Post #150,117
4/5/04 3:24:32 PM
|
Is that 8.4 million unemployed...
...total? Or just the number who have lost jobs in the last year?
Remember, unemployment numbers are funky due to our exclusion of so-called "discouraged" workers.
Nobody wins in a butter eating contest
|
Post #150,120
4/5/04 3:40:18 PM
|
Thats the BLS data...total
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #150,123
4/5/04 3:48:57 PM
|
Re: Thats the BLS data...total
Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force
totaled 1.6 million in March, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted
as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the
4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 514,000 discouraged workers in March,
also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the
marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because
they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million margin-
ally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school or family
responsibilities. (See table A-13.)
1.6 million. Hmm. --
Chris Altmann
|
Post #150,127
4/5/04 4:01:54 PM
|
Good...now we're 10 for 10
And we still have the issue of someone who's supposed to have a clue espousing a 0% unemployment rate :-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #150,129
4/5/04 4:08:52 PM
|
10 million over 4 years.
That's 2.5 million new jobs per year. Not 2.5 million new in addition to replacing jobs that are destroyed - just 2.5 million new jobs a year.
Over four years.
And yeah, I find it iffy that what he suggests will actually do a whole lot for the economy - there are structural issues in the current taxation system that need to be dealt with before the regular guy has a snowball's chance in hell of HAVING a snowball's chance in hell - but he seems to actually be willing to do something, instead of create massive welfare programs for the wealthy, like the current president.
Nobody wins in a butter eating contest
|
Post #150,143
4/5/04 5:05:49 PM
|
Right....
...he won't make a welfare state for rich...but I would wager that his billion in new taxes aren't going to look that great to the folks who have to pay them.
He seems a bit less than specific in the groups he's targeted over the years...so I'd wager that some of that ain't gonna be paid by just "the wealthy"
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #150,147
4/5/04 5:14:13 PM
|
Bush is going to raise taxes after the election anyways.
At this point, either a tax increase or a spending cut is a foregone conclusion, if we want to avoid becoming Argentina II: Revenge of the Peso. Given the screaming that the special interest groups are giving these days about cutbacks to their entitlements, I don't see him cutting spending much.
Given his past behavior, I can't see Bush raising taxes on the people who can afford it - he'll mainly target the little guys, like you 'n me. At least with Kerry, we might see some smearing around of the pain, although I'm not too happy with his cut in the corporate tax rate.
Nobody wins in a butter eating contest
|
Post #150,148
4/5/04 5:20:10 PM
|
As with cuts...
...the only way you have have an impact is to change the rate on the big boys.
If he raises it they pay more than you...if he cuts them they get more back.
How it is spun is up to the opposition party and the press.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #150,578
4/8/04 9:18:26 PM
|
Re: Right....
[i]...he won't make a welfare state for rich...but I would wager that his billion in new taxes aren't going to look that great to the folks who have to pay them.[/i]
Like I care - push up the income tax to 80% - I'm not gonna miss the extry $19.95.
Fact - I made $20k last year. I made 8 times that the year before.
I'd vote for Charlie Manson at this point - he can't possibly be worse.
Democracies are not well-run nor long-preserved with secrecy and lies.
--Walter Cronkite
|
Post #150,668
4/9/04 3:37:29 PM
|
ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #150667 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=150667|ICLRPD]
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
