Who Get's the Bush Tax Cuts?

An excellent observation, Sir.

I might add two points:

First, the groups receiving the largest percentage of the tax cuts, need it the least. This is counter-intuitive.

Second, a question for supply-siders: exactly which businesses were created thanks to these tax cuts? Which jobs?

I have a feeling that they will be unable to answer the question, yet will not recognize the fact that this is a critical problem with their position.

Cycloptichorn

Thank You.

No question the wealthy do not need a tax cut. In fact both Gates and Buffet wrote Bush in 2001 saying he should not give the wealthy tax cuts because the country had much more urgent needs for that money. Greenspan and O'Neil advised Bush to tie tax cuts to available surpluses to pay for them. If you recall Bush claimed in 2001 that our economy was expected to produce a $5.7 Trillion dollar surplus over the ten years from 2001 to 2011. I wonder where it went.

The supply side (Voodoo economics per Bush 41) was shown to be a sham when Reagan claimed his tax cuts to the wealthy would stimulate the economic growth with business investment and balance the budget by 1985. He added $3 Trillion dollars to the National Debt in his 8 years in the White House. It took until 2000 to restore a balanced budget and the very next year Bush employed the same tax and spend policies as Reagan and he added $3 Trillion to the National debt in only 6 years.

Um, who cares? You could post that the tax cuts are going to "cost" the government eleventy bazillion dollars and I would cheer. The money doesn't belong to the government, so saying it "costs" them money is like saying that you not giving me a Christmas present "costs" me a present.

What you fail to understand is many of us want the biggest tourniquet we can find placed around as many vestigial limbs of the government until they rot off. I believe the only way we will ever fix government is by slowly starving it. Not that this will matter, because your criminal allies have retaken control of congress and will no doubt start stealing wholesale ASAP.

You're like a submissive for the government, Col, and it makes me ill. You like to be abused by them, I guess. Your party of outlaws with their freezers stuffed full of money will oblige you, don't worry.

First, the groups receiving the largest percentage of the tax cuts, need it the least. This is counter-intuitive.

Not at all. Please take note that the people that receive tax cuts are the ones paying taxes. Years ago the poor were eliminated from the tax roll so the poor pay no taxes. This shifted the tax burden to the middle and upper income brackets. If it is fairly distributed then the middle income people should pay 50% of all the taxes and the upper bracket should pay 50% as it stands right now the people you think are “rich” pay about 90% of the taxes leaving 10% on the middle class. Here is a wake up call for you, the Democrats call the rich anyone that makes more than 50k a year. The poor are the ones that make 30k a year or less. Don’t be fooled by political rhetoric. The IRS has released the FY 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.
Look at Senator Kennedy for example; his family has been rich since the depression. Does he or his family pay taxes on that money? No! It is well hidden off shore to ensure no one from his family has to pay any serious taxes. The family is worth over a 100 million dollars and none of it has been taxed. But he is first in line to say that the rich should play their fair share. Congresswoman Pelosi is a multi millionaire; she also pays little or no taxes, but wants to tax the rich. These people are not seeking to tax the rich they are trying to con you into voting for them as common people. There is only one Democrat that I know of that is not a millionaire. From what I can see these rich people are all for taxing the rich except for themselves. The tax cuts work because it puts more money into the economy which spurs job growth.

Second, a question for supply-siders: exactly which businesses were created thanks to these tax cuts? Which jobs?

Me as an example. I quit my job and started my own business. My employees make about 30k to start. Those are people without high school diplomas. I pay my good people extra if they are willing to go to college. I could pay the minimum wage but I can’t find anyone what will work for the minimum and the economy is such that it is hard to find people to work for me without a good salary. Installing cable in Florida pays around 10 bucks an hour to start and they are having trouble finding people to work for such a low wage. Without the tax cuts I would have to pay my people less. With the tax cuts I can expand my business and hire more employees. This is good because it makes me more money that I have to pay in taxes. I like paying taxes. I can afford to pay taxes. The only way for me to pay less in taxes is to hire more people that will be paying taxes. So it works. Proof of this is that we are paying down the deficit two or three years ahead of schedule.
President Carter tried to tax his way out of trouble in the 70’s it resulted in less money in the treasury higher inflation, 21%, and people having to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet. When President Reagan cut taxes everyone said the same things you are saying now and the result was 10 years of economic growth that was not beaten until this recent round of tax cuts. Tax cuts are good for everyone.

The simple issue is that we are spending 400 Billion MORE per year then we tax. Most of that money is spent on obligations that we as a country have made and those that say just cut spending and the problem is solved have not looked at just what the tax dollars are being spent on.

We have now amassed a Debt that saps over $400 Billion per year to pay the interest and that will continue to grow until we balance the budget. Even after we balance the budget we will still have that debt to repay. By the time Bush leaves office we will be approaching 10 Trillion.

The simple truth is that we should NEVER have cut the taxes for the wealthy because the justification for those tax cuts, The Surplus Bush said existed, was a LIE! There was no such surplus and thus the justification he used for the tax cuts were simply a fabrication. At the same time Bush and the GOP has increased spending more then the democrats ever managed to do and Republicans continue to blast the free spending liberals. What BS!

We MUST balance the Budget and then begin paying DOWN the debt. First by resending that tax cuts to the top 20% and then by cutting the pork that is meant to plicate the voters of a specific area like the $230 million dollar Bridge in Alaska to an island were only 50 people lived.

Col, I notice you can't refute what was posted.  Why do you continue to post the same rhetoric that we have shown is not the case?

http://www.hermancain.org/news/press-opinion-032906.asp

There's nothing "Simple" about it unless you decide to just ignore all other alternatives.

We could just cut spending down by the necessary amount. I'm paying enough, Gene. If you feel strongly about it, then cut the government a check.

Well, you must realize that everything looks great for the economy - when you don't pay the bills.

We can't cut spending by enough to get ourselves out of debt. The magic of compound interest guarantees that. We must cut spending AND raise taxes from the levels they are currently at.

I have a difficult time with the fact that so many conservatives wish to run the country in a fashion which they would NEVER run their personal lives - completely in debt, borrowing money constantly to stay afloat, not doing anything to fix the problem besides... borrowing more money and hoping for the best.

We can't cut spending by enough to get ourselves out of debt. The magic of compound interest guarantees that. We must cut spending AND raise taxes from the levels they are currently at.

Hardly. You cut spending and then keep it frozen for a year or two and our economic growth will take care of the rest.

I have a difficult time with the fact that so many conservatives wish to run the country in a fashion which they would NEVER run their personal lives - completely in debt, borrowing money constantly to stay afloat, not doing anything to fix the problem besides... borrowing more money and hoping for the best.

We wish the country to live within its means. Most of the spending is on things that conservatives object to.  The budget, across the board, has vastly increased in the past few years.

If there has been a good faith effort to cut and then control spending, then the government can come begging for more money from us.

Having paid over a million dollars last year to the federal government in taxes, I feel I am in a position to object to paying more.

Proof of this is that we are paying down the deficit two or three years ahead of schedule.

Bush started his term with the greatest surplus in the history of any nation. He turned that into the greatest deficit any nation has ever seen and continued to break that record every year. Now he's reducing the deficit back to what would have been a record deficit when he started his term, and conservatives are cheering. If the economy is so great, why isn't the budget just as good as it was when Bush found it? Why can't we balance the budget?

The tax cuts work because it puts more money into the economy which spurs job growth.

I understand where you're coming from on this one. I respect this perspective, but I disagree with it. There is a sharp difference between money and capital. Money is easily mobile. Capital is not. If you put more money into the economy, you get inflation. If you spend your money wisely (which, I agree, is a big "if," but one we should work towards rather than rejecting as impossible), then you get more capital, which is what makes for a good economy.
While we're on the subject, the only reason unemployment is down from when Bush started his term is because he changed the way the number of unemployed was counted, so that those who are unemployed for a long time are magically considered employed. I don't support a President who tries to dupe the American people (and often succeeds).

We must cut spending AND raise taxes from the levels they are currently at.

I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't be happy about the fact that we're "only" accumulating ~$400 billion worth of debt every year. 13% of our budget goes to pay the interest on our debt. That means that if we were to pay off the national debt, we could cut taxes by $365 billion without having to cut the budget or raise the deficit. That's just the money we save by not paying interest on our loans. But that requires foresight; we have to have the discipline to eliminate our debt, and only then can we enjoy the benefits of a budget plentiful enough for relatively low taxes and generous spending.
The flip side, of course, is that the more we borrow, the more we'll have to raise taxes and/or cut spending to make up for it.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Dragional

Please look at the Budget. There is no $400 or $500 Billion to cut unless we say for example we will stop paying interest on the debt. That will just about balance the budget.

I do not have to refute the dribble that is posted. The simple fact is we MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET and that will take more tax revenue and less spending. Then we MUST REPAY THE DEBT! Just like ANY business that does not go out of business!

I have previously taken the time to provide ample evidence on how the budget will be balanced. I am not going to squander more time on it when you can refer to your previous diatribes.

Everytime I prove the case, you ignore it or change the subject.

Start eliminating welfare programs and forced "social" programs and freeze the budget for a few years then we can talk.

When one side is perfectly okay with the idea of the federal government going "bankrupt" you don't have a lot of leverage.

Corrupt politicians understand that once they committ the money, shills like Col Gene will insist that the expenditure is "necessary". That's a bunch of hooey, frankly. If you follow Col Gene's ideals, then you can't ever cut spending.

'Start eliminating welfare programs and forced "social" programs and freeze the budget for a few years then we can talk.'

This is a sophmoric answer. Welfare and other 'social' programs are designed to combat specific needs. While we can have reform of these programs to make them efficient and affordable to the US taxpayer, you can't just eliminate them and pretend that there won't be massive effects upon our economy. For example, those who are on welfare which is suddenly removed don't just quietly die; a man will committ crime after crime before he starves to death. Social Security? One of the reasons that home ownership rates are so high in America is that Americans are for the most part relieved from the burden of paying for their parents' lives (or supporting them in their house) by SS. You can't just eliminate these programs and imagine that there will not be consequences, including financial ones, for society.

The 'drown the gov't in a bathtub' idea isn't a governing philosophy, it is a criticism, nothing more.

Drag, you say to 'freeze the budget' and we will be able to begin paying down our debt, but this is impossible. Right now the deficits only look as good as they do for two reasons:

1, they aren't as bad as they were a few years ago, and
2, we 'borrow' a ton of money from the SS trust fund in order to keep our deficits lower then they really are.

You say you are okay with the gov't going bankrupt, but I highly doubt you've thought about the consequences of that happening - in terms of foreign investment alone, it would be disastrous.

Bakerstreet:

'Um, who cares? You could post that the tax cuts are going to "cost" the government eleventy bazillion dollars and I would cheer. The money doesn't belong to the government, so saying it "costs" them money is like saying that you not giving me a Christmas present "costs" me a present.'

Um, you do realize that the cost gets passed along to you, in the end?

When we say it 'costs' the government money, and you cheer, what you are really cheering is it costing YOU more money in the end. Because instead of paying for whatever we decide to pay for now, we pay for it later, with interest added on. That's what a tax cut IS.

Until we have balanced budgets, surpluses, and our debts are being paid down actively, no section of our society deserves a tax cut.

'Start eliminating welfare programs and forced "social" programs and freeze the budget for a few years then we can talk.' This is a sophmoric answer. Welfare and other 'social' programs are designed to combat specific needs. While we can have reform of these programs to make them efficient and affordable to the US taxpayer, you can't just eliminate them and pretend that there won't be massive effects upon our economy. For example, those who are on welfare which is suddenly removed don't just quietly die; a man will committ crime after crime before he starves to death. Social Security? One of the reasons that home ownership rates are so high in America is that Americans are for the most part relieved from the burden of paying for their parents' lives (or supporting them in their house) by SS. You can't just eliminate these programs and imagine that there will not be consequences, including financial ones, for society.

In other words, you just don't want to cut spending. 

The quick answer is: Yes, we CAN just cut these programs. But you don't WANT to cut these programs because you don't like the effect it would have.

But you're perfectly okay with making people like me pay substantially more without worrying about how that might affect the economy.  People like me are the ones who create the jobs. Robbing me of more of what I produce results in fewer jobs getting created.

Um, you do realize that the cost gets passed along to you, in the end? When we say it 'costs' the government money, and you cheer, what you are really cheering is it costing YOU more money in the end. Because instead of paying for whatever we decide to pay for now, we pay for it later, with interest added on. That's what a tax cut IS.

Except that because of public pressure, the government is forced to live within a certain level of responsibility.  A deficit that is 4% of GDP is something a lot of people are willing to live with.

And contrary to your claims, people aren't starving to death. In a land where obesity is the biggest health problem amongst "the poor", I don't think cutting the free money they receive is something I'll lose sleep over.

The money produced by the citizens of the United States is best left with the people with a proven track record of producing wealth, not the ones who have a track record of squandering it.

The only way they are passed on to me is if I am taxed for them. You are the one insisting the cost of their malfeasance is passed on to the taxpayer. Make them pay for it. I don't care if it gets paid at all.

What can't be cut? The millions in earmarks that are stolen by legislators every year? The billions that get sent to nations like egypt in payoffs? What the hell do I care if they actually follow through on those promises?

They were wrong to make those commitments. Let them look in their wallets, realize the money isn't there, and deal with the consequences like any of us would have to. Maybe they should lose their jobs if they bounce checks like any of us would.

WHy be a whore for dishonest politicians? Do you REALLY believe the money goes where you claim it goes? Here ya go. You want these things paid for? YOU PAY FOR THEM. Voluntarily deduct more if you have the stones.

I'm betting you don't. If not, you're a hypocrite to volunteer other people's money.

Dragional

You have Never listed where to cut $400-500 Billion and that would just balance the budget. To begin repaying the National Debt, another $300 Billion would be needed and even at that it would take 30 YEARS to repay the almost $9 Trillion dollars of the debt! That would require a CUT of $700 -800 Billion every year from the Budget. You are blowing smoke if you claim anything close to that could be cut. Most experts say only about 6% could be cut because most of the reminder is either long term commitments (Interest, pensions Medicaid) or things such as defense, Homeland Security etc. Show us where you would cut $700-800 Billion from the $2.7 Trillion 2007 budget or shut your trap!

'I don't care if it gets paid at all.'

If the US government repudiated its debts - the public debt - then our financial situation would be tossed into a shambles. Literally. It would mean the collapse of our current economic system.

I have a hard time believing that you throw ideas like this around so casually. I understand that it is easy for you to take a hard line on an internet forum, but surely you understand that you owe the public debt equally with every other American. You say it is 'their' debts, but unless you live in some other country, it is YOUR debt and they will come knocking when the bills come due, you can bet on it.

The US is not a magical nation which is immune to problems which have toppled other strong nations in the past. You would do well to keep this in mind before making such pronouncments about economics.

Drag,
'But you're perfectly okay with making people like me pay substantially more without worrying about how that might affect the economy. People like me are the ones who create the jobs. Robbing me of more of what I produce results in fewer jobs getting created.'

Yes, I am perfectly okay with that. My guess is that you have the money to give, and then some. So I really don't feel too bad about raising your taxes, as I don't believe your quality of life will be affected one bit.

As for the jobs thing, there are many types of people who create jobs. Your argument is a false canard, because if our fiscal system goes bankrupt, your money won't be worth much.

'Except that because of public pressure, the government is forced to live within a certain level of responsibility. A deficit that is 4% of GDP is something a lot of people are willing to live with.'

A lot of people who don't care about fiscal responsibility or the future of this country. We cannot keep mounting debts as if they don't matter; eventually our debts grow to the point where the US is considered a bad investment. You can already see the beginning of this process as China and other countries have begun to diversify their cash holdings away from the dollar. You can expect to see much more of this in the next few years.

'And contrary to your claims, people aren't starving to death. In a land where obesity is the biggest health problem amongst "the poor", I don't think cutting the free money they receive is something I'll lose sleep over.'

I don't think people are starving to death right now (in any appreciable numbers anyways). That wasn't my point. My point is that casual, off the cuff comments about doing away with social programs show a lack of thought about what the effects would be. There is every evidence that the effects would be quite expensive and deletorious to our economic system (especially in the case of SS), so we should make careful study before choosing these options, not just 'do away with them and then we'll talk.'

'The money produced by the citizens of the United States is best left with the people with a proven track record of producing wealth, not the ones who have a track record of squandering it.'

ie, people such as yourself. You'll pardon me if I disagree somewhat with this rather elitist attitude, as I believe there are more important things for us to be worrying about then just, how did you put it? 'producing wealth.'

You realize you just said "the money of the United states is best left with the rich, because they are the best at producing more of it." It is difficult for me to think that someone could actually believe such a statement.

You have Never listed where to cut $400-500 Billion and that would just balance the budget. To begin repaying the National Debt, another $300 Billion would be needed and even at that it would take 30 YEARS to repay the almost $9 Trillion dollars of the debt! That would require a CUT of $700 -800 Billion every year from the Budget. You are blowing smoke if you claim anything close to that could be cut. Most experts say only about 6% could be cut because most of the reminder is either long term commitments (Interest, pensions Medicaid) or things such as defense, Homeland Security etc. Show us where you would cut $700-800 Billion from the $2.7 Trillion 2007 budget or shut your trap!

Yes. I have. In some of your previous discussions I literally took the time to itemize where tax dollars are going, how much would need to be cut and how long we would need to freeze spending in order to balance the budget and start paying it off.

You ignored it.

I've made similar attempts since then.

When you are faced with facts that counter your opinions, you just pretend they aren't there.

Just the other day I tried to get you to rationally discuss our action in Iraq with the same context as World War II (i.e. on what grounds should we have invaded Europe on D-Day in WW2 if the rational for removing Saddam is insufficient).  You ignored it and just went on.

So the bottom line is, I know you're incorrect about your claim on the deficit. It could be easily dealt with without raising my taxes. You just find it easier to take more of someone else's money than to potentially give up your precious social welfare programs.

Drag, 'But you're perfectly okay with making people like me pay substantially more without worrying about how that might affect the economy. People like me are the ones who create the jobs. Robbing me of more of what I produce results in fewer jobs getting created.' Yes, I am perfectly okay with that. My guess is that you have the money to give, and then some. So I really don't feel too bad about raising your taxes, as I don't believe your quality of life will be affected one bit.

First off (I didn't quote this part), no I don't seriously hope the US goes bankrupt. But it's not anywhere near being in danger of that.

Given the choice between a national debt and having my income taxes raised, I'll choose the debt. 

Like many middle-class people, you really don't have any idea how "rich people" spend money.  We invest it.  You are correct that a tax hike wouldn't affect my quality of life one iota. But it would affect other people's quality of life.  Perhaps you would like to choose wich people I'd lay off due to a tax hike.  That's the real cost of tax increases. 

The Bush tax-cuts allowed me to keep enough of what I produced in order to hire two more web developers. One of the things they created was JoeUser.com.  Without the Bush tax cut, there'd be no JoeUser.com.  That wasn't the only results of those tax cuts. As we've grown, I've hired more people who have created mroe things, things that generate more money which in turn produces more tax revenue for the government.

Raise taxes and my costs go up proportionately. I then cut costs in the form of jobs. But not just me, but thousands of other businesses around the country do the same thing.

Rich people are rich because they use their money to create even more wealth. The government acts as a brake on this economic engine. It is no where near as effective at producing jobs and growth as people like I am.

Tax hikes aren't about making people like me not be able to afford diamond studded keyboards or whatever. You'll find that the average person like me lives not that much differently than other people. The difference is how we use the money we earned -- to do more of what we're doing.

You realize you just said "the money of the United states is best left with the rich, because they are the best at producing more of it." It is difficult for me to think that someone could actually believe such a statement.

You'll find that most people with any business knowledge will "believe" this statement because it is true.  It is better to invest in things that work than to invest in things that don't work or don't work as well.  People who produce wealth are better at it than people who don't.  That wealth helps everyone.  Last year I created around 20 new jobs just in my own company and probably nearly that many outside the company due to things we did. 

So yes, it is better to let the people who make the money keep as much of it as possible in order to ensure they keep doing what they doing -- making money.  Why? How many jobs did you create last year? How much did you contribute to the economy?

Found an interesting page tonight while surfing.

Now you too can cut the deficit:

http://www.budgetsim.org/nbs/shortbudget06.html

The simple issue is that we are spending 400 Billion MORE per year then we tax. Most of that money is spent on obligations that we as a country have made and those that say just cut spending and the problem is solved have not looked at just what the tax dollars are being spent on.

The supply side (Voodoo economics per Bush 41) was shown to be a sham when Reagan claimed his tax cuts to the wealthy would stimulate the economic growth with business investment and balance the budget by 1985. He added $3 Trillion dollars to the National Debt in his 8 years in the White House. It took until 2000 to restore a balanced budget and the very next year Bush employed the same tax and spend policies as Reagan and he added $3 Trillion to the National debt in only 6 years.

Ok which of these stupid quotes does col Gene support? Three trillion dollars in the hole that we will never dig ourselves out of from the Reagan administration, or the 400 billion dollars a year in the hole from the Bush administration? If the first is true then we are still paying on the mistakes of Mr. Reagan. If the second is true then we some how paid back the three Trillion dollar hole we evil conservatives created in the 80's but some how we won't be able to pay back the 400 billion a year we are amassing even though all reports state that we have cut the debt in half in less time than predicted. No matter which way you look at it, is seems that the tax cuts are working and the money is roling in faster than anticipated.

I wonder if col Gene will ever get one right?

col, you do know that a trillion is larger than a billion right?

Just remember that each time we raised taxes we ended up in a recession. President Carter raised taxes, President Bush raised taxes, and President Clinton raised taxes. No own will dispute that the Carter tax increases were a disaster. The Bush tax increases slowed down the economy that was moving along well. The Clinton tax increases killed the economy and gave us a recession that everyone in the economic world says the Bush tax cuts saved us from getting worse. Face it you just don't like the President and you will believe any lie told about him if it makes him look bad.

Stolen from the Rush Limbaugh radio show:
Here are the CBO's "projected" surpluses: In 2001: $281 billion. In 2002: $313 billion. In 2003: $359 billion. In 2004: $397 billion. This totals a $1.4 trillion "projected" surplus from 2001 through 2004. The Bush tax cuts that are to be phased in over this four-year period, will cost $74 billion in 2003, $38 billion in 2002, $91 billion in 2003, and $108 billion in 2004. It totals $311 billion. So how in the world can tax cuts equaling $300 billion wipe out a projected surplus of $1.4 trillion? Answer: It can't - and the Democrats know it.

In order to push this Big Lie, the Democrats are counting on the fact that you will not be able to understand simple math problems, or the nature of tax cuts. They are counting on the fact they will be able to lie, because they've been so successful at convincing you that Reagan's tax cuts in the 80s caused our massive debt, and that only Bill Clinton's courageous tax increase in 1993 saved us. They think because they succeeded at that they can lie to you again.

End theft:

This was written in 2001 since then we have had a few problems like 9/11 the war on terror, a few natural disasters, and it was Bush's falt for not counting them all in the budget or factering them into the tax cuts. The fun part is even with all of that we are still paying it off ahead of schedule and you wish to scream economic disaster! Would you prefer a nice health tax increase so we can go back to 21% inflation?

I have a difficult time with the fact that so many conservatives wish to run the country in a fashion which they would NEVER run their personal lives - completely in debt, borrowing money constantly to stay afloat, not doing anything to fix the problem besides... borrowing more money and hoping for the best.

So, what you are saying is that all discount stores are going broke because they sell items cheeper than the other stores. You should explain this to Wal-Mart cause like Mr. Bush they are lying about revenues. Selling at cut rate prices and in only 20 years has become the largest retailer in the world. That can't be right!

Bush started his term with the greatest surplus in the history of any nation. He turned that into the greatest deficit any nation has ever seen and continued to break that record every year. Now he's reducing the deficit back to what would have been a record deficit when he started his term, and conservatives are cheering. If the economy is so great, why isn't the budget just as good as it was when Bush found it? Why can't we balance the budget?

This is a lie. He started with the largest "projected surplus" he also told of a recession that was coming 18 months before it hit and before he was elected. You are projected to make a million dollars over the next ten years, if your company dose not go broke, get bought out and you get layed off, and or the economy does not change. The recession hit just as the tax cuts were taking effect which economist, including my liberal, dope smokeing, pierced nosed son, with a doctorate in economics and is the head master of a private school, agrees was one of the mildest on record because of the tax cuts. Oops reality what a concept.

While we're on the subject, the only reason unemployment is down from when Bush started his term is because he changed the way the number of unemployed was counted, so that those who are unemployed for a long time are magically considered employed. I don't support a President who tries to dupe the American people (and often succeeds).

Nice try, you have your presidents mixed up, Mr. Clinton was the one that did that, this President is only playing by the rules set up before him. You can't count unemployed people that don't calim unemployment. I have been out of work three times in my life and never claimed unemployment. Does that mean that I need to be counted? No! it means that I and many like me chose not to take unemployment and survived. Unemployment is for those that need it. As it stands now we have the lowest unemployment in history, among the lowest in the world and all the nations that tax their people do death have record unemployment. Look at France. Japan taxes people so badly that in order to have anything for retirement you have to live on 20% of your take home pay and bank the rest, I know because I lived there for four and a half years.

I do not have to refute the dribble that is posted.

Baased on this statement you are saying that if we don't agree with you it is dribble. Very well. You shall not need to worry about me further taking up space on your blog. Thank you for your time. Too bad you don't understand the word debate.