US unemployment rises. Again.

#8 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001. Approximately 75 percent of those factories employed at least 500 workers while they were still in operation.

#9 The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

#10 Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wall-worry-redux-24-statistics-demonstrating-americas-decline

You wingnuts really don't get it do you.

30 yrs of conservative 'free market' ideology has driven this country to the brink of disaster.
Your 'socialism' fears are based on the corporate propaganda that is responsible for your stupidity.

We get it.... YOU don't! Union Labor and Collective Bargaining have driven the manufacturing sector completely out of this country. This began happening long before the eight years of Reagan, which incidentally, are the ONLY eight years in American history supply-side economic strategies have been tried. It resulted in nearly 30 years of prosperity and economic growth, in spite of dismantling policies from every administration to follow.

You Libtards like to lump Bush Sr. and GW in with Ronnie, as a supply-sider, but that is completely inaccurate. H.W. Bush was NOT a supply-sider, in fact, he coined the phrase "Voodoo Economics" to describe the philosophy, and his son knew even less about it.
 
Gee,,,,, I wonder why.

Anyone got any ideas why this is going on?

:confused:

It would seem that state governments are attempting to get back to living within their means, since most have balanced budget clauses. But not here in IL, where unemployment, joblessness, and foreclosures are way up. We be rich and Obama going to save us!
 
Care to explain how spending cuts + tax cuts = prosperity?
 
Awesome.


He was totally wrong in stating that "Wilson, a Dem, did" the 16th Amendment, and it's "no big deal about his getting history wrong"?

He was only off by a month....the Amendment was passed in Feb. 1913 and Wilson became President in March, 1913...........
That is a hell of a lot closer than getting the number of states wrong by a count of 7 when you're the freakin' President....99.9% of second graders wouldn't get that wrong.....


No wonder you love Failin' Palin and the Bach-to-Mom.


They have the same disdain for facts while they spout fictitious bullshit about American history.

There is no greater bullshit and distain for facts about American history than claiming there are 57 states.....
But then he also thinks Europe is a country...stupidity is relative......go figure.


Cool trivia..

The Democratic Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the income tax law passed in 1894, and proposed an income tax in its 1908 platform.

Renmember William Jennings Bryan.....the Democratic pinhead from the Scopes monkey trial ? Now thats awesome....

:lol:
 
Last edited:
Care to explain how spending cuts + tax cuts = prosperity?

Real simple. Spending cuts mean we are reducing our debt, which increases confidence in our markets on the world stage, which increases the value of the dollar. Tax cuts, specifically, cuts on those who are creating the jobs, will mean more money in their bank account to hire people with. More people working means more people paying taxes, and that means revenues increase. Increased confidence in US markets, increased value of the dollar, increased tax revenues, and increased jobs, means increased prosperity.

As opposed to what we currently have.
 
Now add on some years for both, bringing certainty to the future regarding parameters to work with-small and medium businesses will hire and invest. We don't need higher taxes, we need more tax payers.
 
There is no greater bullshit and distain for facts about American history than claiming there are 57 states..... But then he also thinks Europe is a country...stupidity is relative......go figure. Cool trivia..The Democratic Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the income tax law passed in 1894, and proposed an income tax in its 1908 platform. Renmember William Jennings Bryan.....the Democratic pinhead from the Scopes monkey trial ? Now thats awesome....:lol:

Funny, we were discussing the 16th amendment. And your fellow idiot was incorrect. Care to admit it, or will you try to change the subject again?
 
Now add on some years for both, bringing certainty to the future regarding parameters to work with-small and medium businesses will hire and invest. We don't need higher taxes, we need more tax payers.




And the way to get more taxpayers is more tax cuts and more layoffs?
 
Real simple. Spending cuts mean we are reducing our debt, which increases confidence in our markets on the world stage, which increases the value of the dollar. Tax cuts, specifically, cuts on those who are creating the jobs, will mean more money in their bank account to hire people with. More people working means more people paying taxes, and that means revenues increase. Increased confidence in US markets, increased value of the dollar, increased tax revenues, and increased jobs, means increased prosperity. As opposed to what we currently have.




Don't we currently have tax cuts in place for "those who are creating the jobs"?


Haven't those cuts been in effect for many years now?



Where are the jobs those tax cuts were supposed to have produced?


When Bush left office, unemployment was already an issue.


http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/nov/wk2/art01.htm




How come the Bush tax cuts didn't produce jobs?


Recently, the Bush tax cuts were extended again.


How many jobs did that extension produce?



Haven't we been cutting taxes and thereby put "more money in their bank account to hire people with" for many years now?


Where are the jobs?
 
Real simple. Spending cuts mean we are reducing our debt, which increases confidence in our markets on the world stage, which increases the value of the dollar. Tax cuts, specifically, cuts on those who are creating the jobs, will mean more money in their bank account to hire people with. More people working means more people paying taxes, and that means revenues increase. Increased confidence in US markets, increased value of the dollar, increased tax revenues, and increased jobs, means increased prosperity.

In other words, sacrifice the poorest in society in order to give tax cuts to the rich in the vain hope they will employ the poor on lower wages than before and save the economy.

If the call from the revolutionaries in 1776 had been, let's get rid of the monarchy in order that the poorest American citizens could be forced to sustain an immoral and inherently corrupt financial system, i reckon it might not have been as popular.

However, i must congratulate the Republican Party on convincing so many poor Americans that their future is best served by voting for a party who is happy to sell them into perpetual servitude. (although, to be fair, the alternative, some say Republican Light, is hardly much of an alternative)
 
In other words, sacrifice the poorest in society in order to give tax cuts to the rich in the vain hope they will employ the poor on lower wages than before and save the economy. If the call from the revolutionaries in 1776 had been, let's get rid of the monarchy in order that the poorest American citizens could be forced to sustain an immoral and inherently corrupt financial system, i reckon it might not have been as popular. However, i must congratulate the Republican Party on convincing so many poor Americans that their future is best served by voting for a party who is happy to sell them into perpetual servitude. (although, to be fair, the alternative, some say Republican Light, is hardly much of an alternative)


Funny you should mention that. The latest employment data indicate that wages have decreased.




It's now truly time for the fulfillment of this prophecy to be trumpeted:










bush-mission-accomplished.jpg




It took a while, but by God the corporate lobbyists got their money's worth.​
 
In other words, sacrifice the poorest in society in order to give tax cuts to the rich in the vain hope they will employ the poor on lower wages than before and save the economy.

If the call from the revolutionaries in 1776 had been, let's get rid of the monarchy in order that the poorest American citizens could be forced to sustain an immoral and inherently corrupt financial system, i reckon it might not have been as popular.

However, i must congratulate the Republican Party on convincing so many poor Americans that their future is best served by voting for a party who is happy to sell them into perpetual servitude. (although, to be fair, the alternative, some say Republican Light, is hardly much of an alternative)

This is a crock! The poorest citizens in the US do not go without. As one poster put it: American's have no clue what real true poverty is. That is not to say that there are not children who go without-who are living in abusive homes where their parents get welfare checks and food stamps, but trade them for drugs. The truly poor have free medical; nearly free housing; free food... As to the elderly? The cuts asked for in medicare are necessary-so much so that even the lefts hero Bill Clinton acknowledges it! Making our economic climate business friendly is not equal to sacrificing the poor.
 
How come the Bush tax cuts didn't produce jobs?

Again, because Bush (neither Bush) didn't understand supply-side economics. The Bush tax cuts were across the board, and while they did produce jobs, it was not as many as it would have been if the tax cuts had been more targeted on those who produce jobs. See, Bush was a "compassionate conservative", he wanted to give everyone a tax cut... so we did, and that's why the revenue gain was not as apparent as it was with Reagan's tax cuts. When you cut taxes on the middle class, it produces less revenue, because the middle class don't produce jobs with the money. Extending the cuts was not a tax cut, ergo, no job creation.

In other words, sacrifice the poorest in society in order to give tax cuts to the rich in the vain hope they will employ the poor on lower wages than before and save the economy.

Not at all! Sacrifice a few percentage points in tax rate to those who create jobs, they create jobs for the poorest, who then start paying taxes and generate tax revenue. This, in turn, creates more income for those who got the tax break, and they end up paying more in taxes even though their rate is lower. The result of all of this, is booming prosperity like we had during the Reagan years, which lasted nearly 30 years, until people who didn't understand supply-side economics had managed to dismantle everything Reagan did. The one thing Reagan never got, that would have done even MORE for prosperity, was elimination of capital gains taxation. And of course, a balanced budget amendment.
 



Funny you should mention that. The latest employment data indicate that wages have decreased.




It's now truly time for the fulfillment of this prophecy to be trumpeted:










bush-mission-accomplished.jpg




It took a while, but by God the corporate lobbyists got their money's worth.​

Obamas done more for corporate lobbyists than Bush did.
 
This is a crock! The poorest citizens in the US do not go without. As one poster put it: American's have no clue what real true poverty is. That is not to say that there are not children who go without-who are living in abusive homes where their parents get welfare checks and food stamps, but trade them for drugs. The truly poor have free medical; nearly free housing; free food... As to the elderly? The cuts asked for in medicare are necessary-so much so that even the lefts hero Bill Clinton acknowledges it! Making our economic climate business friendly is not equal to sacrificing the poor.

No disrespect, but there's a lot of families living in their cars, and tents right now.

Things are very desperate right now for a growing number of people.
 
No disrespect, but there's a lot of families living in their cars, and tents right now.

Things are very desperate right now for a growing number of people.

No disrespect, but ID is absolutely correct, if you look at the statistics. The average family living below the poverty level in America, has a color TV, air conditioning, and 1.2 cars. Compare that with the average poverty level citizen in ANY other country! Are there 'exceptions to the rule'? Sure there are, and it's our duty as citizens to take care of them... notice, I said OUR DUTY AS CITIZENS, and not THE GOVERNMENT! That's become our shortcoming, as liberals want a world with little or no responsibility, where GOVERNMENT takes care of everyone, and that just isn't possible, since GOVERNMENT doesn't produce anything or generate any wealth.
 
Once again, Liability outdoes himself by proving his utter ignorance of American history.


An income tax amendment to the Constitution was first proposed by Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. He submitted two proposals, Senate Resolutions Nos. 25 and 39. The amendment proposal finally accepted was Senate Joint Resolution No. 40, introduced by Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Senate majority leader and Finance Committee Chairman...




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




Note, retarded Liability, that Senators Brown and Aldrich were both Republicans . The 61st Congress was dominated by Republican majorities in both houses. The President at the time was William Howard Taft, another Republican.

Well shit head pulls his head out of his ass long enough to breath.

My statement was correct.

We have been living under socialism for a hundred years.

William L. Wilson was a democrat as well.

Do your homework dude.

You're such a marxist.
 
No disrespect, but ID is absolutely correct, if you look at the statistics. The average family living below the poverty level in America, has a color TV, air conditioning, and 1.2 cars. Compare that with the average poverty level citizen in ANY other country! Are there 'exceptions to the rule'? Sure there are, and it's our duty as citizens to take care of them... notice, I said OUR DUTY AS CITIZENS, and not THE GOVERNMENT! That's become our shortcoming, as liberals want a world with little or no responsibility, where GOVERNMENT takes care of everyone, and that just isn't possible, since GOVERNMENT doesn't produce anything or generate any wealth.

I understand and agree with you totally.

I might have missed the point.

I do know for a fact that there are some families living out of their cars and tents in different places in the US.
 
Again, because Bush (neither Bush) didn't understand supply-side economics. The Bush tax cuts were across the board, and while they did produce jobs, it was not as many as it would have been if the tax cuts had been more targeted on those who produce jobs. See, Bush was a "compassionate conservative", he wanted to give everyone a tax cut... so we did, and that's why the revenue gain was not as apparent as it was with Reagan's tax cuts. When you cut taxes on the middle class, it produces less revenue, because the middle class don't produce jobs with the money. Extending the cuts was not a tax cut, ergo, no job creation. Not at all! Sacrifice a few percentage points in tax rate to those who create jobs, they create jobs for the poorest, who then start paying taxes and generate tax revenue. This, in turn, creates more income for those who got the tax break, and they end up paying more in taxes even though their rate is lower. The result of all of this, is booming prosperity like we had during the Reagan years, which lasted nearly 30 years, until people who didn't understand supply-side economics had managed to dismantle everything Reagan did. The one thing Reagan never got, that would have done even MORE for prosperity, was elimination of capital gains taxation. And of course, a balanced budget amendment.



So your theory has never actually worked, but you guarantee it will next time?
 
Well shit head pulls his head out of his ass long enough to breath. My statement was correct. We have been living under socialism for a hundred years. William L. Wilson was a democrat as well. Do your homework dude. You're such a marxist.



Perhaps I should rename you LIE-ability, except you suck at lying, too. It's so easy to disprove your pathetic falsehoods.




Here's your claim, which was false:




Try 100 years of socialism, and socialist ideas. Starting with the 16th amendment. Wlson,,,, a dem did this one. Mr. I have no idea what I'm talking about. (Crashk)


As the facts show, you are ignorant, and you compound your ignorance with lying.


An income tax amendment to the Constitution was first proposed by Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. He submitted two proposals, Senate Resolutions Nos. 25 and 39. The amendment proposal finally accepted was Senate Joint Resolution No. 40, introduced by Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Senate majority leader and Finance Committee Chairman...On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to the state legislatures.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen...s_Constitution




Note, lying Liability, that Senators Brown and Aldrich were both Republicans . The 61st Congress was dominated by Republican majorities in both houses. The President at the time was William Howard Taft, another Republican. The 16th's ratification was certified by his Secretary of State, Philander Knox, another Republican.


Wilson succeeded Taft.


History lesson for you, idiot: All three candidates, including Taft, the Republican, and Teddy Roosevelt, who ran as a Progressive, advocated an income tax, which was implemented during Wilson's first term.


Now, explain again how Woodrow Wilson "did" the 16th Amendment, LIE-ability.


Have fun calling Teddy Roosevelt a socialist, you fucking moron, although I'm sure that by your twisted standard, he probably was.


 
Back
Top