Sound Off (Sept. 30)

Sound Off (Sept. 30)

There are 128 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Sep 30, 2010, titled Sound Off (Sept. 30). In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

This is just a comment on the Whole Enchilada. It was a great experience. I loved it.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

Majority American

Farmington, NM

#113 Oct 1, 2010
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
The D's wouldn't vote for it unless there was an expiration date.
The D's wouldn't vote for it unless there was an expiration date because they're more fiscally responsible than the reckless R's. The ten year limit kept the bill within the confines of the PAYGO law. The 2001 tax cuts were followed up by more tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy and corporations in 2003. That bill passed by reconciliation, 50 yea, 50 nay, with Cheney breaking the tie. D's were against the 2003 tax cuts because we had two wars going on and the D's, and some R's, knew that the cuts would add to the deficit. The same deficit that the R's are now blaming the D's for! The R's are spewing out a load of BS, and you're eating it up.
Majority American

Farmington, NM

#114 Oct 1, 2010
Huh wrote:
BTW: 64% OF THOSE WITH HOUSEHOLD INCOMES OF MORE THAN $250,000 A YEAR SUPPORT RAISING THEIR OWN TAXES TO REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEFICIT. Quinnipiac University poll: Do you think - raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000 should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?
Hey Roy, Read the last three words of the snippet from your post. It makes perfect sense to me that many Americans would pay more taxes IF they would go to paying off the deficit. Problem is, Congress and the worthless one in the White House would use the additional revenue to keep spending us into oblivion. Higher taxes equals more opportunity for them to get re-elected by stupid people who think pork and more government control are the answer.
If Republicans hate pork so much why didn't they PLEDGE to get rid of earmarks in their Pledge to Americans???
Huh

Las Cruces, NM

#115 Oct 1, 2010
D's fiscally responsible? I just threw up a little in my throat. Stop the spending!!! That is my entire point. If we cut out the idiotic pork projects (which both D's and R's support) we could keep the tax cuts. Even if we pulled all the troops back, we need more taxes to support bailouts, blind stimulus packages and the forced health care. Stop the spending!!! It's both parties issue, but the D's are in control now. I see no move toward cutting back. They need the tax revenue so they can spend more and buy votes from an ever-increasing flock. By the way, most sheep come in two colors, red and blue. Me? I'm a black sheep, shunned from associating with those of party status.
Majority American wrote:
<quoted text>
The D's wouldn't vote for it unless there was an expiration date because they're more fiscally responsible than the reckless R's. The ten year limit kept the bill within the confines of the PAYGO law. The 2001 tax cuts were followed up by more tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy and corporations in 2003. That bill passed by reconciliation, 50 yea, 50 nay, with Cheney breaking the tie. D's were against the 2003 tax cuts because we had two wars going on and the D's, and some R's, knew that the cuts would add to the deficit. The same deficit that the R's are now blaming the D's for! The R's are spewing out a load of BS, and you're eating it up.
Del

Rio Rancho, NM

#116 Oct 1, 2010
This is just a hit and run; gotta go somewhere. A different search argument will say that there 27.5 million businesses in the U.S., not 750 million; there were only about 141 million tax filings for the year. Placitas Roy's posting of definition of small business is essentially correct as someone else actually verified. But, maybe Roy meant LLC type business rather than LLT. Gotta go. I really want to peruse more when I get back in case I am wrong.
Dave

Nashville, TN

#117 Oct 1, 2010
BLOOD ON HIS HANDS wrote:
Sorry bucko - remember it is DANISH that has helped destroy good paying jobs in
New Mexico over the last 8 years.
DANISH like Richardson would not know how to create a job but they sure can destroy
them with all their progressive regulations, CRAP and TRADE etc.
VOTE FOR DANISH = LOSS OF MORE GOOD PAYING JOBS WITH A FUTURE and more minimum wage
jobs!
<quoted text>
Here I have to say something. I am a "R" and I can hit a 2 liter bottle at 300 yards open sights and have been a farmer all my life. Sterotype much?

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#118 Oct 1, 2010
Jim M LC-NM wrote:
<quoted text>....
Okay, lets figure out how Obama was taking in nearly $100 million per month in contributions the last year of his campaign. If it wasn't corporations and mostly unions where was the money coming from? It sure as hell wasn't coming from the general public by individual contributions. I think personally it was the union retirement funds; the funds that Obama is trying to use public money to reinstate because the union now can not meet their obligations. If we had a real DOJ their would be an investigation into Obama contributions and we would see if I am right........
"I think personally it was the union retirement funds;" Let me say it really plainly: You are full of crap. Because this has been hashed out many many times and , you have made the allegations many times and despite being challenged to provide some kind documentation, you have f NEVER cited one damn bit of even slightly credibly (I don't remember) Therefore you must be intentionally LYING.

Every damn dime of campaign donations are required to be declared on FEC documents and that report is public record. Are you incapable of finding such basic information?

Damn Jim you tried this tired old crap a year ago!

"If it wasn't corporations and mostly unions where was the money coming from?" "It sure as hell wasn't coming from the general public by individual contributions." The OBAMA CAMPAIGN RECEIVED MORE FROM SMALL CONTRIBUTORS ($200 OR LESS) THAN ANY OTHER CAMPAIGN IN HISTORY -- over $25 million. That number represents more than 125,000 individuals.
319,706 PEOPLE DONATED $200 OR MORE TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN IN 2008. 60.5% OF THEM DONATED $1,000 OR LESS. Those donors represent 21% of total donations.

CANDIDATE COMPARISON: SOURCE OF FUNDS - 2008 CYCLE
Individual contributions: Obama:$656,357,572 McCain:$199,275,171
PAC contributions Obama:$1,830 McCain:$1,407,959
Candidate self-financing Obama:$0 McCain: 0
Federal Funds: Obama:$0 McCain:$84,103,800
Other Obama:$88,626,223 McCain:$ 83,306,833

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sourceall.p...

Your ignorance is appalling!

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#119 Oct 1, 2010
Jim M LC-NM wrote:
<quoted text>....
The friggin Unions, using your vernacular, were included in the exemptions from the Disclose Act. Here is a comment from the Washington Post on Sept 23, 2010 on the Disclose Act:
"THE PROSPECT of secret money flooding into federal elections has ...t Post article says exactly what I was inferring so now who doesn't know what they are talking about - Roy!
You and your dumb as crap friends don't have any damn ethics-period-Roy. If anyone has to disclose their political contribution/contributor, everyone has to disclose their contribution/contribution. That Disclose Act bill before the congress gave exemptions to several entities and vary big organizations. Stop the nonsense Roy; you are a major disinformation propaganda machine. It would be a good Idea to quit lying about what other people understand about issues on this post too, because we are going to call you out and expose you.
Since you didn’t link the WaPo quote, I assume it comes from the EDITORIAL that was SUPPORTING the DISCLOSURE act. NOWHERE IN THAT EDITORIAL DOES IT CLAIM THAT UNIONS WOULD BE EXEMPT. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

With the exceptions of self quoting right-wing propaganda echo sites, I've been unable to find a SINGLE source that that states unions were exempt.

Your comments still demonstrate you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

From open secrets 9/23: SENATE REPUBLICANS AGAIN BLO CK DISCLOSE ACT, DESIGNED TO REVEAL SPECIAL INTEREST SPENDING
:“The bill’s main focus is new reporting and disclosure requirements for groups that run independent expenditures, such as television ads that overtly advocate for or against federal candidates, and electioneering communications -- that is, broadcast communications that feature a federal candidate but don’t expressly advocate for that candidate’s election or defeat.

NEW RESTRICTIONS WOULD APPLY TO CORPORATIONS, UNIONS, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, SO-CALLED 527 GROUPS AND 501(C)(4),(C)(5) AND (C)(6) ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS.

One provision would require groups to show the names of the top donors in the advertisements and have the head of the organization or the group's largest contributor "stand by the ad" -- giving the same, familiar disclaimer that candidates must include in their advertisements: "My name is so-and-so, and I approve this message."

Additionally, the bill would prohibit companies from producing independent expenditures if they met certain criteria. These include bailout recipients with outstanding loans from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), large government contractors and foreign-controlled companies.” http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/senat...

Republicans, for their part, are gambling that they [and propaganda radio, Clusterfox, and the LYING echo machine]can convince the public that the bill favors unions and other special interests partial to Democrats, weaving the measure into a tapestry of right-wing election paranoia that stretches back to ACORN and now The New Black Panther Party, chalking it up as once last ditch attempt by Democrats to steal the elections. http://washingtonindependent.com/98285/senate...

Jim proves they could!

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#120 Oct 1, 2010
Majority American wrote:
<quoted text>
Polls show that a majority of Americans think that the tax cuts for the rich should be allowed to expire. http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010...
If Republicans don't want the tax cuts to expire, then why did they put an expiration date on them when they passed the bill in the first place???
If allowing the tax cuts for the rich to expire will cost jobs, then why did unemployment go up after the tax cuts were passed???
The massive budget busting tax-cuts were pushed through using reconciliation. They had to sunset in order to comply with Paygo and get enough Democrats' votes. The majority were too smart to vote for it. Dead-Eye Dick had to break teh Senate ite.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#121 Oct 1, 2010
O forgot the net nanny in the above - Make that dead-eye, ick Chenny.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#122 Oct 1, 2010
Huh wrote:
D's fiscally responsible? I just threw up a little in my throat. Stop the spending!!! That is my entire point. If we cut out the idiotic pork projects (which both D's and R's support) we could keep the tax cuts. Even if we pulled all the troops back, we need more taxes to support bailouts, blind stimulus packages and the forced health care. Stop the spending!!! It's both parties issue, but the D's are in control now. I see no move toward cutting back. They need the tax revenue so they can spend more and buy votes from an ever-increasing flock. By the way, most sheep come in two colors, red and blue. Me? I'm a black sheep, shunned from associating with those of party status.
<quoted text>
If you knew what the hell you were talking about you would know that since WW2 the Democratic administrations have outperformed the RepubliCANTs in damn near every economic measurement. GDP Growth, Unemployment rates, job creation, debt reduction, ect.

DEMOCRATS ARE BETTER REPUBLICANS THAN REPUBLICANS ARE: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/notes-t...
Changes in surplus/deficit as % of GDP, GDP Annual Growth, Annual real growth of stock values, reducing household income inequity, job creation. And unemployment rates.

Look it up!
Unemployment rates: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/27/15524... Job Creation: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

ork represents a minuscule portion of the budget. But the RepubliCONs aen't about to give them up.

Since the end of WW2mocratic administrations have had the best economic performance.
Slow down

Rio Rancho, NM

#123 Oct 1, 2010
PlacitasRoy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you knew what the hell you were talking about you would know that since WW2 the Democratic administrations have outperformed the RepubliCANTs in damn near every economic measurement. GDP Growth, Unemployment rates, job creation, debt reduction, ect.
DEMOCRATS ARE BETTER REPUBLICANS THAN REPUBLICANS ARE: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/notes-t...
Changes in surplus/deficit as % of GDP, GDP Annual Growth, Annual real growth of stock values, reducing household income inequity, job creation. And unemployment rates.
Look it up!
Unemployment rates: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/27/15524... Job Creation: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
ork represents a minuscule portion of the budget. But the RepubliCONs aen't about to give them up.
Since the end of WW2mocratic administrations have had the best economic performance.
on your evening drinking!

Since: Sep 10

Santa Fe, NM

#124 Oct 1, 2010
Educating Sixty Three wrote:
Obeying Military Orders:
"In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have lost 5,677 soldiers fighting for freedom for Muslims."
Enjoying Freedom of Speech:
"In the U.S. we have extreme right-wing groups including the Tea Party condemning Muslims and their mosques. This insults our fallen soldiers."
Welcome to America.
Thank you present and past Servicemen, of which I am one, for your sacrifices for the Freedoms in America.
Ex Military huh, and you do not even know there is no American military, army, air force, navy or marines. This is the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, sound familiar? You want to welcome us to America, which part? Canada, Mexico, Panama, Brazil, Chile, what part of America are you reffering to?

I served more that three hitches in service to my country and have spent most of my over 70 year life sworn to our Constitution, but my military service was in the United States Military. I served under the President of the United States, not an American one.

You have apparently have fell under the spell of those that want to rename our country and to change our Republic to a socialist democracy. You know some of these same people that want to stand for the 1940s Kate Smith song rather than the Star Spangled Banner. Give me a break

As a question, can you give us the name of an American Congressman or Senator.

If, you did serve you failed to understand what your service was for. Your service was to all of your fellow citizens, right, left or indifferent, no race nor creed was involved and that included those in what is called The Tea Party or those, what you call right wing extremist. As for our men and woman in service they are in the battle for freedom for all, not for any one particular group.

Remember your oath?

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#125 Oct 1, 2010
Jim M LC-NM wrote:
<quoted text>....
Here is a URL to the Definitions of a small business, please take a look and see if you can find Roy's definition.
http://www.google.com/search...

From Wikipedia:...ry basis, but generally specifies... dn't want to be considered a small business in previous post #105.
Roy you are only looking at a part of the definition because it suits your way of thinking. That is not ignorant; it's fraud.
Jim - If you use decent criteria, you too can get the definition I got.

"Generally" means DAMN SURE not all the time. BTW: I would NEVER claim tht a doctor's office is not a small business. It damn sure is. Just as Tiger Woods is. As hedgefund traders are, as teh Koch Brothers and their LLCs are, just as Joe's landscape and martha's Massage parlor are. and just as the 94-percent of all U-S businesses in 2007 that were S corporations, partnerships or sole proprietorships -- "pass-through" business types commonly used by small businesses."

I simply used the SAME DEFINITION USED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT (Department of Treasury; "State-By-State Breakdown of the Combined Effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA," April 1, 2004

From The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution (they provide independent, timely, and accessible analysis of current and emerging tax policy issues for the public, journalists, policymakers, and academic researchers. For more tax facts, see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts .) report, SMALL BUSINESSES AND MARGINAL INCOME TAX RATES :“The table below defines small businesses owners broadly to include anyone who has any entry (positive or negative) on Schedule C (self-employment income), Schedule E (income from rents, royalties, partnerships, limited liability companies, and S corporations) or Schedule F (farm income). THIS IS THE SAME DEFINITION USED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT (Department of Treasury; "State-By-State Breakdown of the Combined Effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA," April 1, 2004). The table shows several facts….” http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/u...

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that those arguing to extend the tax cuts to help small businesses “tend to rely on an extremely broad definition of ‘small business.’”

For example, most Americans would not describe the nation’s wealthiest 400 individuals, some of whom are billionaires, as small businesses. Yet the “Top 400&#8243; individuals have a great deal of money to invest and consequently receive significant business income — which means that they qualify as “small business owners” under the broad definition of the term. The 400 highest-earning taxpayers received nearly $17 billion in S corporation and partnership income in 2007…an average of $83 million each, according to the IRS.

“In fact, ONLY 1.9 % OF FILERS with any small-business income are projected to face either of the top two income tax rates in 2009. By contrast, MORE THAN 14 % OF FILERS WITH SMALL-BUSINESS INCOME CLAIM THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT (EITC) FOR LOW-INCOME WORKERS. Thus, strengthening the EITC could help more than seven times as many small businesses as reducing the top income tax rates.”….

“CBO analysis noted that some small businesses would profit from an extension of the current top tax rates, but pointedly rejected the argument that Congress should extend these tax cuts to create jobs in a weak economy. CBO explained that “increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for them to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products.” http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm...
Jim M LC-NM

Albuquerque, NM

#126 Oct 1, 2010
Majority American wrote:
<quoted text>
Polls show that a majority of Americans think that the tax cuts for the rich should be allowed to expire. http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010...
If Republicans don't want the tax cuts to expire, then why did they put an expiration date on them when they passed the bill in the first place???
If allowing the tax cuts for the rich to expire will cost jobs, then why did unemployment go up after the tax cuts were passed???
The above questions are good and reasonable, I think Americans are more afraid of Deficits than having their taxes going up. The question still very much alive is, will ending the tax cuts for the upper earners end many jobs? You not only have all Republicans in camp, you have about 50 Democrats creating a bipartisan group that believe tax cut expiring will cost jobs in their districts.

I personally would hope there will be a negotiation when congress comes back after the voting and the tax cuts will remain for those making up to $500K maybe $750K. That should solve the argument over what will happen to jobs for about 750 million small businesses with the tax cuts being allowed to expire.

Here is the data: Go to this URL: http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm This is the only chart data I could find in a reasonable amount of time; most data I found was in graph form and I can't post that. I used Google.

2010 YTD Average 154,038,000 138,841,125 15,196,875 9.9%
2009 08BM 154,142,000 139,877,000 14,265,000 9.3%
2008 08BM 154,287,000 145,362,000 8,924,000 5.8%
2007 08BM 153,124,000 146,047,000 7,078,000 4.6%
2006 08BM 151,428,000 144,427,000 7,001,000 4.6%
2005 08BM 149,320,000 141,730,000 7,591,000 5.1%
2004 147,401,000 139,252,000 8,149,000 5.5%
2003 146,510,000 137,736,000 8,774,000 6.0%
2002 144,863,000 136,485,000 8,378,000 5.8%
2001 143,734,000 136,933,000 6,801,000 4.7%
2000 142,583,000 136,891,000 5,692,000 4.0%

Yes unemployment went up slightly between 2000 and 2003 then it started back down, see data above table. Remember employment is a lagging indicator of the economy's health, the government declared the Clinton recession over in 2001 as the GNP was growing well. It also took a little time for the "tax cut stimulus" to work through the economy. The reason for a sunset was Republicans seemed to think in 2001 all aspects of the economy would completely recover by 2011 after all there still was still impending deficits to deal with, yes partly caused result of the tax cuts. Be aware when it is necessary to steer the US economy, it takes up to two years for the adjustments to show up in the indicators. I would expect most economist to agree with that assessment. The question is what happened in 2006 that caused the unemployment to start to pick up in 2008?

The US economy is a very complicated and it is usually wise to try to steer it with things that are known to work. With global interfaces the US economy has even got more complicated to steer. I would suggest to people not interested in world redistribution of wealth to take a look at what happened at the end of the Wilson Administration (bad depression 1920) and who and what happened to correct the economy. Then I would look at what FDR did and how his efforts have been judged to actually extend the Depression of 1939. Then I would ask Obama to take a different tact than he has been doing. I would also suggest to everyone, the unbalanced trade deficit of the USA is a major player in the lack of jobs in this country today. Obama believes that because he put a 35% tariff on import tires to protect us union jobs of Us tire makers.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#127 Oct 1, 2010
Jim – Here is a link to a nice show & tell demonstration, ala Glenn Beck….EXCEPT it is FACTUALLY ACCURATE, Austan Goolsbee doesn’t cry, and neither God nor fear is invoked. It’s so simple it takes less than two minutes. You might be able to understand the dots.

THE WHITE HOUSE EXPLAINS THE TAX CUT FIGHT
Austan Goolsbee reproduces an easy-to-follow chart showing the differences between continuing the Bush tax cuts and the proposed Obama tax plan. The chart from Ezra Klein at the Washington Post. The figures came from the Joint Committee on Taxation.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/wh...
Jim M LC-NM

Albuquerque, NM

#128 Oct 1, 2010
PlacitasRoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Jim - If you use decent criteria, you too can get the definition I got.
"Generally" means DAMN SURE not all the time. BTW: I would NEVER claim tht a doctor's office is not a small business. It damn sure is. Just as Tiger Woods is. As hedgefund traders are, as teh Koch Brothers and their LLCs are, just as Joe's landscape and martha's Massage parlor are. and just as the 94-percent of all U-S businesses in 2007 that were S corporations, partnerships or sole proprietorships -- "pass-through" business types commonly used by small businesses."
I simply used the SAME DEFINITION USED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT (Department of Treasury; "State-By-State Breakdown of the Combined Effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA," April 1, 2004
From The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution (they provide independent, timely, and accessible analysis of current and emerging tax policy issues for the public, journalists, policymakers, and academic researchers. For more tax facts, see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts .) report, SMALL BUSINESSES AND MARGINAL INCOME TAX RATES :“The table below defines small businesses owners broadly to include anyone who has any entry (positive or negative) on Schedule C (self-employment income), Schedule E (income from rents, royalties, partnerships, limited liability companies, and S corporations) or Schedule F (farm income). THIS IS THE SAME DEFINITION USED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT (Department of Treasury; "State-By-State Breakdown of the Combined Effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA," April 1, 2004). The table shows several facts….” http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/u...
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that those arguing to extend the tax cuts to help small businesses “tend to rely on an extremely broad definition of ‘small business.’”
For example, most Americans would not describe the nation’s wealthiest 400 individuals, some of whom are billionaires, as small businesses. Yet the “Top 400&#8243; individuals have a great deal of money to invest and consequently receive significant business income — which means that they qualify as “small business owners” under the broad definition of the term. The 400 highest-earning taxpayers received nearly $17 billion in S corporation and partnership income in 2007…an average of $83 million each, according to the IRS.
“In fact, ONLY 1.9 % OF FILERS with any small-business income are projected to face either of the top two income tax rates in 2009. By contrast, MORE THAN 14 % OF FILERS WITH SMALL-BUSINESS INCOME CLAIM THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT (EITC) FOR LOW-INCOME WORKERS. Thus, strengthening the EITC could help more than seven times as many small businesses as reducing the top income tax rates.”….
“CBO analysis noted that some small businesses would profit from an extension of the current top tax rates, but pointedly rejected the argument that Congress should extend these tax cuts to create jobs in a weak economy. CBO explained that “increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for them to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products.” http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm...
Roy, I am going to have to study this for a while; but this is your best post in a long time, very civil. Even your source URL's aren't bad even though I want to see the same data in another format. I would like the numbers of business effected and how much money is involved and not just percentages of each class. Thanks, Jim

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#129 Oct 1, 2010
Jim M LC-NM wrote:
<quoted text>
The above questions are good and reasonable, I think Americans are more afraid of Deficits than having their taxes going up. The question still very much alive is, will ending the tax cuts for the upper earners end many jobs? You not only have all Republicans in camp, you have about 50 Democrats creating a bipartisan group that believe tax cut expiring will cost jobs in their districts.
I personally would hope there will be a negotiation when congress comes back after the voting and the tax cuts will remain for those making up to $500K maybe $750K. That should solve the argument over what will happen to jobs for about 750 million small businesses with the tax cuts being allowed to expire.
Here is the data: Go to this URL: http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm This is the only chart data I could find in a reasonable amount of t
Job creation is a hell of a better indicator than unemployment.

Dubya's tax give-a-ways were just one of several massive problems that busted the budget and blew up, blew up the deficit and created the financial calamity.

LOST DECADE FOR THE ECONOMY - GREAT CHART
[Extremely good discussion BEFORE THE BUSH RECESSION Supply Side Tax Cuts Failed to Deliver Jobs and Income Growth between 2001 and 2007]
[snip…] But their [Bush apologists] analysis ignores what actually happened during the economic cycle that began in March 2001 and ended in December of 2007 —which almost exactly coincides with the Bush presidency and the implementation of the Bush tax cuts. THIS PERIOD REGISTERED WEAKEST JOBS AND INCOME GROWTH IN THE POST-WAR PERIOD.

Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty.
Full report with graphs & sources: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/0...

From Murdock’s WSJ: BUSH ON JOBS: THE WORST TRACK RECORD ON RECORD (NEAT CHART)“The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its EIGHT YEARS, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his FOUR YEARS in office.” http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bus...

(That number has since been modified DOWN to 1.08 million jobs.)

Poltifact has well written comments on job creation: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
You Are Inconsistent

Huntsville, AL

#130 Oct 2, 2010
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care about SB, since I don't know her. My reactions were not based on coming to anyone's rescue per se and my comments are not inconsistent. I agree with anonymity to promote freedom of speech and expression, and except for rare occasions, when unduly attacked, I make a point of never using vulgarity. My reaction in this case is prompted by the fact that there were attacks made on this board that went beyond ideological debate and moved into the realm of personal and threatening. That troubles me. It's one thing to question and disagree with one's political and religious views and another to air personal dirty laundry. I will stay out of this and hope you all can work your issues out amongst yourselves -- whoever you are.
The problem with you is you are "inconsistent". You stated, "It's one thing to question and disagree with one' political and religious views and another to air personal dirty laundry." The point being the "Fed Up" person did "air personal dirty laundry" by making references to "being divorced and slapping his/her kids" before you came to his/her defense. Then when someone jumped on the comment, you chimed in. By all means, please do "stay out of this" because it is none of your business unless of course you're the person you deny being just like you deny knowing SB. If I had to bet my life on whether you know SB or not, I'd say you do know her. If I had to bet my life on whether you know this "Fed Up" person too, I'd say you do. It's only obvious.
Truth

Albuquerque, NM

#132 Oct 2, 2010
You Are Inconsistent wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with you is you are "inconsistent". You stated, "It's one thing to question and disagree with one' political and religious views and another to air personal dirty laundry." The point being the "Fed Up" person did "air personal dirty laundry" by making references to "being divorced and slapping his/her kids" before you came to his/her defense. Then when someone jumped on the comment, you chimed in. By all means, please do "stay out of this" because it is none of your business unless of course you're the person you deny being just like you deny knowing SB. If I had to bet my life on whether you know SB or not, I'd say you do know her. If I had to bet my life on whether you know this "Fed Up" person too, I'd say you do. It's only obvious.
Good luck and happy trails. You just squandered your life, twice, on a bad bet.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#133 Oct 2, 2010
Jim M LC-NM wrote:
We are talking about the Bush tax cuts and whether to extend the cuts to the upper 2 or 3%, because not doing so may have an adverse effect on the economic recovery. Roy and some say don't extent the cuts and Roy gives some data to justify it.
I said I would look at his data and investigate for myself.
The Republicans that are talking about extension of all the Bush tax cuts are openly saying it will effect about 750,000 businesses or about 1/4th of the higher income businesses. They are also saying this number of businesses having reduced income due to paying more taxes will cause lay offs....
Damn Jim - If Clinton's tax increases and Dubya's Tax give-aways and the resulting economic results are proof that the RepubliCANTs don't know a damn thing about economics. you are in complete and total denial.

The friggin' republiCONs said if we borrow all that money to givetax breaks the economy would be GREAT! SUPER GREAT! Damn near Utpoia. And where the hell were we. By EVERY measure in the TOILET.
You need to know no more than: From Murdock’s WSJ:

BUSH ON JOBS: THE WORST TRACK RECORD ON RECORD (NEAT CHART)“The Bush administration created about 1.08 million jobs [final revised number)(net) over its EIGHT YEARS, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his FOUR YEARS in office.” http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bus...

You couldn't make any rational argument that ANY company of ANY size is going to have to lay off a single person because of returning the the marginal tax level for the upper 2% to the historically low Clinton rates.

I notice you haven't documented anything about the Unions being exempted from DISCLOSE act.

Notice you haven't commented on all your nonsense about campaign finances

Notice you haven't been able to rebut the FACT that Mega BILIION $$$ corporations like Kock ect are "small businesses."

Notice you just keep scattering more crap on the sidewalk...including regurgitating Beck's historical revisions, and LIEs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

School Vouchers Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DeVos protester released after pleading not gui... Feb 14 Robin Obrien 3
News Protest marks public school visit by new educat... Feb 11 Covenant 4 Noah M... 1
News Betsy DeVos picked for education secretary Feb 11 PoorHarlotInceztL... 49
News Reform Rabbis Slam Betsy DeVos for 'Christian' ... Feb 8 MichaelN 10
News 5 faith facts about Betsy DeVos Feb 8 MichaelN 2
News Sen. Kamala Harris joins Democratic senators in... Feb 7 Babydoll 1
News How strict should public school letter grades b... Feb 6 Cfnm 2
More from around the web