Democrats SUCK!!

[LOsborne]

You take one month out of a decade and claim it stands for the whole ten years?  Critical thinking is not a real strong suit for you, is it?

Here, take a look at the graph. You can map the dot-com bubble, and the housing meltdown. You can even see that short-lived improvement in early 2007.

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp

But googling frantically to find one news release that at the time indicated a possible recovery trend which did not materialize hardly adds to your reputation as an unbiased and discerning observer. snort!

[LOsborne]

  Of course you're not taking into account that after the 9/11 attacks some people were out of work because there were some businesses were destroyed in the attack. 

What?? Can anybody tell me of one business that had offices in the Trade Center, employing more than -- umm.. let's say 100 people -- that did not have other offices elsewhere, to take up the slack of the people who were lost in the towers until replacements could be hired?

Me, much as you love using the Straw Man fallacy, I still remember the question was "What new businesses were created as a result of the Bush tax cuts?"

[Henry Hawk]

So I will ask one more time (with no real expectation of getting an answer any more than I did the first three times I asked:

What jobs did the Bush tax cuts create from 2000 to 2008? And you can't count soldiers.

I will patronize you anyway....

I don't think we added 5 million soldiers....

   
• The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
•    
  
  
  
  Critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted......they do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.
  
  The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.
  
  
  

[Sandy Eggo]

Link?

[LOsborne]

...followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

To keep up with new grads entering the job market, the economy must produce 200,000 jobs per month. Seven quarters is 21 months. Times 200K is 4,200,000 jobs, just to break even. So a 5 million job gain is just 3800 jobs per month in the plus column. Not stellar. If, in fact, you can prove the five million.

Now which companies were those that were created by those tax cuts, again? And just for shiggles, maybe we really should look at the military recruiting figures for those months.

[Palehorse]

There you go, throwing figures about like candy at a parade. . . You know its only going to put them into a sugar frenzy don't you?

[me]

To keep up with new grads entering the job market, the economy must produce 200,000 jobs per month. Seven quarters is 21 months. Times 200K is 4,200,000 jobs, just to break even. So a 5 million job gain is just 3800 jobs per month in the plus column. Not stellar. If, in fact, you can prove the five million.

Now which companies were those that were created by those tax cuts, again? And just for shiggles, maybe we really should look at the military recruiting figures for those months.

What's the point?  What exactly are you trying to figure out here?  Look at your chart again and notice the decrease in unemployment after the tax relief acts.  Notice too that the unemployment started to increase slightly after the dems became the majority in congress but not as dramatically as it is now. 

[Palehorse]

There you go, throwing figures about like candy at a parade. . . You know its only going to put them into a sugar frenzy don't you?

What's the point?  What exactly are you trying to figure out here?  Look at your chart again and notice the decrease in unemployment after the tax relief acts.  Notice too that the unemployment started to increase slightly after the dems became the majority in congress but not as dramatically as it is now. 

See! 

[me]

See! 

Can you deny that?

[Palehorse]

Can you deny that?

Deny what? I'm the one that warned her about her posting of the truth sending the twins into a sugar frenzy!

[LOsborne]

Deny what? I'm the one that warned her about her posting of the truth sending the twins into a sugar frenzy!

I know. And all I got was more obfustication (look it up) and a complete FAILURE to name any companies that were created as a result of the Bush tax cuts. And an inability to read a chart with any understanding.

pssstt! PH! I was really trying to induce a sugar-shock coma. don't tell.

[followsthewolf]

"obfuscation"

SWEEEEEEEEEET!!!!

[LOsborne]

"obfuscation"...

That one was actually deliberate, FTW. Hence the "look it up." This is what you get when you look it up.


obfustication

SEE ALSO
    McCAnus, lying, simuluckrum

    noun, Feigned outrage used in a thinly veiled attempt to cloud the real issue rather than even acknowledging it.

http://political.addictionary.org/words/8060/obfustication

It has such a nice "refudiate" ring to it, don't you think?

[followsthewolf]

I like "obfuscation."

But, I like "obfustication" even better.

I love word games.......

" 'Twas brillig, and the sliithy toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabe........"

[me]

I know. And all I got was more obfustication (look it up) and a complete FAILURE to name any companies that were created as a result of the Bush tax cuts. And an inability to read a chart with any understanding.

pssstt! PH! I was really trying to induce a sugar-shock coma. don't tell.

Unemployment was low so who really paid any attention.  Companies were expanding and opening more stores.  All you had to do was look around and there was building going on everywhere.