Biggest Tax cuts in History

[concha]

3 hours ago, Guccifer said:

It stabilized halfway through Obama's term (according to you) after 13 years of decline.

You lied about this in one thread because you knew that nobody would call you on it.

But in a different thread, 12 days later, you were forced to admit the stabilizing in 2013.

So, in CanesWorld, if someone jumps off a cliff and smashes themself to death on the rocks below, the fall never happened because the drop stopped at the rocks. The fall was "stabilized" and thus erased.

This is a level of dumbassery I would only have thought possible with the likes of Cajun, DBP or one of the other galactic morons on this site.

Below is how Labor Force Participation Rates work in CanesWorld.  The precipitous drop between the Obama years of 2009 and 2014 doesn't exist. Why? Well, because it stopped (I know, stupid, but it's Canes so...).

Had the LBPR remained at roughly 66%, unemployment rates under Obama would have been over 4% higher. Is it just me making the claim? Oh no. Look at this from left-leaning fivethirtyeight.com back in 2014:

Quote

 

The U.S. labor force is the smallest it’s been since the 1970s as a share of the adult population: 62.8 percent today, down from 66 percent in December 2007, when the recession began. If the labor force participation rate had remained unchanged over that time, nearly 8 million more Americans would be in the workforce today... 8 million Americans are, for all practical purposes, unemployed: They want jobs, but they’ve stopped looking for them. If that’s the case, the official unemployment rate of 6.7 percent in February... would be over 11 percent. 

 

 

[RedZone]

2 hours ago, concha said:

So, in CanesWorld, if someone jumps off a cliff and smashes themself to death on the rocks below, the fall never happened because the drop stopped at the rocks. The fall was "stabilized" and thus erased.

This is a level of dumbassery I would only have thought possible with the likes of Cajun, DBP or one of the other galactic morons on this site.

.

[DevilDog]

4 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I realized that you and Nooner had taken that same tact with the old crazy guy after I posted the first reply. 

 

I wonder did the catalog printing company reopen after the first Trump turd hit the water in the White House toilet? 

Idiots blame Obama for a catalog printing company closing, when it's a miracle the thing lasted as long as it did in the internet age. Idiots blame Obama for coal jobs going away, when it's a miracle that the stuff lasted as long as it did seeing as to how it's not a very efficient fuel compared to others. 

 

Rab isn't the only crazy fool out there believing shit like that. 

That's the shame of it all. 

[DarterBlue]

15 hours ago, DevilDog said:

I don't really start Topics over here.  But got my 1st payment since the Tax cuts went into effect. I got a whopping $38.00 more for a total of $76.00 per Month or 912.00 per Year.  And it was parroted as the greatest Tax cut in History I even saw them applauding over it during the SOTU.   Did I miss something and had much higher expectations since it was declared the Yugest in History?  Can anyone else opine on what theirs were for comparison. The biggest among my peers were a whopping $41.00 dollars?

You did not miss a darn thing. In fact for working people that itemize due to mortgage interest/taxes or other things, most will be worse off due to the loss of the personal and dependent exemptions. Only those that take the standard deduction will be better off since it has nearly doubled. However, if you have a big family with a lot of exemptions for your dependents you will still probably be worse off. For most working people, the tax cut will be nickles and dimes at best, with many actually paying more.

The really big benefits go to corporations due to the drop in their nominal rate from 35 to 21% and to the very rich due to much higher threshold for estate taxes. The only possible benefit workers will get from this is if these corporations and very wealthy choose to hire individuals with the savings from their cuts or choose to give existing employees more wages. Bonuses are nice, but permanent increases would be much nicer. We will see how much of those are given out. 

[noonereal]

3 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

The only possible benefit workers will get from this is if these corporations and very wealthy choose to hire individuals with the savings from their cuts or choose to give existing employees more wages.

Otherwise stated, corporations are so flush with cash right now that throwing some crumbs to their workers seems prudent from both a moral and marketing vista. Not to mention it currying favor with the strongman. 

And here is the rub. Who is paying for this? You and I as it's deficit financed. So it's nothing but a smoke screen. A true redistribution of wealth. And the republicans here applaud it. 

[DarterBlue]

19 minutes ago, noonereal said:

Otherwise stated, corporations are so flush with cash right now that throwing some crumbs to their workers seems prudent from both a moral and marketing vista. Not to mention it currying favor with the strongman. 

And here is the rub. Who is paying for this? You and I as it's deficit financed. So it's nothing but a smoke screen. A true redistribution of wealth. And the republicans here applaud it. 

Exactly! It is irresponsible. And the benefits go to the top. I feel for young people as they will have to deal with this profligacy in their lifetime.  

[Guccifer]

12 hours ago, concha said:

Below is how Labor Force Participation Rates work in CanesWorld.  The precipitous drop between the Obama years of 2009 and 2014 doesn't exist. Why? Well, because it stopped (I know, stupid, but it's Canes so...).

No, the drop was a long-term trend which had nothing to do with any Obama policy and stabilized halfway through his term (your words). So far you've misrepresented the figures and insinuated fault without ever giving a single scintilla evidence for any of it.

But now, suddenly, it dropped precipitously through 2014 and not 2013 as you said earlier.

This is a perfect illustration of your (purposeful?) dishonesty.

First, when unchallenged, he claims that it "has" stabilized after plummeting under the last guy. "Has" being present tense. So he wants to give the impression that is has stabilized (now) after plummeting under the last guy (Obama).

On 1/18/2018 at 11:08 AM, concha said:

1) I am well aware of the labor participation rate, which has stabilized after plummeting under the last guy.

The truth, as has been exhaustively pointed out, is that the rate dropped from 2000 to 2013. So began dropping well before Obama was involved in national policy and stabilized in the middle of his term. Not after. Not currently as "has" insinuates. In 2013 even according to concha himself.

On 1/30/2018 at 9:58 PM, concha said:

It basically stabilized in late 2013.

concha admitted this 12 days later after his grossly deceptive and misleading attempts to insinuate otherwise.

[Guccifer]

12 hours ago, concha said:

Had the LBPR remained at roughly 66%, unemployment rates under Obama would have been over 4% higher. Is it just me making the claim? Oh no. Look at this from left-leaning fivethirtyeight.com back in 2014:

You keep dodging the actual point that has been made over and over again.

Labor Force Participation Rate in 2014: 62.8%

concha in 2014: "LFPR is plummeting in Obama's liberal America where there are disincentives to looking for work!"

Labor Force Participation Rate in July, 2017: 62.8%

concha on July 15, 2017: "People are looking for work again!"

Bathe in concha's dishonesty.

 

[concha]

44 minutes ago, Guccifer said:

No, the drop was a long-term trend which had nothing to do with any Obama policy and stabilized halfway through his term (your words). So far you've misrepresented the figures and insinuated fault without ever giving a single scintilla evidence for any of it.

But now, suddenly, it dropped precipitously through 2014 and not 2013 as you said earlier.

This is a perfect illustration of your (purposeful?) dishonesty.

First, when unchallenged, he claims that it "has" stabilized after plummeting under the last guy. "Has" being present tense. So he wants to give the impression that is has stabilized (now) after plummeting under the last guy (Obama).

The truth, as has been exhaustively pointed out, is that the rate dropped from 2000 to 2013. So began dropping well before Obama was involved in national policy and stabilized in the middle of his term. Not after. Not currently as "has" insinuates. In 2013 even according to concha himself.

concha admitted this 12 days later after his grossly deceptive and misleading attempts to insinuate otherwise.

1) Long term trend? Except for the 4-5 years before Obama when it didn't materially change, you mean? You can read a graph, right? 

2) It stabilized after 5 years, not 4 ("halfway")

>>>> Note to class:  Canes the Liar is 0 for 2 so far<<<<

3) "Between" 2009 and 2014 is not "through" 2014.

>>>> Note to class:  Canes the Liar is 0 for 3 so far<<<<

4) "It has stabilized (true) since (meaning "after") plummeting under the last guy (true)".  I did not say "It plummeted throughout the last guy's presidency and then stabilized". This is pure, classic Canes. He's trying to distract and deflect from the salient point: Had people not left the workforce in such huge numbers, Obama's unemployment numbers would not look so rosy. It is a point that fivethirtyeight.com and the likes of Fortune looked into. But Canes tries to paint it as concha making shit up.

>>>> Note to class:  Canes the Liar is 0 for 4 so far<<<<

5) Getting back to the tired "It dropped from 2000..." schtick.  Wrong. It dropped until about mid-2003 and then remained little changed until dropping below 66 "permanently" in late 2008 and then dropping sharply starting during 2009. That's at least FIVE YEARS of no material change. What a LIAR, Canes is.

>>>> Note to class:  Canes the Liar is 0 for 5 so far<<<<

6)  "Insinuate"?  This is CanesSpeak for "I'll make shit up that he didn't actually say".

FINAL TALLY:  Canes the LIAR goes 0 for 6

 

PS: Actual graph provided by you friendly neighborhood conchster because i am honest and Canes is a liar.

[concha]

11 minutes ago, Guccifer said:

You keep dodging the actual point that has been made over and over again.

Labor Force Participation Rate in 2014: 62.8%

concha in 2014: "LFPR is plummeting in Obama's liberal America where there are disincentives to looking for work!"

Labor Force Participation Rate in July, 2017: 62.8%

concha on July 15, 2017: "People are looking for work again!"

Bathe in concha's dishonesty.

 

 

Well, it's tough to argue when you are arguing with yourself and labeling your words as mine.

But thanks for using actual US data. That's progress, though learned through the tough lesson of you, Canes, getting caught lying, as we know.

 

1) When in 2014 did I say that the LFPR "is" plummeting? Or if you just make this up, would you be kind and honest enough to admit it?

2) As regards my post of July 2015... that was in reference to a single month (June) compared to the previous month. So you are purposely conflating comments made about a long-term trend versus a very specific point in time. DECEPTION and LIES. Canes MO.

3) I'll point out that even the WaPo felt it necessary to point out the same conclusion I did in July, 2017. Why? Because it was honest and correct. Unlike you, Canes, a LIAR.

 

So, yet again, Canes engaged in LIES and DECEPTION.

[Guccifer]

16 minutes ago, concha said:

1) Long term trend? Except for the 4-5 years before Obama when it didn't materially change, you mean? 

Now he's excepting the 4-5 years before Obama.

[TheBlockIsHot]

15 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

You probably got laid off because you are you in general. I mean if you act halfway out in the public like you act on here, I'm surprised you ever held a job at all. ...and I'm not lying. Surprised with a capital S.

LOL at this post ^^^^^^^^^^

[concha]

17 minutes ago, Guccifer said:

Now he's excepting the 4-5 years before Obama.

This is the old "make the graph busy enough and only cover convenient dates to cover up Canes' bullshit" trick.

It's not even subtle.    I'm actually laughing as I type.

Let's be honest adults, unlike Canes,  and zoom in on the several years before Obama took office to see what the change looked like.

That's FIVE SOLID YEARS OF NEVER VARYING MORE THAN 0.4 FROM THE 66% MARK.

Now let's see what happens when we extend through 2013:

DOH!!!!!

DOWN GOES CANES!!!

 

 

[concha]

From CNBC:

Job growth up 200,000 in January, better than expectations, and wages up

• Nonfarm payrolls rose by 200,000 in January, beating analyst estimates, while the unemployment rate held at 4.1 percent.
• More importantly, average hourly earnings increased 2.9 percent on an annualized basis, the best gain since the early days of the recovery in 2009.

 

 

[concha]

Oh, and so I don't get accused of being dishonest by the Lord of Dishonesty himself, black unemployment unfortunately spiked. No details why so far as I have seen.

[noonereal]

8 minutes ago, concha said:

More importantly, average hourly earnings increased 2.9 percent on an annualized basis,

more importantly, when all the numbers are in, is this greater than the rate of inflation? 

surly we are looking at less than 1% hourly earnings growth, if any at all. 

[noonereal]

3 minutes ago, Sportsnut said:

Yeah, Obama told me he was closing all those. 

told me the same thing

pay no attention to Rabid

He was dropped on his head as a kid.

[concha]

12 minutes ago, noonereal said:

more importantly, when all the numbers are in, is this greater than the rate of inflation? 

surly we are looking at less than 1% hourly earnings growth, if any at all. 

Why don't you and your lazy-ass vagina look it up?

[noonereal]

2 minutes ago, concha said:

Why don't you and your lazy-ass vagina look it up?

January just ended. 

hope this helps!

[concha]

9 minutes ago, noonereal said:

January just ended. 

hope this helps!

Plenty of sites with current numbers and forecasts.

Off you go, you two!

[Guccifer]

1 hour ago, concha said:

1) When in 2014 did I say that the LFPR "is" plummeting? Or if you just make this up, would you be kind and honest enough to admit it?

You said it plummeted under the last guy and you constantly bashed Obama for low LFPR.

Then, magically, in July 2017 (despite the same LFPR) you praised Trump because people were looking for work again.

The lies are so comical and obvious.

[Guccifer]

1 hour ago, concha said:

2) As regards my post of July 2015... that was in reference to a single month (June) compared to the previous month. So you are purposely conflating comments made about a long-term trend versus a very specific point in time. DECEPTION and LIES. Canes MO.

Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant nonsense? You got caught in another weasel moment. You do things like this all the time.

The LFPR was the same in a specific month in 2014 as it was in July 2017.

Yet in 2014 you bashed Obama relentlessly and in 2017 you praised Trump.

You purposefully tried to deceive people.

[concha]

12 minutes ago, Guccifer said:

You said it plummeted under the last guy and you constantly bashed Obama for low LFPR.

Then, magically, in July 2017 (despite the same LFPR) you praised Trump because people were looking for work again.

The lies are so comical and obvious.

Yeah...

You and your LIE and DECEPTIONS and DISTORTIONS have been pretty comprehensibly destroyed.

IT DID PLUMMET UNDER THE LAST GUY.  HERE'S THE GRAPH. AGAIN... 

IN THE MONTH IN QUESTION MORE PEOPLE WERE LOOKING FOR WORK. EVEN THE LIBERAL WASHINGTON POST POINTED IT OUT!!!!  

 

You are trying to debate me for saying actual facts (aka "the truth").  

[concha]

5 minutes ago, Guccifer said:

Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant nonsense? You got caught in another weasel moment. You do things like this all the time.

The LFPR was the same in a specific month in 2014 as it was in July 2017.

Yet in 2014 you bashed Obama relentlessly and in 2017 you praised Trump.

You purposefully tried to deceive people.

I'm just laughing my ass off at you. 

 

You are essentially trying to convince people that if I talk about a football team whose records drop consistently over several years, the moment I talk about a single game in specific it makes me dishonest somehow.  

 

A FOOL and A LIAR. Not a good look for you Canes. 

[Guccifer]

1 hour ago, concha said:

5) Getting back to the tired "It dropped from 2000..." schtick.  Wrong.

Lie #1094756

So now concha thinks that the LFPR declining since 2000 is "wrong"

The period from 2000 to 2009 by itself would constitute the largest decline in LFPR in recorded history.