A gentleman with a grasp of the problem.

[Doug S.]

Thank goodness for Mcdonalds..

Jim, Jim, Jim....Craig is trolling again!

You cannot expect a reasonable response from him, for the only reasonable response would be to admit he was wrong. Trolls don't really care if they are right or wrong, b/c all they care about is bringing about their favorite form of mayhem on our forums.

Remember:

Here's what I suggest, it's the only way to really deal with him. My computer now displays this message whenever Craig posts anything:


"This message is hidden because automan is on your ignore list."

Do yourself a favor, do the same, get rid of the irritation he's trying to create.

Cheers, Doug!!

 

[Jim Craik]

Doug,

You may be right.....

But I think that Craig really thinks that the high unemployment was Obamas fault, because that what his handlers told him.

Why else would he continually ask a question that will make him look bad?

The entertainment source where he gets his information lies to him and he continues to believe them.

When will they ever learn?

 

[Doug S.]

Doug,

You may be right.

But I think that Craig really thinks that the high unemployment was Obamas fault, because that what his handlers told him.

I agree...and you are probably right, b/c by definition he is a "pin-head".

As such, he has no powers of critical thinking, he just blindly follows those handlers who lead him around by the ring in his nose. He will never understand that he is incorrect, it's beyond his capabilities.

No need to say anything further...he knows it's the truth!

Cheers, Doug!!

 

[craig]

Well it didn't hurt..McDonald's to hire 50,000 workers, starting April 19 - Apr. 4, 2011

 

[Doc Kaler]

I know this comes from a Republican perspective, but the same complete analysis with graphs comes from the Department of Labor and Statistics. The graph originally shown in this thread supports Nancy Pelosi's arguements but is an incomplete analysis. BTW, I personally don't care who's "to blame"....just hope it can be fixed. :thumbsup:

Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

A similar analysis can be had at Politifacts site.

 

[craig]

I agree...and you are probably right, b/c by definition he is a "pin-head".

As such, he has no powers of critical thinking, he just blindly follows those handlers who lead him around by the ring in his nose. He will never understand that he is incorrect, it's beyond his capabilities.

No need to say anything further...he knows it's the truth!

Cheers, Doug!!

Doug...It's impossible for me to prove that Obama is keeping our unemployment numbers high. Now I can speculate why I believe he is, but I can't actually prove it nor will I waste my time trying to.
You can call me a troll if it makes you feel better, but we'll have to wait and see how the job market is going to react in 2012 when Obama loses his run for 2nd term...Oh and if you're counting i'm 3 for 3 on these elections, including yesterdays Wisconsin recalls.:thumbsup:

 

[Jim Craik]

OK Craig,

I have picked Obama to win the election, since you tell us that you are a great prognosticater, tell us who will win the next Presidential Election.

Now, do not prove that you are a troll by picking the other 200,000,000 elegable folks.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

The House bill, which immediatley cut 1/3 out of the budget, required a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, and pushed the balanced budget amendment, was like passing a bill that would outlaw Russia. Pie in the sky.

You do have to brush up on basic econ, yes.

As you have to brush up on the Clinton balanced budget "working together"

This is how they "worked together"

105 Congress 1997-1999 D R
Balanced Budget vote Yes 50 218
No 152 8

 

[Jeff Young]

What are you talking about? Some vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment? Who cares. We actually had a balanced budget because Democrats and Republicans worked together to raise taxes (we did) and cut/cap spending.

As you have to brush up on the Clinton balanced budget "working together"

This is how they "worked together"

105 Congress 1997-1999 D R
Balanced Budget vote Yes 50 218
No 152 8

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

What are you talking about? Some vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment? Who cares. We actually had a balanced budget because Democrats and Republicans worked together to raise taxes (we did) and cut/cap spending.

You think because you say it, that's the way it is?

50 democrats voted for the balanced budget, the other 152 democrats voted against it.
218 republicans voted for the balanced budget, 8 republicans voted against it. That was the 105th congress. How do you get "working together" from that?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) reduced several federal taxes in the United States.

Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%.

Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was phased out for high income families.

The act exempted from taxation the profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. This is for residences that were lived in for at least 2 years over the last 5 (ref). See also Internal_Revenue_Code_section_1031 which is a way to sell a (non personal residence) property and not have to pay capital gains tax (at least immediately). Basically, if you have a personal residence, you cannot use a 1031 to defer the capital gains, you have to use this act, but don't have to pay capital gains at all for up to the above amounts. If it's a rental then you have to use a 1031 exchange if you want to defer capital gains taxes indefinitely.

The $600,000 estate tax exemption was to increase gradually to $1 million by the year 2006.

Family farms and small businesses could qualify for an exemption of $1.3 million, effective 1998. Starting in 1999, the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was to be corrected for inflation.

The act also provided tax relief for retirement accounts as well as education savings in the Hope Scholarship Credit and Lifetime Learning Credits. Some expiring business tax provisions were extended.

It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1997.

 

[Jeff Young]

I get working together because it passed, we weren't threatened with a shutdown or a default, and President Clinton signed it, and we all prospered.

 

[Jim Craik]

<!-- 1COL LAYOUT COL1 END --><!--no_index_end--><!-- OneColHeadBasic End -->This is from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics<TABLE height=410 cellSpacing=0 width=610 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Doc,

So we have the left version and the right version, now hopefully we have a somewhat neutral version. This started because Craig was blaming the unemployment crisis on Obama, and obviously he inherited a mess and has made it slightly better.

 

[Pat]

False.

The Speaker and the President were in talks to do a deal at $4 trillioin cuts, (not billion my friend), and $1 trillion in additional revenue. The "give" on the President's side was he would push the Democrats to accept some Medicare and SS cuts, on the Speaker's side it was the additional tax revenue.

Boehner's letter came after the Tea Zombie revolt.

Most stuff I've read from DC says pretty clearly that but for that, we would have had a much broader deal.

I stand corrected, it was trillions (given the sheer bloat of government spending it's hard for a simple old soldier like me to comprehend) nonetheless there still was never a "deal". It was all talking point rhetoric and press leaks to try to pressure the other side. Ms Pelosi said Medicare and SS was absolutely off the table as were tax cuts from the Conservatives. That's why no document exists.
Besides, the war with Germany ended over 60 years ago, why are we giving the SS any money anyway, weren't they bad guys?

 

[Jim Craik]

Thanks Veek, we need a laugh!

 

[Doc Kaler]

Jim,

Neutral is nice and comfortable.....but you go nowhere! :thumbsup: I'll go for "moderate".

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I get working together because it passed, we weren't threatened with a shutdown or a default, and President Clinton signed it, and we all prospered.

Sure it was passed and 2/3 of the democrats voted against it. It passed no thanks to them.

The point I am trying to make is, everyone praises Clinton for his budget surplus, when it was the republican congress and senate majority that were responsible for it.

 

[Doug S.]

Sure it was passed and 2/3 of the democrats voted against it. It passed no thanks to them.

A classic example of the glass always being half empty, Al?

I like to think "It passed thanks to the 1/3 of the democrats that did vote for it....many thanks to them."

I mean, after all, it would not have passed had it not been for them.

It was certainly more than we could have expected from the Republicans, who were absolutely (with those few exceptions I mentioned in a previous post) voting as a block and were not at all willing to compromise.

I wonder what is going to happen when this "supercommittee" that is suppose to come up with the next round of budget cuts can't get the job done, legislative mandate be damned!

It will probably be gridlock, just as before.

Geez, now look who's looking at the glass as half-empty :shy: ...shame on me!

Cheers, Doug!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

A classic example of the glass always being half empty, Al?

I like to think "It passed thanks to the 1/3 of the democrats that did vote for it....many thanks to them."

I mean, after all, it would not have passed had it not been for them.

It was certainly more than we could have expected from the Republicans, who were absolutely (with those few exceptions I mentioned in a previous post) voting as a block and were not at all willing to compromise.

I wonder what is going to happen when this "supercommittee" that is suppose to come up with the next round of budget cuts can't get the job done, legislative mandate be damned!

It will probably be gridlock, just as before.

Geez, now look who's looking at the glass as half-empty :shy: ...shame on me!

Cheers, Doug!

Probably be worse, they are getting some real winners on that committee. Seems like they are picking far right and far left, ought to be good for a chuckle. They should decide it with dueling, at least it would thin the herd!

 

[craig]

OK Craig,

I have picked Obama to win the election, since you tell us that you are a great prognosticater, tell us who will win the next Presidential Election.

Now, do not prove that you are a troll by picking the other 200,000,000 elegable folks.

Jim...why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?? I never claimed to be anymore correct than my record has proven..unlike doug through his OWN words is consitantly wrong...No I can't tell you who will be our next president, but I do feel confident in saying that any REAL conservative running against Obama will mop up the floor....just to clarify he has to be a true consevative to win..

 

[craig]

Jim its funny how Doug likes to call me a troll and then he runs and hides,, now I just did a little research on doug and I found that im not the only member that he has decided to call a troll.....why?? Now lets be realistic and investigate both of our records and find out who has been more accurate in our predictions....his philosophy is simple,discredit the opposition and that makes his point correct.. ..Jim at least you had the balls to admit you were wrong in your understanding of the Wisconsin tax payer..
Doug on the other hand calls me a troll and hides..
He makes fun of my Mcdonalds example but yet its true..