Messages

Goose, you are so right   maybe he will have a differnt tone and respect for people who have lost jobs because of the dirtbag greedy corporations.

Also those greedy corporations are one day going to get a rude awakening, when they dont have anybody to sell to in our country, due to nobody having jobs.  The dumbasses dont realize that if they employed more people, more people could buy their products.  They will learn thou

14,

Semantics. Though not directly stated, it's obviously inherently implied from Romney to pander to his base:

Jobs will only come back here 2 ways

1. our people lower their standard of living down to the standard of living in other countries and be willing to work for very very very low wages with no benefits and health insurance at all.

2.our govt steps in and does something to stop these corporations from sending jobs overseas and exploiting people with slave wages

"Oh and while someone is talking "semantics" I must point out:

For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):

Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent

Top one percent: 28 percent

The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.

I rather enjoy watching the Democrats fall into traps on issue which win elections for Republicans"

14,

You cited a blog post by a Harvard economist, Dr. Mankiw, who is also a current economic adviser to Romney. Also, he is former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under G.W. Bush. Conveniently, you left this pertinent fact out. Not a hint of bias here. No way, right?

Sorry, a blog post based on CBO data is not an academic paper. It's simply his written blog, yet you present its conclusions as infallible. A peer reviewed study which has been scrutinized and accepted for publication, it is certainly not. I assume you have likely never published anything to understand this concept.

The CBO data is open to other interpretations.Dr. Mankiw's blog, was respectfully and artfully challenged by Dr. Folbre on several valid fronts.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/measuring-mooching/

First, she mentions the skewing of data in the bottom quintile due to the presence of retirees, the disabled or children. These groups, unsurprisingly, will usually have strong net negative transfers. Receiving Medicare and Medicaid will do that. What a revelation!

Second, joblessness is 35% in bottom quintile as opposed to 9% in the middle qunitile and 4% in the top one. Again, not really surprising that folks without jobs would have a net negative impact.

Third, the CBO estimates don't take into consideration state and local taxes paid, which even Dr. Mankiw corrected and addended to his original post. This would change the equation, especially for the middle quintile, from negative to positive.

But I wouldn't expect you to mention Mankiw's political allegiances or her eloquent and respectfully academic retort at all. After all, who cares about the 47%? They are riff-raff moochers to you and Mitt, right? Begone peasantry!

Mellow Wolf, thats all da road ever does is post right winger trash, written by right winger nutjobs, that he states as facts.

Not one post he ever writes, comes from his own mind.

A total walking right winger zombie

p.s. nice bust.  am sure he thought he nobody would bother looking for where he got that trash.  He should vanish for a few days now, to let the laughter die down