Unemployment Rates Rise in 44 States in July

[wbcoleman]

Nah if you adopt a slightly different 999 rate due to the severity of the problem it would fix the problem.
No taxes on the first 18 000 on anyone. 9% tax on net earnings from 18k-50k 18% tax on earnings between 50k-100k 27% tax 100k-150k and so on until you get to a 99% tax on everything above 750k. This would be individual not corporate earnings and it would solve the problem!

Really?  How would this solve the unemployment problem?

See reply #7.
By the way; another GOP lie is that the Democrats had a super-majority, that never was the case under Obama! (Thanks politifact!)

I assume you're referring to this:

When personal income is taxed at a higher rate more jobs are created so the wealthy can write off expenses instead of paying taxes. The people earning the money are then off unemployment/welfare and the economy improves.

It makes no sense as theory, inasmuch as the wealthy person "writing off expenses" would still be worse off than one who did not.  You must, therefore, be referring to some contrary empirical evidence, eh?  Got a link?

Oh, and by the way, the Democrats of the 111th Congress DID hold a sixty seat majority in the Senate from the day Al Franken took his seat until the day Scott Brown took his.  OK, except for the days that the Massachusetts seat was vacant.

[clistensprechen]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

[wbcoleman]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

[Woody]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.



If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Clara is workin' the Bush trifecta.  Can she do it?  Tune in tomorrow for the conclusion of "Hide Barry's Record".  will Clara finish the trifecta for max points  and a free entry into the arugula dinner sweepstakes with Michelle and Barry or will she choke meaning 3 more weeks of attending kiss ins at chick fila.

[Gnosisquest]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

The only thing is that it is not a ludicrous theory. The trickle down peddlers would like you to think so but that is what is a ludicrous theory.
The trickle down theory where the money all floats to the top is what we are still experiencing. Perhaps it will be necessary for all money to be hogged by the wealthy before you understand but net earnings should be taxed no less than 50% over 1Million.
Corporations do not need to be taxed higher than about 28% but there is no reason for anyone to net over a million!

[wbcoleman]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

The only thing is that it is not a ludicrous theory. The trickle down peddlers would like you to think so but that is what is a ludicrous theory.
The trickle down theory where the money all floats to the top is what we are still experiencing. Perhaps it will be necessary for all money to be hogged by the wealthy before you understand but net earnings should be taxed no less than 50% over 1Million.
Corporations do not need to be taxed higher than about 28% but there is no reason for anyone to net over a million!

OK, let's try again:

It makes no sense as theory, inasmuch as the wealthy person "writing off expenses" would still be worse off than one who did not.  You must, therefore, be referring to some contrary empirical evidence, eh?  Got a link?

[Gnosisquest]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

The only thing is that it is not a ludicrous theory. The trickle down peddlers would like you to think so but that is what is a ludicrous theory.
The trickle down theory where the money all floats to the top is what we are still experiencing. Perhaps it will be necessary for all money to be hogged by the wealthy before you understand but net earnings should be taxed no less than 50% over 1Million.
Corporations do not need to be taxed higher than about 28% but there is no reason for anyone to net over a million!

OK, let's try again:

It makes no sense as theory, inasmuch as the wealthy person "writing off expenses" would still be worse off than one who did not.  You must, therefore, be referring to some contrary empirical evidence, eh?  Got a link?

Here is one of the links: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756

[clistensprechen]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

It's an observable reality that, apparently, you're denying.
You deny, therefore, that, nationwide, no kid has graduated school? Nobody got a degree in college?
You deny, therefore, that no troops have been coming home from Iraq and elsewhere?
You deny, therefore, that government hasn't eliminated one single job?
Too cute by half, and certainly less believable than my assertion.

[wbcoleman]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

The only thing is that it is not a ludicrous theory. The trickle down peddlers would like you to think so but that is what is a ludicrous theory.
The trickle down theory where the money all floats to the top is what we are still experiencing. Perhaps it will be necessary for all money to be hogged by the wealthy before you understand but net earnings should be taxed no less than 50% over 1Million.
Corporations do not need to be taxed higher than about 28% but there is no reason for anyone to net over a million!

OK, let's try again:

It makes no sense as theory, inasmuch as the wealthy person "writing off expenses" would still be worse off than one who did not.  You must, therefore, be referring to some contrary empirical evidence, eh?  Got a link?

Here is one of the links: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756

Help me out!  I couldn't find anything in your link even remotely applicable tio your suggestion.  In fact, the study starts off by asserting, "The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run."

Are you calling a 99% marginal tax rate "a modest increase"?

[Gnosisquest]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

The only thing is that it is not a ludicrous theory. The trickle down peddlers would like you to think so but that is what is a ludicrous theory.
The trickle down theory where the money all floats to the top is what we are still experiencing. Perhaps it will be necessary for all money to be hogged by the wealthy before you understand but net earnings should be taxed no less than 50% over 1Million.
Corporations do not need to be taxed higher than about 28% but there is no reason for anyone to net over a million!

OK, let's try again:

It makes no sense as theory, inasmuch as the wealthy person "writing off expenses" would still be worse off than one who did not.  You must, therefore, be referring to some contrary empirical evidence, eh?  Got a link?

Here is one of the links: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756

Help me out!  I couldn't find anything in your link even remotely applicable tio your suggestion.  In fact, the study starts off by asserting, "The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run."

Are you calling a 99% marginal tax rate "a modest increase"?

No; what I am saying is that one is better off suggesting a 99% tax rate and settling for 50% than asking for 50% and settling for 25%

[wbcoleman]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

The only thing is that it is not a ludicrous theory. The trickle down peddlers would like you to think so but that is what is a ludicrous theory.
The trickle down theory where the money all floats to the top is what we are still experiencing. Perhaps it will be necessary for all money to be hogged by the wealthy before you understand but net earnings should be taxed no less than 50% over 1Million.
Corporations do not need to be taxed higher than about 28% but there is no reason for anyone to net over a million!

OK, let's try again:

It makes no sense as theory, inasmuch as the wealthy person "writing off expenses" would still be worse off than one who did not.  You must, therefore, be referring to some contrary empirical evidence, eh?  Got a link?

Here is one of the links: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756

Help me out!  I couldn't find anything in your link even remotely applicable tio your suggestion.  In fact, the study starts off by asserting, "The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run."

Are you calling a 99% marginal tax rate "a modest increase"?

No; what I am saying is that one is better off suggesting a 99% tax rate and settling for 50% than asking for 50% and settling for 25%

Now you're saying that raising the marginal rate to 50% is a "modest increase".  Waiting for you to produce actual evidence that such a thing will create jobs will be forever, because you cannot.

Just as an aside, are you familiar with the U.K.'s 101% marginal rate back in the 1960's?

[Gnosisquest]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

The only thing is that it is not a ludicrous theory. The trickle down peddlers would like you to think so but that is what is a ludicrous theory.
The trickle down theory where the money all floats to the top is what we are still experiencing. Perhaps it will be necessary for all money to be hogged by the wealthy before you understand but net earnings should be taxed no less than 50% over 1Million.
Corporations do not need to be taxed higher than about 28% but there is no reason for anyone to net over a million!

OK, let's try again:

It makes no sense as theory, inasmuch as the wealthy person "writing off expenses" would still be worse off than one who did not.  You must, therefore, be referring to some contrary empirical evidence, eh?  Got a link?

Here is one of the links: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756

Help me out!  I couldn't find anything in your link even remotely applicable tio your suggestion.  In fact, the study starts off by asserting, "The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run."

Are you calling a 99% marginal tax rate "a modest increase"?

No; what I am saying is that one is better off suggesting a 99% tax rate and settling for 50% than asking for 50% and settling for 25%

Now you're saying that raising the marginal rate to 50% is a "modest increase".  Waiting for you to produce actual evidence that such a thing will create jobs will be forever, because you cannot.

Just as an aside, are you familiar with the U.K.'s 101% marginal rate back in the 1960's?

Top taxes on earnings in Norway is 54.7% the country enjoys full employment.
Top corporate tax in Norway is 28% Norway has no deficit problem, every child born in Norway is a millionaire.

I am not aware of Britain but I recall well on an airplane from Stavanger to London in 1969 sitting beside an executive from Phillips Petroleum. I asked him why they drilled in Norway when the Norwegian Government had to own 51% of the shares in the company's Norwegian venture before they could drill and then they taxed them 85% on the earnings on their 49% He told me it was still worth it.

Due to the Norwegian policies Norway now has its own oil company owned by all Norwegians (Statoil) and due to these policies, like I said, all Norwegian children are born millionaires. The Government can only use 4% of the oil income the rest is invested to secure the future of the children. Corporate taxes are also far lower due to the nation taking care of the people first and not lowering taxes until the nation could afford it.

Taxes in Norway up to about $100 000 a year is 35%, for that they get 5 weeks paid vacation, fully covered health care. Paid maternity leave (full paid) for a year etc. etc. I know, taxes are less here if you rake in millions but do you really believe the US system is superior?
You are currently destroying the middle class through the destruction of unions and peddling the policies of the wealthy sociopaths. Every great nation that went under went under after the middle class was destroyed and you expect me to think you have a clue?

[clistensprechen]

Gentlemen, what the UK calls marginal doesn't translate into American English anymore than spanner or bonnet does.

Let's keep the apples comparable to apples without throwing oranges and lemons into it.

[wbcoleman]

Gentlemen, what the UK calls marginal doesn't translate into American English anymore than spanner or bonnet does.

Let's keep the apples comparable to apples without throwing oranges and lemons into it.

WHAT?!?

[RWE]

Due to the Norwegian policies Norway now has its own oil company owned by all Norwegians (Statoil) and due to these policies, like I said, all Norwegian children are born millionaires. The Government can only use 4% of the oil income the rest is invested to secure the future of the children.

It's a good thing you have all those capitalist countries to sell your oil to. Here we have a bunch of left wing wackos who try to stop progress at every step. But in Norway you can drill for offshore oil, build dams and even hunt whales. It must be nice for your economy to have the environmental wackos under control. Could you imagine what Alaska's economy would be like if they could drill ANWR and keep the money for themselves? They'd be born millionaires too.