Unemployment falls to 7%

Who might that be per rule number 2?

 

Making it permanent opened the door for long term contracts that eventually led to the exodus of US factory jobs to china.

 

We've always had trade, that say trade has brought cheaper goods for American consumers and jobs for importers. Always has.

But even with two decades of trade, we had unemployment as low as 3.8% when Clinton was president about about 4 1/2% during Bush, until the GR.

I agree that foreign competition has reduced factory employment. More people shifted into service jobs instead.

The difference is, the manufacturing jobs were generally unionized and paid higher salaries. Thanks in part to "trickle down" policies and the conservative anti-union campaign, the workers in retail and services are not unionized and not paid the same good salaries. Instead, that extra money is flowing into the profits and pockets of the uber wealthy.

So what is the conservative response to this issue? Cut taxes for the uber rich even more while cutting the social programs that help the impoverished poor and middle taxes.

 

What they said was if more money is what is needed, then lowering tax rates at the top will achieve that goal. And that was accurate.

- - - Updated - - -

And the higher salaries paid for the unions, don't go there.

 

You demonstrate your ignorance on federal taxes with every post.

FICA tax also is not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA tax as "unearned income" tends to rise with higher income brackets.

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

 

Many conservatives cling to the free trade model we were taught in school.

Others now think maintaining a vibrant and robust manufacturing base is best.

As for poor you know what I think.

Deport the estimated 20 million illegal aliens and let the poor have those jobs.

 

Again, learn the tax codes. Then we can discuss further.

 

Repeat: We have with good consequences.

I know you didn't. You said "to have ownership in the companies they work for". I took it a step farther. Of course, you want to dock their pay to get some ownership while you have no problem with executives getting stock options that they can hold until the stock goes up. Then they buy them and receive capital gains.

Oh, this should be good. Please explain the above, especially to all those who believe that they must work harder to get money.

 

My position is that Taxes are Taxes regardless of origin.

 

I have to use that phrase in the future. Don't worry I will always give you credit for it.

 

Year - Inc. Tax Rev. - % GDP

1981 285.90 8.9% <- Reagan income tax cuts passed.
1982 297.70 8.9%
1983 288.90 7.9%
1984 298.40 7.4%
1985 334.50 7.7%
1986 349.00 7.6%
1987 392.60 8.1%
1988 401.20 7.6%
1989 445.70 7.9%
1990 466.90 7.8%
1991 467.80 7.6%
1992 476.00 7.3%
1993 509.70 7.4% <- Clinton increases income taxes
1994 543.10 7.4%
1995 590.20 7.7%
1996 656.40 8.1%
1997 737.50 8.6%
1998 828.60 9.1%
1999 879.50 9.1%
2000 1,004.50 9.8%
2001 994.30 9.4% <- Bush cuts income taxes
2002 858.30 7.8%
2003 793.70 6.9%
2004 809.00 6.6%
2005 927.20 7.1%
2006 1,043.90 7.5%
2007 1,163.47 8.0%
2008 1,145.70 7.8%
2009 915.30 6.3%
2010 898.55 6.0%

Income tax cuts and increases, mostly affecting the richer, decreased and increased income tax revenues, respectively.

And gave the middle class proportionately higher incomes.

Conservatives and 1% apologists hate unions because they have to pay their workers a better wage, decreasing their profits and top management income. Which might cut into their take of 20% of the nation's income and 40% of the nation's wealth, which is double from 30 years ago.

Because for some, more is never enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine, deport them. It is the Republican business owners that reap higher profits from their cheap (and often under the table) labor that don't want them to go.

 

Let me try to explain it to you. "For many years, People's Republic of China was the most important country in this group which required an annual waiver to maintain free trade status. The waiver for the PRC had been in effect since 1980."

So typical, willing to blame the consumers and not the companies.

 

Says the guy who wrongly claimed FICA taxes were not federal taxes, and who wrongly disputed that investment income is not subject to FICA taxes.

I think it is clear here who needs to learn the tax codes.

Though I can certainly see why you wouldn't want to discuss it further. Your every claim as been proved wrong.

 

Done in 2001 by a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

 

Only the right would try to blame market "failures" of Capitalism on the laws of demand and supply. Where were the wealthiest in trying to better compete in a global market; or were they already sure Socialism will always bail them out.

 

Nice try, but what you fail to mention is that spending also went up. Yep even during Reagan. so they received in more money and spent more. In fact, I don't recall when we as a nation have ever spent less during a presidency. Any of them. Too bad for the country. they all suck at it. Doesn't take away that the 1% spend the most and pay the most. It is a very simple law of mathematics.

 

My pay check:

Taxes
Federal Withholding
Social Security Employee
Medicare employee

 

Yet, only the right claims we can lower taxes and start non budgeted wars on abstractions.

 

I didn't say anything about spending because spending wasn't the issue under discussion, but whether tax cuts increased revenue.

.

You apparently know about as much about the budget as you do taxes.

Year - Outlays - % GDP
2009 3,517.7 24.4%
2010 3,456.2 23.1%
2011 3,598.1 23.2%
2012 3,537.1 21.8%
2013 3,454.0 20.7%

The Govt spent less in 2013 than it did in 2009. Unprecedented in modern history. Rush and Sean never mention that fact, do they?

 

Yep says right there Federal withholding. FEDERAL. did I studder?

 

Not sure where you info comes from, but it still isn't something concerning what the 1% pays in income tax rates and the 50% that don't?

 

I never claimed that federal income taxes are not federal taxes.

You're the one making the false claim that FICA taxes are not federal taxes.

 

The same as what?

 

The right cannot understand that tax revenues increase for a year or too after cutting capital gains tax rate. People sell more of their investments when they get a better capital gain tax rate. That stops and then the percentage to GDP goes down.

 

The information comes from the CBO and the BEA.
http://cbo.gov/publication/44507
http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

I didn't post it "concerning what the 1% pays in income tax rates and the 50% that don't." I posted it to show you how you were ignorant of the fact that the Govt has in fact cut spending, both in actual dollars as well as proportionate to GDP terms.