Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Size of private sector payroll, Jan 2001: 111.63 million
Size of private sector payroll, Jan 2009: 110.98 million, and rapidly falling (Population and civilian labor force grew by 10%) Link
In 2009 dollars,
Federal Tax Revenue, 2000: $2.5 Trillion (20.6% of the GDP). GDP in 2000: $12.1T
Federal Tax Revenue, 2009: $2.1 Trillion (15.1% of the GDP, lowest since 1950). GDP in 2009: $13.9T Link
Congragulations on not addressing the OP's question at all. It seems to be a trait with you
Please go back and read the OP. See the timeline of when the Dems took over in 2007 (not 2009) and see the kinds of things that Obama voted for!
If you believe that economic crisis and recovery happens at the flip of a switch upon who enters the office, then you should know that 2007 was only one of two "okay" years in the entire decade until 2010. Would you then give credit to democratic congress? Or, would you be dancing to a different tune as I expect you to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Congragulations on not addressing the OP's question at all. It seems to be a trait with you
Instead of Unemployment rapidly increasing as it was before Obama came into office, it is now decreasing.
Lie, there is 1.5M more individuals out of work now, than when Obama was sworn into office. The only reason why the rate is going down is becase people stopped looking for work.
Thats like saying Obama has more people out of work now than when he was sworn into office, and you come back to prove I'm wrong by saying Canada is to the north of us
Thats it, when a liberal cannot refute the numbers of facts, they attack the poster. Stay classy!
The "facts" were already refuted and you seem to have willfully ignored that several times. The only reason surmised that you would refuse to see anything that doesn't agree with your worldview is that you are not being reasonable. That's not an attack, that is a simple statement of fact.
Why continue to show things to you that you refuse to see?
Why continue using reason when the only response is the complete refusal to acknowledge it has even been said?
Thats like saying Obama has more people out of work now than when he was sworn into office, and you come back to prove I'm wrong by saying Canada is to the north of us
FAIL!!
I got it the first time around... you hate facts. They make your arguments look dumb and make you feel cornered. And you come out barking non-sense like this.
Get this, again:
1- When a country's population grows by 8-9%, with about that growth in civilian labor force, but private sector payroll shrinks, you have a problem (well, in my world anyway).
2- When a country's GDP grows and revenue drops to a level not seen since 1950 as a percentage, only pure idiocy will present as a good thing while whining about debt and deficit.
3- When a country sees a reduction in size of private sector payroll by 8.8 million in two years, going WELL BELOW where it was nearly a decade ago, only an idiot would see it as not having any implications well into the future, much less call it good times.
I got it the first time around... you hate facts. They make your arguments look dumb and make you feel cornered. And you come out barking non-sense like this.
Get this, again:
1- When a country's population grows by 8-9%, with about that growth in civilian labor force, but private sector payroll shrinks, you have a problem (well, in my world anyway).
2- When a country's GDP grows and revenue drops to a level not seen since 1950 as a percentage, only pure idiocy will present as a good thing while whining about debt and deficit.
3- When a country sees a reduction in size of private sector payroll by 8.8 million in two years, going WELL BELOW where it was nearly a decade ago, only an idiot would see it as not having any implications well into the future, much less call it good times.
1) Payroll didnt shrink through most of Bushs term, only during the recession, which is NORMAL.. FAIL
2) Revenues didnt drop through most of Bushs term, only during the recession, again which is NORMAL.. FAIL
3) We didnt see a reduction on private payroll through most of Bushs term, again, only during the recession, which again, is NORMAL.. FAIL
And again, NONE of this addresses the OP's points. You like to babble "Bush bad", over and over again, using choice statistics from the last 1/10th of his term and pretend it repesents the 8 years. Thats something children do.
Obama ranks down there with Carter, Hoover, Harding and Buchanan. Problem is I don't see Romney as much of an improvement. My vote won't matter anyway since Obama is easily expected to take my State (IL).
1) Payroll didnt shrink through most of Bushs term, only during the recession, which is NORMAL.. FAIL
But it shrunk considering ALL of Bush's two terms, and it was lower when he left office than it was when he took it. You can't say population and civilian force being lower, however.
Quote:
2) Revenues didnt drop through most of Bushs term, only during the recession, again which is NORMAL.. FAIL
Revenues were lower through most of Bush's term for all but two years (the peak bubble years). And they were pathetic considering the growth of the GDP. That is how we ended up with revenues making up only 15.1% of the GDP, not seen since 1950!
[qupte]3) We didnt see a reduction on private payroll through most of Bushs term, again, only during the recession, which again, is NORMAL.. FAIL[/quote]
Correct, we saw a reduction in private sector payroll only for about 44 months of Bush's two terms. But when he left office after 8 years, the private sector payroll was smaller. That was the point made that shouldn't be THAT difficult to grasp. And yes "fail" is an easy word to spell, and you're capable of doing that, we have seen it before and will in the future.
Quote:
And again, NONE of this addresses the OP's points. You like to babble "Bush bad", over and over again, using choice statistics from the last 1/10th of his term and pretend it repesents the 8 years. Thats something children do.
- At the end of eight years private sector payroll is smaller. This not only describes the state of economy in the most basic way, it gets on your nerves for being a fact.
- When even republicans believe spending should be capped at 18.5%, I hope they are not targeting 15.1% as being great for federal revenue. Are they?
Sad. Pathetic. But then, you can spell "fail".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
