Some style no substance. This is economics. Similar to what our esteemed colleagues would say in GARM when someone makes a claim they saw some Rockets player at a bar.......Numbers or GTFO.
Perhaps he just has a different temperament than you? Or perhaps he honestly thinks a better result will come from patience? Or both?
I suppose that is true. He is certainly phlegmatic and not easily excited. It is also easy to be patient when you are above the fray.
I would argue that being patient and above the ray is a good thing for a President in most cases, although I'm not sure that this is one of them.
Disclaimer: Some of this post goes agains the civility pledge I signed a few months back. For those of you who take offense to any of the following, I apologize. To MFW, that doesn't apply to you. Watch Fox News. The entire network is little more than a propaganda machine and is busy spewing lies 24/7. The rich in the US don't pay anywhere near 50% of their income in taxes, Warren Buffett was quoted as saying he pays 17%, so your 50% anecdote is a lie. I waited for over a week to reply to this note because of a civility pledge I took a while back and my first response to the above is... <civpledge recision> F*** you. </recision> I have been a stand up, full time worker for decades, a professional who ran a successful consulting firm for five years as well as an internet retail site. I take care of myself, I don't ask for handouts from anyone, I go to work every day and make my way in this world by earning a wage, just like you or anyone else. I haven't been a leech on anyone since I moved out of my father's house in Seabrook two decades ago. And f*** you for the insult. I have great confidence in my ability to generate a great income, especially when my wife gets out of school. By then, I will have my MBA and we will command a very respectable combined income. All of the people pay for Social Security and Medicare. Every employed person pays FICA and Medicare tax off the top. The rich have a tax break so that they don't pay in as much, the payroll tax is capped at $100,000 or so. So we have this straight, when it comes to Social Security and and Medicare, the lower and middle classes are paying more into the trust fund than the rich. As such, SS and Medicare are their own self funded packages that have nothing to do with the income tax. The stupid, simplistic bar anecdote. No, I have a problem with him keeping more of his income, on a proportions basis (that is what a percentage is) than the rest of us, as the rich do in our system right now. I have a problem with the greed exhibited by people like you. I don't see taxation as punishing success, that is a viewpoint that I would expect an exceptionally greedy person to hold. Taxes are the price of doing business and, unlike you, I don't feel the desire to shirk my duty to this country by lying to people in order to get my taxes reduced. I would rather just pay my fair share and go about my day. Unfortunately, greedy people like you are working their asses off to shirk their duty because of that greed and I think it is sick. This statement makes no sense whatsoever. Try again. I understand, you want all the gains in the economy to go to the rich. This statement is proof positive of that. You have broken with reality. Since the Cold War ended, the deficit was reduced during one period, Bill Clinton's presidency. Government spending has continued to rise and the single biggest component of today's deficit are the tax cuts that GWB pushed through. Reagan started the era of big deficits when he did his wealth redistribution and Bush continued it with even more wealth redistribution. Right, so you would see this as a more just country if people like me paid all of our income in taxes so that the rich could enjoy even more largess than they currently do. Extremely telling, yes. The fact that you would even say such a thing reveals how sick and twisted your greed has made you. Right, and when comparing two companies in the same industry, you don't start and end with their dollar revenue or profits. Those metrics don't tell the whole story, which is the reason that you have to check out the gross profit margin, inventory turnover, and other ratios to get an accurate gauge of the health of the company. You want to make comparisons using pure dollar amounts as far as income tax paid, but as you know, this leaves out significant portions of the story. Your aim is only to lie and twist the facts so that you can get enough rubes to follow you that your folks can get elected and give you even more money grom the government coffers. You keep saying that they generated the income, but that income would similarly not exist if there was not a labor force that did the low-end jobs that are required for the high-end jobs to exist. Managers don't get very far without people who actually work doing the jobs they supervise. Do you have the capacity to use facts or are lies your only trick? As the graph below shows, deficits went down during Clinton's tenure, not Reagan's. The deficit started to explode under Reagan and has only turned around under Bill Clinton. This link shows that defense spending has only gone down in one period as well, again it was during the Clinton presidency. Military spending is more than 50% higher than it was in 1980. I believe that, in general, the foreign policy of the United States over the last 50 years or so has made me less safe. We interfere in countries where we are not wanted, where our "help" is not needed, and we have inflamed extremists across the globe. I have no problem with defending the homeland, but spending more than the rest of the world combined is a bit much, IMO. We, Americans, created this country together. The rich didn't do it alone, much as you would like to think they did. Yes, she was a rich person who, when told that the commoners were rioting because they had no bread due to the aristocracy hoarding all the grain, said "let them eat cake," which was an extravagance that only the aristocracy enjoyed. It is analogous to some blowhard today saying "of course on a percentage basis Buffett paid less than his secretary." It is the statement of someone as out of touch as you are. Get it through your thick skull, your greed knows no bounds and the fact that you sneer at those who make less than six figures as if they actually choose to make less money than you shows exactly how deluded you are. Are you trying to claim I don't pay local taxes for fire and police protection? It must be nice up there in your ivory tower. No, I'll keep doing my measly $70k per year job. Funny story, I am now back up to the salary I made in 2001. I know the rich have done very well over the last decade, even with the recent financial crisis, but to people like me, the last decade has been an absolute loss. The best part is that after this lost decade, there are rich a$$holes out there who will now call me a "leech" and claim that I don't pay my fair share in taxes because richer people pay more on a pure dollar basis, even though I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes. How about, to assure a playing field where one person exercising their rights doesn't interfere with another person's free exercise of the same. Yes, as the rich have been doing for the past thirty years. I have the capacity for greed, I just don't let it twist my heart like it has yours. I wouldn't complain much about a flat tax if there were absolutely no deductions or tax credits for anything at all. At least then, the rich couldn't use lawyers and accountants to get out of paying their fair share. And you seem to believe it is OK for people to let their greedy desires drive them, even to the detriment of the rest of the country. That is why Ayn Rand's most famous work is in the Fiction section in the library. You see nothing wrong with calling me a leech even though the evidence says otherwise. Gotcha, you are willing to ignore facts in favor of your twisted worldview. No, things aren't fair unless they are fair. A secretary paying 30% of her income in taxes while Buffett pays 17% is not fair, period. I have the capacity for greed, but I have the ability to overcome that sin and not let it run my life. I don't blame Buffett, I blame decades of tax changes by greedy rich people who are only interested in their own bank accounts. Buy a clue. Most people will never have anywhere near the income to buy a Mercedes. I suspect I will be able to afford one in a few years, but I probably wouldn't buy one because, based on the evidence in this thread, people who want to buy luxury like that are pricks. I guess I just turned your rhetorical dildo back on you and shoved it down your throat, complete with the ****ty peanuts left over from my a$$.
Repped. I don't know if MFW was just having a bad day, but that was such a terrible post from him which really puts a dimmer on the rest of my day. MFW, I don't know if you are actually this way in real life, but the attitude and mentality on display in your post really reduces my faith in humanity. I hope we misunderstood you.
It was the weather, not really a lot you can read into either of these numbers (the drop in the U rate or the jobs created) which is why the immediate market reaction has been flat.
There were record snow falls for January. It is still very early in February. By the end of February the snowfall totals will drop from the January highs.
Every job report has been bad for the past 4 years, but this one is because of the weather? I am not buying it
It's been mostly bad for the past 10 years, with the exception of 2004-2006. The weather reason is meant in comparison to the previous month, not historically for several years.
An amazing amount of work considering the goofus you're replying to, but well worth the effort. Further opinion in your CP. Now wait for a muddled response from the raving megalomaniac, a person with no regard for anyone but himself, drifting in a pathetic world governed by his ego.
