Reply With Quote
I believe you and dan were leaving out information. If rich pay most of the taxes and everyone gets a tax cut - more than likely they will get a higher tax cut. it's dishonest to act like the tax cuts were only for the rich.
Since they are against the very existence of opposition, what are the Repug/conservative CONCRETE policy alternatives to restore the 7M jobs the Banksters destroyed?
We know that during the Repug years, there was no job growth (not enough to keep up with population growth) and no increase in real household income. We also know that just the cut in estate taxes cost the US nearly $1T in taxes. What happened there?
I believe you and dan were leaving out information. If rich pay most of the taxes and everyone gets a tax cut - more than likely they will get a higher tax cut. it's dishonest to act like the tax cuts were only for the rich.
I didn't leave any information out.
What's dishonest is to claim that the tax breaks were even handed because the poor had a bigger percentage of the break. That's what he tried to do. He was wrong and got called out for it.
Naturally in these United States we assume that politicians control the economy and electing the right politicians who know how to operate the levers of state intervention is the key to prosperity and full employment. Or we're, to borrow from the philosopher-king Rahm, "re ed."
Have you paid your taxes yet?
Most of my federal income tax burden, as well as local property taxes? Yes.
So which politician offers the right approach?
Further, why must this be a concern of the state?
Why do you want to hurt the rich people?
Why do you hate them so much?
Why do you propagate class warfare?
Many of them are small business owners. Ever get a good paying job from someone in the middle class?
You were dishonest.
You took a projection, several years old, before the 2003 changes, and portrayed it as fact.
Shame on you.
I presented evidence you were full of .
I'm still waiting for the numbers that prove my numbers wrong.
Dishonest much?
And please, don't forget to bring another strawman, like class warfare. Way to spin this .
Last edited by ElNono; 02-07-2010 at 08:04 PM.
SUNDAY 7 FEBRUARY 2010
Economy Loses 85,000 Jobs in December, Ends Decade With Job Loss
Friday 08 January 2010
by: Dean Baker
The Center for Economic and Policy Research
Hours worked fell by 3.8 percent over the decade.
The economy lost another 85,000 jobs in December, driven by continued job losses in construction and manufacturing. While the current data still show a 378,000 job gain for the decade, these numbers will be lowered by approximately 824,000 when the benchmark revision is incorporated into the data with the release of the January employment report. The data show a decline in private sector jobs of 1,549,000 for the decade. The benchmark revision will increase the private sector job loss for the decade to more than 2.4 million.
The index for hours worked shows an even more dismal story. Hours worked are down 3.8 percent for the decade, even before the benchmark revision.
While some analysts had expected a smaller job loss or even a small gain in December, that would have been inconsistent with the recent level of unemployment insurance (UI) claims. UI claims have fallen sharply, but are still averaging over 440,000 a week. The economy did not begin to generate jobs after the last downturn until UI claims had fallen below 400,000 a week. Interestingly, a downward revision to the October jobs numbers led to a reported 4,000 increase in November employment. It remains to be seen whether this will hold up in subsequent revisions, but the difference between a small job gain and small job loss is irrelevant for all practical purposes.
By sector, the data continued to show the same patterns as recent reports. Construction lost 53,000 jobs in December. The job loss was spread across sectors, with the residential sector losing another 18,600 jobs. Job loss in the residential sector will almost certainly stop soon, but it will continue and possibly accelerate in the non-residential sector.
Manufacturing shed 27,000 jobs with the declines spread widely across sectors. The rate of job loss in manufacturing is slowing. Manufacturing employment is likely to level off and possibly even start growing modestly in the next few months.
Retail trade lost 10,200 jobs, all of them in general merchandise stores. It is likely that job losses will continue in this sector, especially in car dealerships, but at a modest pace. The wholesale trade, transportation, and information sectors lost 18,200, 8,000, and 6,000 jobs, respectively.
Health care continues to be a big job gainer, adding 21,500 jobs. The private education sector added 10,800 jobs and the banks are again increasing employment. One bright spot is an increase of 55,700 jobs in employment services. This continues an uptick of employment in this sector and could be a harbinger of future growth in permanent employment.
The picture in the household data was mostly negative. The unemployment rate remained steady at 10.0 percent, but this was only because 661,000 people left the labor force.
The employment to population (EPOP) ratio fell by 0.3 percent to 58.2 percent, the lowest level in more than a quarter century. There was a drop in the male unemployment rate from 10.4 percent to 10.2 percent, but this was entirely attributable to a decline in their EPOP of 0.4 percentage points. The unemployment rate for women rose from 8.0 percent to 8.2 percent.
The EPOP for blacks fell by 0.6 percentage points, with black women seeing a 1.2 percentage-point decline. The EPOP for black women is now a full percentage point lower than for white women, reversing a longstanding pattern of higher EPOPs for black women. The EPOP for Hispanics also fell sharply, dropping 0.7 percentage points in December. By education, those without a high school degree were hit hardest, with a 0.7 percentage-point decline in their EPOP.
Older workers continued to hold their own, as employment among people over age 55 remained constant, as an increase in 40,000 jobs among older women offset a decline of the same amount among men. All the duration measures hit new records, with the share of long-term unemployed now at 39.8 percent.
This report is consistent with a picture of an economy that is still experiencing job loss, albeit at a much slower rate. Job loss is likely to continue into the first few months of 2010, although even when it turns positive, it is not likely to be fast enough to bring down the unemployment rate.
========
So the decade-span shows that dubya's tax cuts, economic mismanagement, and two bogus/botched war deficits did all for employed people, did all for real household income.
Isn't the fact that you portray a 2002 projection from a biased source enough?
My God... For you to stand by that projection, for today's numbers, is laughable at the least. Re s are those who trust it.
I haven't even bothered looking for it yet. I have the link on a misplaced memory stick. Trust me, your linked numbers are outrageously wrong.
Dog-ate-my-homework HOF just called.
They want their hero back.
El Don'tKnow...
What tables do you want?
Appendix: Detailed Tables for 1979 to 2005
All Households
Table 1A. Effective Federal Tax Rates
Table 1B. Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities
Table 1C. Number of Households, Average Pretax and After-Tax Income, Shares of Pretax and After-Tax Income, and Income Category Minimums
Households with Children
Table 2A. Effective Federal Tax Rates
Table 2B. Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities
Table 2C. Number of Households, Average Pretax and After-Tax Income, Shares of Pretax and After-Tax Income, and Income Category Minimums
Elderly Childless Households
Table 3A. Effective Federal Tax Rates
Table 3B. Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities
Table 3C. Number of Households, Average Pretax and After-Tax Income, Shares of Pretax and After-Tax Income, and Income Category Minimums
Nonelderly Childless Households
Table 4A. Effective Federal Tax Rates
Table 4B. Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities
Table 4C. Number of Households, Average Pretax and After-Tax Income, Shares of Pretax and After-Tax Income, and Income Category Minimums
These are 1979 to 2005 tables compiled in 2007...
Actual numbers... Not liberal think tank propaganda projections!
Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2005
This is not the link I saw before, but searching for it, found one similar.
Here is the data from one group of data in part 1B. I placed in Excel and graphed:
Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities
How about this:
Wow...Dog-ate-my-homework HOF just called.
They want their hero back.
You really think your funny.
You should know better than insinuate I'm lying about such things.
Yes, I am at times wrong. However, you are continuing to become a bigger asshole all the time.
Yeah. That could be.
There isn't anything illegal or immoral about being an asshole. It isn't even unethical.
But your stupidity level is increasing too.
I have a pretty good history of being able to back up my words.
You really look foolish at times.
No you don't. You have a pretty good history of deflecting when you are flat out wrong and get called out for it.
What part of this graph you don't understand?
Furthermore, let's see the same graph based on actual money not percentages. Because besides calling my source 'biased' you still have not stated where they're wrong.
You do realize that a 10% cut on a person making 1,000 is a lot less than a 10% cut on a person making 1,000,000, right?
or you need me to graph it for you? My god indeed!
The point is el nono is everyone got a tax cut. So it was dishonest of you to say it was a tax for the rich. Because the rich weren't the only benefactors.
I never claimed other people didn't get a tax cut. What's undeniable is who benefited the most from those specific cuts: the rich. I call a spade a spade. If you think that's dishonest, that's your problem not mine.
Is it your opinion that when the cuts were handed out, it should've been set by income levels?
You realize that by your deduction above, that when a rich person pays 1%, it's more money than the poor guy paying 10%, right? Why would we suddenly reverse this when it comes time to give taxpayers their money back?
Liar.
I never made no claim the tax breaks were even. Therefore, what you think you called me out on reflects your own idiocy.
The one in the propaganda you linked, or mine? Could you elaborate, or do you think I'm psychic to what you mean?
I see the graph you linked as showing the top 1% getting about the following tax breaks:
2001 8%
2002 20%
2003 19%
2004 24%
2005 22%
Actual:
2001 0.04%
2002 2.1%
2003 15.7%
2004 18.6%
2005 19.8%
Now if we compare these to 1990 levels:
2001 21% increase
2002 19% increase
2003 3% increase
2004 1% cut
2005 2.5% cut
How about the bottom 20% since 1990:
2001 4.6% tax benefits increase
2002 5.0% tax benefits increase
2003 5.0tax benefits increase
2004 5.1% tax benefits increase
2005 5.4% tax benefits increase
Why the should the poor get more and more of OTHER PEOPLES MONEY?
What's your point? That the rich deserved a bigger cut? That's not what we're discussing here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
