How many times did this happen under Obama leadership?

TerryMiller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
13,389
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Here, but occasionally There.
I know that 300,000 is NOT the average job creation, but if it were to be close to that, that would end up in the vicinity of 3,000,000 to 3,600,000 jobs per year. And, if I remember right (might not be), wasn't someone in Obama's administration (or he himself) claim that they created 4,000,000 jobs over his 8 years in office? Seems kind of piddly to me.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
74,741
Reaction score
35,834
Location
Ponca City Ok
Like when you compare them out as a trend like Forbes has done? They're great jobs numbers. Full stop. But being misleading is really disingenuous. They're literally following the same trend; and quite close over all, outside of Manufacturing.

Also, the 70% tax isn't a flat tax. We have a progressive tax system. AOC isn't going to take a flat 70 cents of your dollar. The 70% bracket is for income above a certain threshold. I know progressive tax systems are convoluted and the US does a poor job of explaining it to people but c'mon guys; getting your jimmies rustled and puffing your chests because "lol dems so stupid" when you're missing the point is disappointing and in bad faith.

On top of that; the vast majority of people that would affect, are sheltered since their income is generally cap gains; which is taxed at a paltry sum when compared to yours or my income via wages. The ultra-wealthy, which this plan is aimed at, don't got time for wages; they are rolling in passive income, which funny enough, also got a massive deduction in the tax bill.

So, if she's aiming it wages, it's likely to not accomplish anything at all. If it's going after capital gains and pass-through income, it'll actually have some teeth.

Thus,all of your wages are unaffected, unless you somehow are rolling in massive wage incomes; you might be affected.

And the whole call out for the market being up is a poor attempt at trying to fluff already good numbers and is more of a foot in mouth scenario. The market got annihilated by the end of 2018 and had one of the worst Decembers on record. I highly doubt anybody here finished in the green in their accounts unless you were inverse leveraged heavily (props to your broker), shorted the markets or only held cash.

My rendition was just the short story, with numbers representing what 70% would do, not the full novel that I can also produce and you touched on nicely, but she is touting the short story to her base that is lapping it up like manna from heaven believing she is the way to socialistic nirvana.
Nobody works, government pays for everything, free everything and we make the world a better place.
See how that works on simple minds that have been indoctrinated by socialists educators?
We live in a sad state of affairs right now with voters of this mindset on the east and west coast where the majority of voters who are dimocrats reside
 

k4ylr

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
252
Reaction score
288
Location
OKC
I know that 300,000 is NOT the average job creation, but if it were to be close to that, that would end up in the vicinity of 3,000,000 to 3,600,000 jobs per year. And, if I remember right (might not be), wasn't someone in Obama's administration (or he himself) claim that they created 4,000,000 jobs over his 8 years in office? Seems kind of piddly to me.

They created somewhere around 11.6 million jobs during his terms.
 

Slim Deal

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
967
Reaction score
1,149
Location
NE OK
Let’s put numbers to that. If one worked their butt off, was frugal in their spending and saved 2 million dollars, Cortez wants $1,400,000.00 of that to fund green energy leaving you with $60,000 dollars. I’m thinking the US version of the French yellow jackets may just appear?

I would hope that the US Citizens would be more aggressive and start throwing politicians and bureaucrats out of windows for effect.
 

Seadog

Sharpshooter
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
3,243
Reaction score
2,226
Location
Boondocks
Absolutely. They want to kill free enterprise to achieve their goals of government controlling everything.
Cortez is even gunning for a 70% tax on what she calls the wealthy to fund closing ALL fossil fuel burning power plants to rely on wind, hydro, and solar only for our nations energy needs.
That girl has not a clue in the world about reality.

Let’s put numbers to that. If one worked their butt off, was frugal in their spending and saved 2 million dollars, Cortez wants $1,400,000.00 of that to fund green energy leaving you with $60,000 dollars. I’m thinking the US version of the French yellow jackets may just appear?
I know what you meant but you for got a 0 on the 60,000. I agree with you and think their logic is loco. The hate self Independence and money savvy People
 

SlugSlinger

Sharpshooter
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
5,175
Reaction score
3,096
Location
Owasso
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

Just because they use a name that implies unbiased assessments, doesn't mean that they provide them. You can call your Web site anything you want. I can set up a web site called thetruth.org or realfacts.com or stopthelies.org and post any kind of biased political propaganda I want on it. The name means nothing. And in the case of sites like factcheck.org, the name is intentionally misleading and deceptive. But it isn't the only so called "fact check" site that is a fraud. There are others.

Think about it. Would you rely on any particular Web site to get the "truth?" Anyone honest would tell you that you should NOT rely solely on them to get your facts. You should get them by considering many different and sources, with different points of view and opinions and arrive at what you believe to be the truth by using your own God given senses. Only con artists purport to be the de facto source of truth.

If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2923825/posts
 
Top Bottom