General discussion

If tax cuts create jobs, why didn't the 2001 tax cuts create

any? It is widely acknowledged that following the 2001 Tax Cuts, jobs went first into a rapid decline, followed by what can only be called Free Fall. If the Received Wisdom of the Randian Republican Party has been proven wrong, what are they going to do next? Campaign on it didn't work last time, so lets do it again. I'm sure the Republican elite whose numbers are so small they can dance on the head of a pin (and will probably nominate him), would be thrilled to reduce their taxes again.

Rob

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: If tax cuts create jobs, why didn't the 2001 tax cuts create
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: If tax cuts create jobs, why didn't the 2001 tax cuts create
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Politics of Envy

Proverbs 14:30 - A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.

God Loves the Republicans and wants them to rule.

Exodus 18:21 - Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:


Exodus 20:17 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


Deuteronomy 5:21 - Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet
thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his
maidservant, his ox, or his ***, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.


Psalms 10:3 - For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.

- Collapse -
Excuse me?

If you were serious in this statement, then you need a bit of adjustment to your theology:
God Loves the Republicans and wants them to rule.
I cannot imagine you found that in Scripture.
The Republican Party, like all human institutions, is deeply flawed.

- Collapse -
LOL, dancing angels

Pins and needles. All considered, a little overstatement was called for. Wink

- Collapse -
Why did Obama the snorter continue the cuts??

Wasn't the 800 billion that Obama spent supposed to create jobs?? Some how since then, there are 1.9 million less jobs.

Go figure.

- Collapse -
I was enraged by that cave on his part. I have become very

sceptical of his ability at governance. Not sure if I said this here, but he came in in 2010 with majorities in both houses. His job was to govern. Instead he engaged in a kind of appeasement and wooing of the Republican vote. When you've got a majority and a mandate (no pun intended) you govern. You do what you think is best for the country without trying to curry favour from those opposed to you, and you put the Blue Dogs in a vice. "Don't want to support me, let's see how you do next election with my active opposition." Had he produced the promised infrastructure bill the unemployment situation would look entirely different. It's not as if there isn't anything to do, he could have put BP's metal retainers for a bolt in a vice and done a meaningful cleanup using local people, then moved on to planning with the US Corpse of Engineers under Dutch direction and planning on a surge barrier and a substantial strengthening of the interiors of the off shore islands that break up the surge. Then you move into the neighbourhoods, and use land fill on crushed rock to bring the flood areas above flood trouble.

You don't hand money to Wall Street without strings, you don't allow any bonuses for the next 5 to 10 years as punishment for their past behaviour and funnel all that money into New Orleans. Then you start the Dead Men of Engineers again under Dutch direction on a plan to handle annual Mississippi flooding ensuring that all buildings are above flood levels, and raising them if they're not. Canada has the same problem via the Assiniboine River and the Red River which eventually connect with the Mississippi system. The current system in place is to divert flood water onto fields and away from built up areas. It seems to have worked relatively well this year, but in past years it has been just as bad as it has been in the US states bordering The Big Muddy. Kids in primary school here learn about the Great Flood of the 20's which put most of Fort Garry (why does that look wrong?) across the river from Winnipeg under water. The worst flooding occurred in 1950 and again in 1997. 1950 was supposed to be the 100 year flood there having been one in 1861, thank you Wikipedia, but apparently it was just the beginning of 50 year floods. The good news is that this year the Diversion seemed to work.

At any rate, putting people to work should have been Obama's primary concern following the Wall Street collapse and penalizing those whose foolishness caused it. Guess not. The Auto bailout seems to have worked and has I believe been repaid in its entirety, but that hasn't increased employment in the Auto sector much.

I've talked about repatriating jobs shifted off shore, or down to Costa Rica or Guatemala. I still think that's a good idea, and **** Phil Knight of Nike for making shoes for less than $20 and selling them for more than $200. American workers are as good and as quick as anybody. It's just a move toward a kind of Empire building employing folks who don't habla and therefore aren't able to effectively protest safety issues.

Enough, I need to sleep. It's now 3.

Best to all
Rob

- Collapse -
Some points

and I readily admit ahead of time that I'm commenting on only my opinion and what has been obvious to me:

At any rate, putting people to work should have been Obama's primary concern following the Wall Street collapse and penalizing those whose foolishness caused it. Guess not. The Auto bailout seems to have worked and has I believe been repaid in its entirety, but that hasn't increased employment in the Auto sector much.

First, BO claims he HAS put people to work...unfortunately 90% of those jobs went into building up the personnel at the FEDERAL level and increasing government, which increases the debt because of those new employees that have to be paid along with their benefits. He has increased the number of departments, even tho they overlap others that were supposed to be doing the same work already, but he had to give positions to his cronies and 'same thinkers' that got him into office.

As for the auto industry bailout....The monies used to 'repay' the bailout came from a SECOND bailout they received. They still owe THAT money to us. BO also now has the Federal Government owning a good majority of GM still, but rather than hold off for the stock to go back up, he plans to sell off way lower than what it was worth when he bought it, causing a tremendous loss to the taxpayers rather than the profit he had stated would come for that 'investment'. We will eventually end up in the hole on that deal to the tune of somewhere around $40B more or less....I suspect more. The reason there isn't any improvement in the employment rate in the auto industry is because so much money has gone into creating those great (sarcasm here) electric cars.....nobody can afford to buy them so it is tanking (pun intended) and there aren't any service stations that can accommodate them for recharging. Another huge waste of Federal money that BO promised would turn around the auto industry was the 'Cash for Clunkers' idea...there are still some dealers who never got those refunds...but the idea was to get every single traded in vehicle off the road. The intention was never to allow those cars (even ones in perfect condition) to be resold or sent to junk yards for replacement parts cheap for others to buy to keep THEIR cars running...it was to eliminate everything and that would then force people into buying the new 'green' machines, even though nobody had jobs and couldn't buy them even if they wanted to.

Oh...and the other 'green' approach by this admin that turned into a joke...the "Cash for Caulking" program. Bush signed into law in 2007 a pretty ridiculous bill regarding the light bulbs, but BO has gone off the deep end in far greater and more asinine directions, including promising $2B (and it will turn into much more, mark my words) to Brazil for oil drilling and also promizing that we will be their best customer. That $2B could have put all those people back to work in the Gulf right now, but he has no interest in helping here. The more dependent you make a country on government entitlements, the more those people look to you to 'take care of them'...crush them from the top and lift them back up from the bottom, and you end up totally in control of them.

- Collapse -
Also

You can't create jobs strictly by cutting taxes...you have to include cutting government spending at the same time, and that didn't happen in 2001, and it isn't happening now even tho the Bush tax cuts (actually credits) were extended for two years in Dec). The reason the job hike happened in 2001 temporarily was because Bush and the Admin hadn't increased spending during that period...the increase in spending started after 9-11.

- Collapse -
Obama took office in January 2009, not 2010.

Obama had majorities in both Senate and House till Jan 2011. There was no appeasement of Republicans in all of 2009 and 2010. I agree that creating jobs should have been a priority with Obama after making sure the banking system was sound and steadied. I also agree that Obama went overboard in propping up parts of Wall Street to the neglect of other less favored parts, creating an imbalance that exists in the market to this day. He should have just insured deposits in the banks to prevent bank runs. The biggest problem was the artificially inflated real estate market bubble caused by excessive loans to risky borrowers and the resulting speculation and housing price increases it encouraged. Public works projects that help build the infrastructure of the country overall are good and quick ways to provide jobs, all while benefitting large groups of the population. One of the biggest economic boons to this country was the interstate highway system begun in the Eisenhower administration, because it increased the ability and speed of commerce across the nation, like the railroads had done before it.

NAFTA is a questionable action. It would have seemed that increasing the industrial capabilities of Mexico would have encouraged more Mexicans to remain there for the jobs created, but oddly enough even more left Mexico to work in the US after NAFTA than in previous years. That's an interesting relationship that bears more study I think. Many of the Hispanic workers who have come across the US-Mexican border however are not Mexicans, but from countries further south. I'm not sure NAFTA had any part in causing such migration into the US from those more southerly countries, but perhaps there's a connection we don't readily see.

- Collapse -
unemployment chart

Bush = rise from 4 to 6% unemployment, dropping to about 4.5% by end of his administration.

Obama = rise from 5% to over 10% unemployment, dropping to 8.5% as of now.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Adjust the years as needed for the chart. I don't know if any illegal workers and the jobs they've taken are factored into this.

Second highest unemployment rate EVER for a full year was in 2010.
http://www.davemanuel.com/2011/01/07/2010-second-highest-average-us-monthly-unemployment-rate-posted-since-1948/


Here is the progression from 2000 to 2010 in terms of the average monthly national unemployment rate:

2000) 3.97%
2001) 4.74%
2002) 5.78%
2003) 5.99%
2004) 5.54%
2005) 5.08%
2006) 4.62%
2007) 4.63%
200Cool 5.81%
2009) 9.26%
2010) 9.64%

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm
Shows from 1976, the average yearly unemployment rate. Seems anything under 6% is considered about normal since then. Anything above 6% enters problematic territory.

So, while there was a rise of 2% higher unemployment starting in 2001, statistically it was unimportant and may actually have been a correction from an abnormally low unemployment rate in 1999 and 2000, which coincidentally was when a stock market bubble popped, falling from 11,500 in year 2000 back to 7,500 approximately by end of year 2002. In fact, it would seem George Bush Jr. should be commended under such circumstances for only having a 2% rise in unemployment under those economic conditions.

- Collapse -
While i appreciate the correction this is still nonsense

Bush numbers were skewed by the employment generated by the wars, but Bush and Wall Street are entirely to blame for the Collapse which cost jobs whose loss appears under Obama's term. They were generated by Bush policies and failure to police Wall Street. Bush eroded funding and hiring at the SEC and the word from on high was "do nothing as quietly as possible". This word was reinforced after the collapse so that it became hard to sort out who was responsible for what.

You can't Blame Obama for job loss generated on his predecessors watch, and that's what happened.

Rob

- Collapse -
Then why didn't the same thing happen in 1987?

Why didn't it happen following the crash of the stock market in October 1987? I can tell you why in one word. Reaganomics.

Now we have Obamanomics. He's been in office 3 years. Where are we now economically? Some are still stuck trying to blame Bush.

- Collapse -
Baloney

You want to blame Bush II for a 30 year old practice of building and financing houses for people that couldn't afford them? I will admit that the 1st Bush had a hand in it but Jimmy Carter actually started it with the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977. George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 which amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect Congress' view that the Government Sponsored Enterprises "have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families." In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The whole fiasco is really born of the ignorant entitlement mentality that people should be able to mortgage property no matter if they can afford it or not.

- Collapse -
A slow growth in the unemployment rate isn't job creation by

any definition, and the fall out will be felt for years unless Obama grows a pair, or even if he does.

Rob

- Collapse -
Does nobody have a serious reply to the question?

Look, I agree that Rob frequently appears to do his best to be as offensive as possible as frequently as possible, but this question raises a legitimate issue.
I don't pretend to understand economics well enough to venture an answer, nor am I convinced that tax cuts are always the best option to deal with economic problems.
So, given that the perceived need for drastic reductions in taxes are an article of faith for some of our members, is nobody willing to take a shot at this question?
Juvenile/offensive replies don't do much to help the atmosphere of the forum.

- Collapse -
I'll take a little bit of a shot

When the tax cuts went into effect, there actually was a large jump in employment; however, that only lasted until 9-11. Once that occurred, there was another jump, but at the Federal level because so many people enlisted in the military. The economy and jobs normally increase during a time of war because plants get busy making defense items, but we don't have that too much here in the States anymore because so much of it is now made overseas.

The Republicans who were in control blew it hugely during this time with their own spending spree and the belief in the housing and financial stability (which started with Clinton and the push to shove everyone into the American Dream of owning a house even when they couldn't afford it and continued into the Bush early years). People like Geithner, Greenspan, Bernake, and Frank were still telling the Admin that everything was fine with Fannie, Freddie, and Wall Street when things were actually tumbling into a pit. As people began losing their homes due to foreclosures, the Feds were lowering the interest rates in order to 'solve' the problem, more companies (finance first) began letting people go in order to 'solve' their own problems, and there was a huge trickle down effect because banks started to stop lending money to businesses that normally keep them going with meeting payrolls, etc. while they invested in parts, etc., and once the banks stopped lending, those companies had to start laying off or letting go. The auto industries had to slow down, lay off, etc. because now they couldn't get capital to buy their own supplies, and again the trickle down effect hit, with small suppliers and dealerships being forced to close by the auto industry being hit. The snowball just kept going and has never recovered when it might have had the Feds never stepped in and allowed the banks and the auto industry to just fail, file bankruptcy, and let the private sector do what it does best...pick up the pieces. The Feds getting involved just made it all worse.

I know that this doesn't explain everything, but IMO, it's how it got started and now the Feds are so embedded into all of it that it can't see the forest for the trees and just get back out again. On a personal level, even tho the taxpayer is already deeply in the hole financially over some very unwise decisions made by the Feds and even tho we would lose greatly if they backed out financially, I would rather take another hit by them backing out, letting whatever fails, fail, than see more money sunk into that black hole and having it get even worse than it is already. Having the Feds try to 'save' us has been killing us instead, IMO

- Collapse -
No, there can not be a serious answer to his question

His question in based on LIES.

This is abject HOGWASH:

It is widely acknowledged that following the 2001 Tax Cuts, jobs went
first into a rapid decline, followed by what can only be called Free
Fall.



At least you can see what his real purpose is here.

- Collapse -
I'll remain undecided ...

Both you AND Rob are making unsupported claims.
Perhaps one (or preferably both) could justify your claim with data?
Some of us are not sure of the actual sequence of events related to the tax cuts, employment trends and so on. My recollection is that the financial markets were already showing weakness before 9/11 but I don't recall what was going on regarding employment. Of course, my 'recollection' is also an unsupported claim ... but I'm not the one making dogmatic statements so I don't feel too bad about that.

- Collapse -
DJI
- Collapse -
Glady !!!

Robbie made an unsupported claim.
Back it up and then we can start.

- Collapse -
I'm tempted to prove Dr. Bill's assertion about juvenile

behaviour begetting juvenile behaviour, but I won't -- Michael.

I made a mistake regarding unemployment figures under Bush, they stayed flat until the year before the Wall Street Crash, then went into free fall. I thank James for posting the figures, but again, what is the lag-time involved in statistics reflecting what's going on.

Dr. Bill, there was nothing inflammatory in my first post but my challenge of the Received Wisdom of St. George of the small Shrub. Now to me, that underlined part is funny, particularly since there's a Monty Python reference in it as well as a reference to Bush's primary journalistic antagonist in Texas, Molly Ivins, who wrote a book entitled Shrub. There's a third reference that I choose not to put my finger on. And the conspicuous religiosity about his politics, as if they'd been delivered by UPS, United Prayer Services. Molly Ivins also predicted that Bush would do to the US what he'd done to Texas which saw its education scores plummet and its economy go soft. She was wrong, he did a lot worse.

So in that small amount of prose we have a parody of the obeisance of many here to the God-like George of the falling house of cards, the treatment of his opinion as Received Wisdom and inerrant, and a bunch of amusing stuff for people who if they weren't so intent on their own opinions they might see the empty hole for the Shrubbery.

Now I don't particularly care if you, or anybody likes my sense of humour. It amuses me, it amuses my friends who stay as far away from this forum as it is possible to stay, because they recognize that it is to a predominant degree The Land of the Closed MInd.

Toni. I find myself both appreciating what you have written and agreeing with you on a number of points.

When I first started here, I was subjected to 2 years of personal attacks and insults, which after a while I embraced and joined in the game of pin the tail on the previous poster.

While it may not appear like it, but I'm not nearly as stuck on my own opinion as you think I am, nor are my attacks personal by and large. If I'm going to complain I try to complain in general about the staunchly Conservative Republican nature of the majority here. I stumble sometimes, I apologize sometimes, I acknowledge error some times, like this one regarding Bush unemployment statistics, which behaviour I don't see being emulated by any other member here. The thinkers here are largely silent. Dr. Bill, Josh Katz, Mark Flax and Jonah, who disagrees with most of what I say, but doesn't smack me over the head for it.

Because I am now less mobile than I was, the computer is my source of amusement. From the first time I visited SE I was astonished at how one sided it was, with only Dave Konkel as a voice of, in my opinion, sanity. I watched and read while horrible back-stabbing things were said while he was on holiday, blaming him for all the contention that bubbled here, and I decided then that he wasn't going to be the lone voice on the left. I made a choice to join in here for a reason, and that reason was "reason". There was so much parrotting of FoxNews and Republican extremists and the out put of Conservative think tanks who produce Pablum for the politically inept, that I joined in and tried to give as good as I got. (Does anybody know that Pablum was invented here in Toronto at the Hospital for Sick Children? Okay, I acknowledge I have a love of extraneous information.)

Then my family situation disintegrated and I was forced to take some time off. I think if you compared my posts from 2004, to the end of 2006 would be pretty offensive, and I'd probably nuke 98% of them. Since I returned in about 2008 I have been far less contentious personally while still expressing my opinion. I think what irritates people is that I continue to assert my opinion in an overly academic way while throwing in peculiar humour. I think on one hand I intimidate and on the other I make people feel I think less of them. That is categorically not true. As far as we as members of SE are concerned you are all my equals. Would I throw in obscure jokes if I didn't want you to catch them, at least some of them? Now I'm as guilty as the next person of showing off sometimes viz the 3rd paragraph of this monstrous thing, but so what. "Rob must be bored or maybe he thought this was funny, but it doesn't appeal to me", is all I expect, not attack.

Now a generally accepted cliche is that humour grows out of anger, so despite the fact that I feel fine, and I am not Peeved with anybody particularly, though James and Mike do try not to miss an opportunity for a shot, I'm still quite a happy person, as anybody who knows me will tell you (leaving aside my wife, okay?). I am guilty at times of writing things for my own amusement like that incoherent post on English and the different conventions of naming people on the two sides of the Atlantic, and sailing on into stream of consciousness waters because I wasn't falling asleep and I desperately wanted to.

I am willing to acknowledge that I have what is now a quiescent Mt St. Helens in me that fuels my humour and which attracts a lot of people to me. You're just going to have to trust me on that, but I used to throw parties which are still legendary among my friends, one of which broke up at 2 in the afternoon the next day having made two stops on the way. Our wedding was so unconventional and so enjoyable that a number of friends had us organize theirs. Once I get my place properly organized, and get another 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 bookshelves for the rest of my books and my records, and my DVD's (most of my CD's are already out and all are at least findable) then I'll probably try throwing parties and getting back into music. Being out of music, and not performing at least occasionally was a big mistake.

A very close friend who has known me since Grad school gave me the book The Artist's Way, and it is very much me. In some respects I should have quit school and become a full time performer, because I'd get to do all this for an audience, and get instant feedback. As shy a person as I am, I still enjoy performing even when it's just for one other person whom I may never see again.

Now I don't want to be the St. Stephen in the crowd, but if it happens, and it has, it happens. So long as I'm happy with where my head is, and I'm getting out and getting things done around the apartment and at friends places, I'm fine. I don't see myself as nearly the edgy character that Dr. Bill seems to see me. And I do think that some of my better, and more coherent pieces with references aren't half bad. Some of them I wouldn't be ashamed to turn in as assignments. So it's not as if there is an absence of a self-critical function here. I have performed academically at a very, very good level, and some of what I've put together here isn't bad for a first draft, but it is generally dismissed by those who wouldn't acknowledge it even if they recognized its worth, because it is "the other".

I listen to Republican candidates, and some of them I respect, but a lot of them, like the Duke of Orange (Bohner), speak in Republican "boiler plate" (That's the fine print in a legal document) with all the belief and sincerity of a voice-speech synthesizer. There are others like Palin and Bachman and Rand Paul who scare me because they're Wm. Jennings Bryan's successors though regrettably not as eloquent or well read. They're demagogues, or the tools for demagogues. And that's the reason for my contempt and dislike of George W. Bush. I don't think he made a real decision in his presidency based on reason. I think he was winging it from day one, and I think in 20 years or less he will be seen as the worst President in the history of the United States and his father as one of the most underestimated.

I did mean what I said early on, I feel quite certain he could not have made it through his undergraduate degree let alone a Havard MBA without a cadre of people writing his papers for him, and tutoring him for exams. I have had to mark Undergraduate essays, and he gets a failing grade for what he communicated. I just point to his speeches and his off the cuff remarks as evidence. He got confused in the middle of speeches written for him, and he could not speak to save his life. "Misunderestimated" "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice well... you won't get fooled again." Well at least he got The Who quotation right. Now it is just possible that he did get the first part of that saying right or kind of bobbled it, but with all the other gobbledegook he said, how can we be sure.

And his warmth and his humanity, when the reporter asked him a serious question about something that had importance to people living in the United States, that made an impact on them while he was playing golf, and he just brushed it aside as trivial and the people of the United States as equally trivial and then went on to what was important to him "Now watch me hit this drahv." His entire life is the story of the failed child, always looking for validation in his parent's eyes, and I don't think he's ever gotten it, not ever. I'm not taking a shot at Bush here, I am very sincere, and somewhat hurt for him and that fruitless quest.

Why Jeb was put in a corner is a mystery to me. Jeb is 3 times George W. I wouldn't have agreed with him, but I'd have put my hand over my heart when he walked or drove by. And he wouldn't have scared me as President, and he wouldn't have thought you could pursue conflicting policies, those of reducing revenue for the Federal Government while fighting two ?unplanned? wars. I still think Wall Street would have screwed up, but I don't think the knees would have shaken or the bailout been so costly with Jeb at the wheel. Jeb had too many smarts for that. He might even have been smart enough to see it coming and intervene, and I'm sure he'd have chosen a Cabinet for their opinions and smarts, not their cohesiveness in backing him to implement their agenda. Do you remember how fast Colin Powell was out of the Bush Cabinet??? 4 years, and I bet they felt like 40 to him. And Condoleeza Rice? She's a smart woman, how could she stick it out, especially when Colin gracefully jumped ship.

But perhaps that was the problem. Certain elements of the Republican Party wanted a front man who wouldn't argue with them, who would just do as they said. Cheney Rove Regan Wolfowitz and the rest made a trade. "You gimme mah War with Saddam Hoosayne, an' I'll do whatever you say." I really think that's a plausible deal and a plausible reason for George W's Presidency. Now I'd be willing to grant a fair level of sibling rivalry in there too, because Jeb was always the smart one, and like all not- very-bright 3rd or 4th children, George grew up with a lot of anger and no place to put it in that cold New England family.

So there I go again, off into the ozone, thinking aloud via a computer on the Internet. But I don't think that there's nearly as much dross in this as the folks at SE will think there is.

Michael, James Tony, I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to let you say it. And that goes for everybody here,

Rob

- Collapse -
Here's an idea !!!!!!!!!!!!

You make a lot of "mistakes"

Try doing a tiny bit of research and maybe even have someone proofread your post before you post them

- Collapse -
RE: maybe even have someone proofread your post

maybe even have someone proofread your post before you post them

Since YOU brought it up.


Glady !!!


Dr. Bill said

Perhaps one (or preferably both) could justify your claim with data?

You say Glad(l)y!!!!! (I guess gladly means you'll to do it and you'll do it right away.)

THEN you say

The other guy first. (that means you won't do it until the other guy does)

I proofread ALL my posts...I don't catch ANY of the errors.

- Collapse -
why do you spend so much time

commenting on HOW people post instead of addressing the content of what they post?

- Collapse -
Very juvenile of him

But nobody else will see that

- Collapse -
(NT) See much the same of others too.
- Collapse -
Free Fall

I think that phrase would be better applied to this current Obama period as regards employment. Going from a reasonable rate of 5% on taking office to an unemployment rate of 10% after two years in office could be described as a "Free Fall" in employment. I'm glad the free fall from all the housing industry manipulations by Barney Frank, his lover that was at Fannie Mae, and other Democrats involved in pushing banks into bad loans has fallen into the lap of a Democrat. At least they can have the whole blame now for the ultimate culmination of their actions.

- Collapse -
Yeah, "freefall"

During Bush was 5% unemployment.

The new "norm" under Obama is 10%.

- Collapse -
My real purpose here is to provide a small counterbalance to

the mudslide of pre-packaged Conservative sludge. I'm just trying to offer a different point of view, and a suggestion that just because 2/3 or 3/4 or 4/5 of the opinion here leans or flows one way, doesn't mean that it's right or true or accurate or logical.

You think somebody's paying me to post contrary opinions here. That's the Republicans you're thinking of paying "journalists" to ask soft ball questions planned in advance at Bush era press Conferences. Democrats dont' have enough money or the nasty instincts for that, and besides, why would they pay me to post from Canada. Now if anyone hears of an arm of the Democratic party willing for a small stipend to pay me, say $500 a month, I'd have a real dilemma because I could use the money, but I don't believe in that sort of immoral behaviour. Have you noticed that despite a strong religious component to the Republican base, their actions in the two Bush elections, and at Tea Party rallies are quite unsavoury, not least in the fact that The Tea Party is a fictional entity organized by half a dozen PACs and Health Care Consortia with appalling amounts of money to spend. And that ain't fiction, it's been on the news a lot.

The question was "During the Bush Administration employment remained flat. The tax incentives created no jobs of any meaningful magnitude and the Unemployment figures were at the time called into question because some workers didn't register. There was a great deal of talk on every network save Fixed News about "discouraged unemployed" "unregistered unemployed" and the fact that once their benefits were exhausted they fell off the registry which is one of the reasons that figures remained so flat. No new jobs were created even if you accept the figures posted above. So why do Republicans continue to advocate a policy that doesn't work?" It was the massive seizure in the construction sector and every other sector following the 2008 Collapse that pushed those eligible for benefits onto the rolls of the unemployed and boosted the figures under Obama.

There are lots of ways of playing with unemployment figures, but the only valid one which isn't part of the statistics incidentally is "Did you want to work but have you been unable to find a job?" Followed by "Are you working at the level appropriate to your education?"

The Republicans have been unable to answer the questions in bold print, the additional stuff is from my capacious brain and television watching. It may be called into question, but beware when you assert it's wrong, because I am cursed with velcro for a brain. If I hear it, I remember it.

The most meaningful critiques of unemployment figures, and the manipulation of statistics came from NPR discussions, and The Rachel Maddow Show. Say what you will, she has a PhD in Health Management, a Rhodes Scholarship like Big Bad Bill, and a dedicated staff who work hard at digging out the statistics the Republicans don't want you to know about

The trick in Canada is "seasonally adjusted unemployment" meaning the fishermen before the cod stocks collapsed took the winter off on unemployment benefits (called "pogey" here, please don't ask why, cause I don't know) Also the logging industry tended to work in the summer. Parks and Recreation people from the cities have to find other work in the winter. A friend of mine works for a Golf Course as a Group Events convener and that takes him from May to early November in a good year. He was forcibly retired from his previous job with a package. He has an MBA but nobody wanted a 56 year old MBA when they could get a 26 year old one.

Rob

- Collapse -
"the mudslide of pre-packaged Conservative sludge"

TADA !!!!!!!!!!!
You can't post one freakin' post without doing this !!!

- Collapse -
Sorry Rob

while I don't agree with all your detractors and even insulters say, you appear almost as close minded to anything not far enough "left" in your view as those you criticize for not considering anything but "conservative" demagogic views.

CNET Forums