10 cheapest BEST cities to live.... and to run a mfr'g bidniss??

Page 6 of 7  
wrote:

No, logic says that logic isn't your strong suit.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 29, 10:21 am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Really,so less is more and black is pink.Explain how less income(taxes) means more revenue. That approach has never worked no matter how you cook the books. I not saying anything about the fact that expenditures are out of balance, I just questioning your statement that less taxes has always meant more revenue.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, it really is that black and white. You're clueless.

Leftists never have never understood dynamics. ...or much of anything else, for that matter.

Clearly false.

I didn't say that. Though I can understand that literacy is no more your strong suit than logic. Typical of leftists.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Like I said, you're illiterate as well as stupid; typical of a leftist.

Answers, at least.

Look in the mirror, stupid.

You're right, no one can show you anything. Your eyes are firmly closed (and not connected to anything, anyway).

No, that is not what you said. Lower tax *rates* increase revenue. Proven.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 30, 10:19 am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Both cantor and McConnell are on record saying they are willing to shut down the country if they don't get their way. McConnell is on record saying his job is to make Obama a one term president, and will not pass anything that may give the impression of helping Obama,regardless.

Because you can't, so you just try to turn it back and blame me for being unwilling to open my eyes, Educate me.

So now you add the word *rates*,semantics, lower rates = lower taxes = less revenue. I will again cut and paste what you wrote

Educate me.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They *SHOULD* but no one with a brain believes that. You do, however.

He's only stating the obvious, dummy.

Obviously not possible. You refuse to see what is clearly in front of you. One day you'll grow up. Maybe.

Words matter to those who aren't illiterate.

They don't teach history in public school anymore, do they? Try reading some on your own. Oh, I forgot. You're illiterate.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 30, 1:54 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

You get asked, in a civil manner, to elaborate on your postings,to show how less = more and you resort to insults, You could have tried to explain your reasonings and maybe- just maybe you could have had a convert. But as it seems that you have nothing real to offer - or you have no clue about what you speak - and so your only response is to state that I am missing the obvious,and then resort to insults. You seem to be just another TeaParty parrot. no thinking required or even allowed. While I'm here, as you obviously dislike Obama - I not that fond of his presidency either- who do you think should replace him ?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny how they *always* ignore the fact that in all likelyhood, revenues would have increased even more so had tax breaks not been implemented.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not at all.
President Obama inspires confidence in me, and because of that, I hired two unemployed guys to clean my dirty industrial surplus stuff (which is now clean industrial surplus stuff).
One of them already worked more than 20 hours this week for me.
Posturing aside, I am very happy, they cleaned that stuff very, it would take me a long time to do it alone, and the stuff would sit unsold and taking room.
i
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

3 years after.

Trading industrial surplus would not go well there under Stalin.
i

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Whahaha..What a moron. The only dangerous people are the ones that go free after starting wars based on lies that kill his own troops and can't stop what he started. Run the country into a ditch and admit he is no longer concerned about a terrorist that attacked America killing almost as many Americans as he has.
Still looking for those WMD Gumby?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You are totally clueless Gumby. The right has been providing WMD to terrorists for decades. It is fun to watch you melt down with every post.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, he has been a great President in the last 4 years, but will turn into Stalin the next 4 years? Not so likely.
i

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The continued dive in the economy is simply fallout from the failure of the previous administration. This is why the right is not serious about winning the WH in 2012 and why they offered up who they did to run against Obama in the first place. Any Dem could have beaten any of your heroes on the right. Just look at who you nut jobs are putting up for sacrifice once again. You are nothing but a joke from start to finish Gumby. You have nothing and never did loser.
Must suck to be such a moron like you Gumby.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So all you can do it ramble on about what happened so far in the past and say nothing about how the right can change anything. Your empty noise is noted. Post here and now what Obama did to make anything worse other then to fight giving more tax breaks to the millionaires.
Crickets.................
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The exact definitions are easily found with a web search.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dunno. Haven't checked. 20%? That wasn't my issue, though.

No problems, so far.

OK.
OK, but this is exactly my point. The U3 doesn't measure only those collecting "unemployment insurance", as you stated. It measures those without jobs (on UI, or not) who are seeking employment. The "99 weeks" (or whatever) is meaningless, here.

DoL publishes a U1, U2, U4, and U5, too.

Except that historically the U3 has been used for these "reports". The higher number is not all that valuable as a comparison without a historical comparison.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This sums it all up.
http://cons-lie.com/2010/01/26/why-republicans-suck /
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: -Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Jan 2000 = 130781
Jan 2001 = 132469
Jan 2002 = 130591
Jan 2003 = 130266
Jan 2004 = 130420
Jan 2005 = 132453
Jan 2006 = 135094
Jan 2007 = 137094
Jan 2008 = 137996
Jan 2009 = 133563
Jan 2010 = 129281
Jan 2011 = 130328
In other words, either the US population has literally exploded over the past decade or the employment situation isn't nearly as bad as the "unemployment" numbers would make it appear.
Noteworthy is that the Jan 2011 totals are nearly identical to the numbers seen in Jan 2000, 2002 and 2003, and that the Sep 2011 figures are actually favorable as compared to the numbers in most of FY 2000, all of 2002 and 2003, as well as a good portion of FY 2004.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.