Unemployment claims jump to 368,000

Because fraud committed by the GSEs (Fannie/Freddie) led to a collapse of the entire mortgage industry,and our economy.

Sorry, but OBAMA has been in charge for more than four years; t's HIM,and the Dunceocrats you need to be asking that question.

 

What I object to most is republican job creation in the form of wars on abstractions resorting to public sector intervention in private sector markets; while claiming the private sector is the best job creator.

 

As anyone can see, we had strong revenue growth every year Clinton was president.

But revenue growth went strongly negative concurrent with the Bush tax cuts (which started in 2001 with the "rebate") for three straight years for probably the first time since the Great Depression. And this despite an economy that was growing at at least 3% every year.

You couldn't ask for a better illustration of the effects of a tax increase versus a tax cut.

 

Completely false. To the contrary, your own source proves that tax revenue collections are now far lower for the same level of realizations.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Year - Realizations - Taxes collected.
1996 260,696 66,396
2009 263,460 36,686

Tax revenues collections in 2009 were way down compared to 1996, despite having slightly more realizations.

We added $30 billion more to that debt because of the tax cuts in that year alone.

 

We'll all pretend tha we don't know that Clinton didn't have to deal with the DotCom bubble bursting, and the economic devastation of 9/11 on top of that , plus the damage Clintons's golf buddies at ENRON wreaked.

Wow...it's cool just making up whatever you want to be the truth, huh?

I mean, you DO IT DAILY...

 

Keep telling yourself that, while everyone sees the numbers on this very page.

Outrageously funny....but typical.

Is this where you close your eyes, cover you ears, and shout "nyah,nyah,nyah,nayh!!" until the "Bad Numbers go away"...?

Hysterically funny.

 

In other words, the claim that the tax cuts would make the economy boom was just bull(*)(*)(*)(*), as we've seen every time.

 

Uh-huh.
The numbers are RIGHT ON THIS PAGE; can you not GRASP THAT?

Because the OBVIOUS, SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH, clearly illustrated in post #151 clearly shows it, in direct relation to the tax cuts, and Bush didn't have the luxury of the PC/Telecom BOOM to pump up the economy, had MASSIVE ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO DEAL WTH, yet STILL achieved substantial GROWTH,and the highest three years of revenue in our hstory, all while tkaing a SMALLER % of Americans' money.

Try to get your mind around it...

 

I wasn't aware that every one else authorized you to speak for them.

I'll trust everyone else can click the link I provided and see that the data I posted is accurate.

And I'll let them decide who is hysterically funny.

 

Aww...is da widdo kitty kat butt hurt??

Sure.....

 

The data from your source proves the Bush tax cuts didn't even keep up with inflation over his 8 year term. Much less keep up with population and economic growth.

No other modern president managed that level of incompetence.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all. I enjoy exposing conservatives' ignorance. Thanks for the opportunity.

 

The economy grew by at least 3% each year. How does that explain revenues tanking by $250 billion a year after the Bush tax cuts?

 

The Bush tax rate cuts went into effect in 2003, how much did revenues increase at that lower rate by 2007?

 

You're wrong.

 

Originally Posted by Bluesguy
The Bush tax rate cuts went into effect in 2003, how much did revenues increase at that lower rate by 2007?

Nope, have previously dispelled your myth otherwise and you know it. But do prove the tax rate cuts went into effect before 2003 and then tell us how much revenues afterwards.

Since you won't I'll run it for you. Just counting inflation revenues would have increased to $2,000 billion. In actuality they were over $2,500B in 2007 with a budget deficit of only $161B. Even if you allow for the recession and slowdown he inherited counting for inflation would have put revenues just over $2,400B so still ahead.

So how did Obama and the Democrat do? With just inflation revenues should have been $2,700B in 2012. In actuality they were $2,450B, way behind with budget deficits over $1,100B every year.

 

After tanking by hundreds of billions of dollars in an economy growing at at least 3% per year, revenues started growing again when they stopped cutting taxes but didn't even keep up with inflation, much less GDP.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

Revenues were over $2,000 billion before took office and started tanking hundreds of billions a year with his tax cuts.

Obama inherited the worst recession in 80 years. But compared to where he started, he's doing great compared to Bush.

 

We should be correcting for the deleterious effects of a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism.

 

Jobless Claims in U.S. Decline to Match Lowest Since 1973
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-unexpectedly-fall-to-match-lowest-since-1973

Another conservative prediction proved to be bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

It's too bad that Obama haters don't get the economy *they* deserve.

 

oh for petes sake everyone knows bush was a moron just let it go.

 

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001


The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2008. Because they have been financed by borrowing — which increases the national debt — this figure includes the extra interest costs resulting from that additional debt.
This figure also includes the cost of “patching” the Alternative Minimum Tax to keep the tax from hitting millions of upper-middle-class households, a problem the tax cuts helped cause.

 

I believe unemployment taxes should be general taxes on Firms.

 

Clarifying the term “unemployment” or U2 is defined by the number of people who are collecting unemployment benefits in any given month. A person cannot collect those benefits unless they were fired or laid off from their employer.

Usually the number of people under U2 is fairly consistent from year to year since people get fired or laid off and they are usually replaced with new hires. Due to NAFTA, many companies moved out of the country and this is not a problem if those people that lost their job eventually gained employment with another company that offered higher pay or least the same earnings from their previous employment. .

What happened during the recession is that too many companies moved their business out of the country all at the same time which caused the unemployment numbers to increase at a faster rate. There were not enough jobs for people collecting unemployment to find another job. What made matters worse is that many people had to accept a lower paying job.

People that determine the health of the employment by unemployment percentages is the incorrect way to judge the economy. If you do choose to view it this way then you should also look at how many lost their job verses how many new hires there were for each given month.

However that is only part of it, you also have to determine if those new hires resulted in jobs with similar earnings from their previous employment

 

Oh lookie who was wrong and talking out of their rear. Who'd have guessed.

 

This is fun. Would you like your crow warm or cold?

- - - Updated - - -

 

I know you've been told this false statement repeatedly by the RW propaganda media, but no unemployment metric is measured by people collecting unemployment benefits.

I couldn't have sworn there was a housing bubble and crash in their somewhere commensurate with the unemployment rate skyrocketing.