaigns in overwhelming numbers - to fix the road in the most shitty fashion, so the same overpaid workers who donate to their campaigns can fix it again 3 years later, and then gets uppity when suggesting that possibly this is a bad idea and that maybe we shouldn't keep spending money by the Chinese superfreighter load...

...the other side does nothing to make it extremely painful for their rich buddies who are sending the low to mid paying blue collar jobs overseas so they can charge exactly the same for <insert something here> and rake in the profits hand over fist.

Which one is worse is really up for grabs, personally, I think both sides need to be minigun'd into a pink mist, then we can start over with something somewhat less corrupt.

As usual, Righties seem to covet middle incomes of people who actually work, make false attributions in that regard, while ignoring the changes in income distribution that define our current malaise.

30 years of non-trickledown Reaganomics has shifted income radically to the top. The top 1% now takes more than twice the share of taxable national income, >20% vs <9% than they did in 1980. The top .1% takes half of that. Do they work more than twice as hard?

Project those trends 30 years into the future- what's left for working America?

Middle income families actually spend the vast majority of what they earn, stimulating commerce. Extremely high earners do not. Money has rapidly decreasing marginal utility for tippytop earners, who spend little more making $20M/yr than when they make $10M/yr. Their incomes act as a parasitic drain on the general economy at their current income & taxation levels. It's a black hole as it relates to the economy the rest of us live in. Money, liquidity, goes in and disappears, either into puffed up equity "values" or offshore ventures. It simply doesn't circulate in ways that current economic models describe.

And they've found ways to take in enormous profits employing even fewer Americans, putting the lie to what they espouse to be true. Corporate America is awash in cash reserves & top earners enjoy the lowest effective tax rates of any of the first world's Rich. Yet U3 hovers at 9%, and U6, a more comprehensive measure of working America's misery hovers at nearly twice that.

But much of the Repub base still believes in a model and a theory that demonstrably fails to deliver to an ever larger number of people in this country, a model that has failed us miserably. A look at their presidential contender field finds them all trying to sell us the same non-share in the "Ownership Society" as always, just with even less for the vast majority of us. Cut jobs to create jobs, and cut top tier taxes to reduce federal deficits. Cut benefits so we'll all be better off. Cut, cut, cut- everything but the take home earnings of the wealthiest and the military that protects their increasingly offshore investments.

Unsurprisingly, it still sells, even as it's falling down around us. It's just been slowed to an ever increasing squeeze rather than something like 1929, which was like having a building fall on the middle class. Current methods are actually more effective, allowing more wiggle room for denial. I mean, it's really not that bad, right? So feel free to vote for people who make you feel good, confirm your bias, divide and conquer working America on the basis of self righteous greed & the worship of great wealth.

 

[uclaLabrat]

As usual, Righties seem to covet middle incomes of people who actually work, make false attributions in that regard, while ignoring the changes in income distribution that define our current malaise.

30 years of non-trickledown Reaganomics has shifted income radically to the top. The top 1% now takes more than twice the share of taxable national income, >20% vs <9% than they did in 1980. The top .1% takes half of that. Do they work more than twice as hard?

Project those trends 30 years into the future- what's left for working America?

Middle income families actually spend the vast majority of what they earn, stimulating commerce. Extremely high earners do not. Money has rapidly decreasing marginal utility for tippytop earners, who spend little more making $20M/yr than when they make $10M/yr. Their incomes act as a parasitic drain on the general economy at their current income & taxation levels. It's a black hole as it relates to the economy the rest of us live in. Money, liquidity, goes in and disappears, either into puffed up equity "values" or offshore ventures. It simply doesn't circulate in ways that current economic models describe.

And they've found ways to take in enormous profits employing even fewer Americans, putting the lie to what they espouse to be true. Corporate America is awash in cash reserves & top earners enjoy the lowest effective tax rates of any of the first world's Rich. Yet U3 hovers at 9%, and U6, a more comprehensive measure of working America's misery hovers at nearly twice that.

But much of the Repub base still believes in a model and a theory that demonstrably fails to deliver to an ever larger number of people in this country, a model that has failed us miserably. A look at their presidential contender field finds them all trying to sell us the same non-share in the "Ownership Society" as always, just with even less for the vast majority of us. Cut jobs to create jobs, and cut top tier taxes to reduce federal deficits. Cut benefits so we'll all be better off. Cut, cut, cut- everything but the take home earnings of the wealthiest and the military that protects their increasingly offshore investments.

Unsurprisingly, it still sells, even as it's falling down around us. It's just been slowed to an ever increasing squeeze rather than something like 1929, which was like having a building fall on the middle class. Current methods are actually more effective, allowing more wiggle room for denial. I mean, it's really not that bad, right? So feel free to vote for people who make you feel good, confirm your bias, divide and conquer working America on the basis of self righteous greed & the worship of great wealth.

Holy shit. Someone gets it. Someone understands that the whole economy only works when money keeps flowing, and doesn't sit at the top.

"Liberals" (LULZ! I said the "L" word!) want the poor to have money because they're going to go out and spend it, which means the sales at the local grocery store go up, which means the manager gets a promotion, which means the stock of the company goes up and the whole world keeps on turning. Trickle down economics doesn't work, and it's retarded to think it does. Money flows from the bottom up, not the other way around. I don't understand what's so hard about this. If the poor keep going broke, and the rich keep shipping jobs overseas, eventually the lower tier has nothing.

Do you think millions of people are going to sit idly by and let themselves starve because they just weren't educated enough to find a job as a janitor? No, that's how revolutions get started.

I'm sick of these rich cheap bastards saying we need to get our hands out of their pockets, it's their money and they'll spend it how they want. This is a society, everyone has to pay their share, and they've been passing the buck for years now under the guise of "creating jobs", all the while they've been shipping jobs off to our competitors.

 

[chucky2]

As usual, I'll make whatever excuse I can to keep spending sh1tloads of money we don't have, and no poor people are on the hook for, to keep poor people employed on The Future's dime.

snip...

...the other side does nothing to make it extremely painful for their rich buddies who are sending the low to mid paying blue collar jobs overseas so they can charge exactly the same for <insert something here> and rake in the profits hand over fist.

Which one is worse is really up for grabs, personally, I think both sides need to be minigun'd into a pink mist, then we can start over with something somewhat less corrupt.

Why you replied to me with your post I have no idea...

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

snip

Do you think millions of people are going to sit idly by and let themselves starve because they just weren't educated enough to find a job as a janitor? No, that's how revolutions get started.

snip

Haha! Precisely! Exactly why the Elites keep bumping out UE to 99 weeks, 125 weeks, whatever it will be bumped out to again. They know what will happen if they keep it at a sane number.