posted July 22, 2011 05:27 PM            

What I posted about economic numbers, national debt numbers...UP, annual deficit numbers...UP and unemployment numbers...UP; all are a matter of record acoustic even Gross Domestic Product numbers..DOWN...and that's not spin.

But thanks for validating my comment...

"There's no happy faced spin leftists can put on O'Bomber's dismal failure which doesn't make leftists look utterly brainless."

posted July 22, 2011 06:31 PM            

quote:

---

What I posted about economic numbers, national debt numbers...UP, annual deficit numbers...UP and unemployment numbers...UP; all are a matter of record acoustic even Gross Domestic Product numbers..DOWN...and that's not spin.

---

Jwhop, you still lack nuance in virtually all of your thinking. National debt numbers...are those solely Obama's fault? Did he start the nation on it's deficit? Can he reasonably be said to have had the means of correcting it, particularly considering that Congress holds the purse strings? Unemployment numbers...are those solely Obama's fault? Once again, a rather emphatic NO. Was it Obama's fault that the stock market tanked on bad loans pushed by unregulated mortgage companies? No. Has Obama made it tougher on businesses during his tenure? You recently said that business leaders were accusing Obama of souring the business atmosphere. Wynn's company has made more during Obama years than ever before (even as reported by your favorite people over at Fox). The fact is that Obama has made it easier on big business and small business alike, AND business is rebounding. Employment isn't traditionally the first to bounce back from something like this. Business is.

Even the unevenness of our recovery is predictable. “Housing and employment come back much slower than equity and [gross domestic product],” Reinhart says. GDP usually falls for two years and then recovers. Equity can move even faster, which helps explain corporate America’s rapid recovery. But employment tends to fall for five years, and sometimes it never quite recovers. And housing? That’s usually a six-year slide. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/07/slow-to-spend.html

With a résumé that includes Wall Street (she was chief economist at Bear Stearns), policy (the International Monetary Fund), and academia (the University of Maryland), Reinhart is now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank. http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/05/pf/visionaries_carmen_reinhart.moneymag/index.htm

posted July 22, 2011 06:51 PM            

The fact is acoustic...that federal spending has skyrocketed under O'Bomber compared to Bush...about 25% more federal spending and in an economic recession where tax revenues are way down.

The fact is acoustic...that when Bush left office, unemployment was 7.6% and it's 9.2% today and has been as high as 10.1% under O'Bomber's mismanagement AND the latest unemployment number went UP not down.

The fact is acoustic...that O'Bomber and his minions told America that IF we spent about a Trillion dollars..with interest...on O'BomberStimulus, then unemployment wouldn't go above 8%.

The fact is acoustic...that the Gross Domestic Product has gone down..way down under O'Bomber's economic mismanagement. GDP in 2010 was only about 9 Billion more than it was in 2005 under Bush and way below 2006, 2007, 2008 under Bush.

This cannot be spun as "progress". It's straight "regression".

posted July 22, 2011 11:52 PM            

as far as i'm concerned, you can tax the richest because that's the only way you get them putting money into the economy where it can help the poorest, who spend EVERY PENNY just to get by, while the richest are supposedly sitting on their piles till they are GUARANTEED it is safe! do me a favour...they'd be a lot safer making sure the broke and disabled can keep buying dinner and paying rent, and making more money too.

as the joke goes, a poor man and a rich man were talking about the facts of life. the poor man complained that he spent half his income on food and the rich man said "that's where you're making your mistake! my food budget is only 5% of my income!"

posted July 23, 2011 11:22 AM            

The so called RICH top 10% of earners in America pay 70% of all income taxes in America NOW.

The bottom 47% of earners in America pay 0% of income taxes in America NOW...and, it's time these "bottom 47% of earners" start paying "Their Fair Share".

Yep, pay their "fair share"...since the Marxist, Socialist, Progressive whiners, screechers and shriekers want everyone..."to pay their fair share".

But, that's not what the whiners, screechers and shriekers really want.

What these bubble brained leftists really want is to punish success by stealing the fruits of their labor and productivity.

Randall is right. Socialists will never understand what makes economies bloom and flourish because they think all good things come from government.

Socialists think they can kill the goose which lays those golden eggs and still reach into the nest each day for another golden egg.

To paraphrase...Socialism is fine...until you run out of other people's money.

posted July 23, 2011 02:38 PM            

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

posted July 23, 2011 04:16 PM            

LABOR is not the capitalist or CEO, it is the working stiff and middle class employee. and i don't know why you can't get it into your head that the BOTTOM 47% DO pay taxes, as i pointed out in my own model on a couple of threads here lately.

the top 1% of the country OWN 40% of the country's wealth. why shouldn't they pay equivalent taxes??

the top 10% OWN that 70% too. why should THEY not pay taxes? because they can squirrel it away in some SOCIALIST tax haven perhaps? anyone know what kind of government switzerland has, by the way?

you guys have the robin hood syndrome in reverse, you think that if we just give enough to those that have, they will pass it on. except THEY, who still have enough to be more than comfortable, are SITTING on it. and have been since those infamous tax cuts came in, which is why the BOTTOM 90% have been watching their lifestyles and REAL INCOME dwindle over the past 10 years.

i am no socialist, though you both continue to deliberately miss the fact that socialism comes in many forms and most not particularly totalitarian or opressive,

AND i pay taxes EVEN when i am in the bottom 47%. and if 25K per year is not in the 47% then you are both ***** ' backsides.

however i am aware that a lot of our current joblessness is due to automation and cutting out the working class entirely. THIS is what the successful capitalist does with his money, as well as sending work to "business friendly" mexico. it may BE business friendly, but ask the working population there if they have seen the famous "trickle down" into THEIR economy...and why they KEEP risking their lives to work here - enabling them to feed their families...?

posted July 23, 2011 05:13 PM            

how DO you think richard branson came up in britain in the 70s when the taxes were so high and labour was in power, services were striking, the ira was striking, etc etc...

posted July 23, 2011 05:56 PM            

Jefferson thought working people shouldn't be taxed?

In the days of Thomas Jefferson there was no federal income tax or any other direct tax...except those apportioned among the various states.

There were consumption taxes...excise taxes, imposts and duties. YOU decided to pay the tax when YOU decided to purchase the products.

And, Jefferson wasn't talking about taking the bread from the mouth of LABOR...as you understand that to be "working people". Jefferson was talking about ALL citizens who labored in whatever their chosen profession happened to be.

Again, it's none of your business..or your little Marxist Socialist icon, O'Bomber's business, to decide who has enough or too much OR how they should spend or save their money and assets.

posted July 23, 2011 06:04 PM            

LABOR = WORKERS. NOT ceos or the 18th century equivalent. it always HAS meant WORK and WORKERS, not direction and owners.

and i know you think labour should not be allowed to club together to fight goliath, but guilds and unions have always existed to give the smaller men a little more clout by sticking together. WAY before capitalism even existed. OR socialism.

and just in case you haven't noticed, obama did not invent income tax. wouldn't it be great, yes, if only products and services were taxed, so the poor could NEVER afford to buy them. why do you think INCOME tax was invented? so CAPITALISTS could afford to price their wares to more people!!

i'm not deciding how much anyone should pay. just pointing out that the figures you mention are fair when measured against profits and income. and just think, the top 10% managed to amass their wealth DESPITE all those dastardly socialists in washington taxing the bejezus out of them. az IFF.

posted July 23, 2011 11:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
emitres, could you...would you flesh out your indictment..that I use "socialist" incorrectly..and that others have pointed out that glaring error?

Btw, Italy would be included in any list of Western Social Democracies.

---

i have - twice.. even supplied you with a fairly accurate description of what various forms there are to which you scoffed by stating " I don't rely on Wikipedia for my info "... i know kat has and i wouldn't be surprised if Acoustic has as well... but there is none so blind etc etc... and no Italy would NOT be included in any list of Western Social Democracies - Berlusconi is as capitalist as they get my friend...

posted July 24, 2011 08:33 AM            

The following CNN article..about that poll talks about that polls findings...but never once mentions that demoscats, Independents and Republicans have already expressed overwhelming approval of the Cut, Cap and Balance Republican Plan.

I can understand why leftist crazies at CNN...and elsewhere don't want to talk about poll results which threaten their political positions. But, in this same article, CNN launches into flat out lying.

Here it is:

"Some congressional Democrats appeared to be on the verge of open revolt against their own president Thursday night after hearing some of the details in the $3 trillion plan -a package many of them contend does not do nearly enough to ensure wealthier Americans share in the burden of stemming the tide of Washington's red ink."

If CNN and their birdbrained reporters, as well as the Congressional demoscats they cite don't know that the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes NOW and if they don't know the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes NOW then, they're far too stupid for anyone to give a rip about anything they say or even think. Further, those Congressional demoscat they cite are far too braindead to be representing anyone.

The alternative view is that there are no journalists at CNN, that they've abandoned the job of reporting the news..(REPORTING) and that they're a bunch of political activists and propaganda artists posing as journalists.

The NEWS in this CNN poll is that demoscats, Independents and Republicans prefer and approve of the Republican House Plan to Cut, Cap and Balance the federal budget of the United States by a 66% majority.

That's the NEWS in this CNN poll and that's not so much as mentioned once in the CNN article...by the CNN "Political Unit".
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/c nn-poll-drop-in-liberal-support-pushes-obama-approval-rating-down/?hpt=hp_t2

emitres, it's true that I seldom go to Wikipedia for anything. The exception would be when someone here of the leftist persusion is contending over an issue. Then, I might go to Wikipedia or politifact to show their position is so far left that even leftists at Wikipedia and/or politifact don't agree with them.

posted July 24, 2011 12:40 PM            

quote:

---

Scientists who agree with our futility to contol climate and/or change it are in the majority.

---

They very clearly are not. You've never proven such, nor would proving such be an easy task. A layperson with just a rudimentary knowledge of the effects of a nuclear bomb would tell you that a human can in fact affect the climate. You're simply talking from a place of what you wish to be true. There's no reality in it.

quote:

---

The numbers relating to the Obama Administration don't require any spin; they speak for themselves.

---

No, that's true. They only require context, which had been sorely lacking as is generally the case with Jwhop.

quote:

---

The so called RICH...top 1% of earners in America pay 40% of all income taxes in America NOW.
The so called RICH top 10% of earners in America pay 70% of all income taxes in America NOW.

---

The wealthy are paying historically low amounts in truth.

_________________________

posted July 24, 2011 01:55 PM            

branson did not live like a pauper, and whatever the economic weather, he prospers like a bandit...however he pays his people well and treats them even better! go figure.

my point was that all this moaning about obama's policies is just that, shrieking, whining and playing victim by people who are nothing of the sort.

some of the world's wealthiest people live in what you would call a "socialist" country. and most of the POOREST people live in capitalist ones. again, go figure!

posted July 24, 2011 02:58 PM            

i believe you have gone fully off the rails. ghosts under your bed too, or do you keep it on the floor so they can't get under it?

and the top %ers don't even pay 40% of THEIR worth, so if they are paying 40% of all taxes paid, we are pulling too little ALL THE TIME.