THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[Banned]

Can't you do better than a "No I'm not, you are...." post? Obviously no.

And you got, "No, I'm not, you are..." from what part of my answer to you? I explained it over and over, and ZOOM!!... right past you. What do you want me to say, you're right? YOU'RE WRONG.
I even posted some links to back up my point, did you check them? Nooooo! How dare Johnny make a point that doesn't jive with Tea Party doctrine! Jesus, no wonder you're so frustrated, as much time as you spend bent over a political stump.
How many times do I have to tell you, if you can't hang with the grown-ups, go away.

Whenever you hit your growth spurt, let me know.

[lonewolf]

Also, I have decided that you rant too much and you may only have one free question at a time. I accept Paypal.

Between you and joe, you have answered zero questions. Is this because you're conservative, and can't respond with any sort of viable rebuttal in kind; or because you're conservative, and don't see those kinds of nutzoid rhetoric as wrong?

All one has to do to see that you are full of shit is go to the previous page and look at posts 2 and 14.

I do believe that the consensus is that I have rebuted your liberal ass thru the floor and straight into the mantle time and time again.

I must admit that rebuting you can be very difficult at times because your rants are often so erratic and disorganized that they make no sense to me, or indeed, anyone else. It is difficult to disseminate one question from the next and usually they are such silly questions that no answer is warranted.

[songsmith]

I do believe that the consensus is that I have rebuted your liberal ass thru the floor and straight into the mantle time and time again.
.

Um, okaaaaaaay...
Keep trying. Maybe someday, if you eat your vegetables and say your prayers, you'll come up with a way to adequately prohibit me from asking questions you can't answer. As for your inability to sufficiently understand points that aren't distilled into talking-point form... hey, you're supposed to be the uber-genius, I'm just a part-time retail loser with a Vo-Tech education.

[lonewolf]

I do believe that the consensus is that I have rebuted your liberal ass thru the floor and straight into the mantle time and time again.
.

Um, okaaaaaaay...
Keep trying. Maybe someday, if you eat your vegetables and say your prayers, you'll come up with a way to adequately prohibit me from asking questions you can't answer. As for your inability to sufficiently understand points that aren't distilled into talking-point form... hey, you're supposed to be the uber-genius, I'm just a part-time retail loser with a Vo-Tech education.

I'm sure you believe that because you are the only person who can read your posts and actually decipher what it is that you are trying to say. You know exactly what you mean...I for one usually have no idea and I'm willing to bet that most others don't either.

As far as I am aware, nobody here knows Johnnyese except you.

I see that you often use the phrase "rupert murdoch". I have been analyzing it, but I am still stumped as to its importance in your language. If you get a chance, please translate it.

[songsmith]

As far as I am aware, nobody here knows Johnnyese except you.

I see that you often use the phrase "rupert murdoch". I have been analyzing it, but I am still stumped as to its importance in your language. If you get a chance, please translate it.

You need to be more aware, that's the issue. My inbox is full of nice responses from people who speak fluent Johnnyese.

"Rupert Murdoch" is generally a synonym for "George Soros," defined as a foreign billionaire who seeks to control American politics. He and Rush Limbaugh are basically responsible for your worldview, he tells you what you're supposed to think.
He's a would-be moral compass who wiretaps dead kids and soldiers cellphones, and employs many American hard-right politicians (while supplying free publicity to many more). He helped get us into Iraq, got BushII elected twice, and assisted in the economic meltdown. As his influence wanes, so does that of rightwing extremism and plutocracy.
I can see I need to be more patient and understanding with you, as you appear to have suffered some cognitive setback. Dumbing things down never worked for joey, so I can't do that, but I suggest going for a walk. That always works when my dogs have been in the house too long, and start getting logey.

[lonewolf]

As far as I am aware, nobody here knows Johnnyese except you.

I see that you often use the phrase "rupert murdoch". I have been analyzing it, but I am still stumped as to its importance in your language. If you get a chance, please translate it.

You need to be more aware, that's the issue. My inbox is full of nice responses from people who speak fluent Johnnyese.

"Rupert Murdoch" is generally a synonym for "George Soros," defined as a foreign billionaire who seeks to control American politics. He and Rush Limbaugh are basically responsible for your worldview, he tells you what you're supposed to think.
He's a would-be moral compass who wiretaps dead kids and soldiers cellphones, and employs many American hard-right politicians (while supplying free publicity to many more). He helped get us into Iraq, got BushII elected twice, and assisted in the economic meltdown. As his influence wanes, so does that of rightwing extremism and plutocracy.
I can see I need to be more patient and understanding with you, as you appear to have suffered some cognitive setback. Dumbing things down never worked for joey, so I can't do that, but I suggest going for a walk. That always works when my dogs have been in the house too long, and start getting logey.

No, I am sorry. It still makes no sense to me. Just a bunch of characters that may as well say "blah, blah, blah". I did notice that some of the words have capital letters. Do these infer proper nouns?

[songsmith]

No, I am sorry. It still makes no sense to me. Just a bunch of characters that may as well say "blah, blah, blah". I did notice that some of the words have capital letters. Do these infer proper nouns?

Do you really want to leave it at that? That would have me lump you in with Joe, as someone who truly does not understand anything that hasn't been force-fed in small sound bites.
I will keep explaining forever and ever (and trust me- EVER) if you truly don't understand, but I am surprised that you cannot comprehend such simple concepts. I know you're prone to retellings of history and intellectual pontification like all others as far over on the right as you are, but I'm not sure I can accept that you're just too thick to understand.
It sounds like you're throwing in the towel.

Next!

[lonewolf]

No, I am sorry. It still makes no sense to me. Just a bunch of characters that may as well say "blah, blah, blah". I did notice that some of the words have capital letters. Do these infer proper nouns?

Do you really want to leave it at that? That would have me lump you in with Joe, as someone who truly does not understand anything that hasn't been force-fed in small sound bites.
I will keep explaining forever and ever (and trust me- EVER) if you truly don't understand, but I am surprised that you cannot comprehend such simple concepts. I know you're prone to retellings of history and intellectual pontification like all others as far over on the right as you are, but I'm not sure I can accept that you're just too thick to understand.
It sounds like you're throwing in the towel.

Next!

No, its finally time for you to get in the ring.

[songsmith]

No, its finally time for you to get in the ring.

[quote="songsmithReally? Where are the high taxes? Where are the death squads? Where's the follow-up to 9/11, the Sharia Law, the conservative interrment camps, the high interest rates? Where are the government takeover and socialization of healthcare? Where's the Godless Pledge Of Allegiance, the race war, the crash of the stock market? What happened more bank bailouts, the Beck-pocalypse, taking our guns, outlawing Christmas, staying in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely, and having to learn Chinese or Arabic? Was Sarah Palin the salvation of American politics? Is Rupert Murdoch the shining example of responsible journalism?
."[/quote]

I'm in. What happened to all those "obvious" things that were supposed to happen? It's been nearly 3 years, pick just one of those insignificant little observations of reality, and explain why, after all the hype, none of those things ever happened.
Don't hurt yourself, just pick one.

[f.sciarrillo]

You are right, Johnny. Nothing happen. Obama did nothing to help. He made things worse. He flip flopped more than any Pres in history. He has nothing to run on, so I wonder what he will do. I know, promise more hope and change. Ohhhh Ahhhh ..

[lonewolf]

Geez, Johnny! I have you so riled up you can't even quote things right! That post looks like your eyeballs curled up inside their sockets.

Now fix that effed up mess and enter your free stupid question and send my paypal account $5 for every extra stupid question.

[lonewolf]

I can only address what I have addressed before and that would be the financial markets and interest rates.

The last time I posted about the stock market, I said that we'd see the DJIA in the 9000s before we'd see it in the 13,000s. I also said that if it dragged itself out into the coming election that it would be bad news for Obama.

The DJIA hasn't breached either number. I don't see anything in the charts that changes my prediction.

Interest rates will be whatever Bernanke makes them as long as he can digitally print enough money to buy enough government paper for the Federal Reserve's portfolio. As long as this government paper is held in the secret Fed portfolio, the official "reported" inflation numbers will remain low. Thats all just smoke and mirrors. The present government-debt prop-up, known as QE2, is scheduled to expire on June 30.

QE3? Who knows? If there is no QE3, I would expect rates to creep up a little during the 2nd half of 2012. With the deepening problems in Europe, a financial crises can come about at any time. For the time being, that would be good news for US interest rates because we are still considered the world's safe haven for the short term.

We are all safe from financial armageddon as long as the yield curve remains at or near 0-4%. Once it returns to unpropped normal levels, it will mark the beginning of the next US cash crunch.

I expect precious metals to consolidate a little further and then continue upwards.

[songsmith]

You are right, Johnny. Nothing happen. Obama did nothing to help. He made things worse. He flip flopped more than any Pres in history. He has nothing to run on, so I wonder what he will do. I know, promise more hope and change. Ohhhh Ahhhh ..

I can't quite follow your logic. We heard all sorts of horror-story predictions, and none came true. But that's a bad thing? You're frustrated because Obama didn't live up to your negative predictions?
How has he flip-flopped, in a way that hasn't benefitted the right? The only flip-flopping I've seen is to give in to Boehner and McConnell. He's given in to the right on closing Gitmo, tax breaks for the rich, terrorist trials, and so much more.
He has plenty to run on, Frank. Taxes are lowest in 50+ years. 22 months of private-sector job gains. Iraq finished, Afghanistan drawing to a close. Struck down "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Got bin Laden. Pushed through health insurance reforms that benefit people not insurance companies. There's also the GOP circus going on right now, people don't care for Obama, but they know the alternative is far worse.
It'll be Romney vs. Obama, and Obama wins. Sorry to break that to you.

[songsmith]

Now fix that effed up mess and enter your free stupid question and send my paypal account $5 for every extra stupid question.

Okay. Where are the high taxes that stifle job creation? We were promised high taxation under Obama, why are taxes at their lowest point in 50 years?

[lonewolf]

Now fix that effed up mess and enter your free stupid question and send my paypal account $5 for every extra stupid question.

Okay. Where are the high taxes that stifle job creation? We were promised high taxation under Obama, why are taxes at their lowest point in 50 years?

Without specificity, that question is invalid. The statement "taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years" is a complete falsehood and has no basis in reality.

Everything that I have seen shows that FY 2012 revenues will be at an all time high:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=200

[songsmith]

Without specificity, that question is invalid. The statement "taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years" is a complete falsehood and has no basis in reality.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... axes_N.htm

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... 50s-ceos-/

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... _1950.html

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news ... 646b75734a

Via Google. More?

[lonewolf]

Without specificity, that question is invalid. The statement "taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years" is a complete falsehood and has no basis in reality.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... axes_N.htm

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... 50s-ceos-/

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... _1950.html

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news ... 646b75734a

Via Google. More?

1st of all: Specificity: the quality or condition of being specific: as
a : the condition of being peculiar to a particular individual or group of organisms <host specificity of a parasite>
b : the condition of participating in or catalyzing only one or a few chemical reactions <the specificity of an enzyme>
See specificity defined for English-language learners

So, without an explanation, I assume that you meant:

Why are taxes at their lowest point as a percentage of income in 50 years?

I don't have any empirical data on that, but I would suspect that because of bad economic times, income levels at the lower end of the income scale have dropped so significantly as to take them completely off the tax rolls in large numbers and even into the negative tax class of Earned Income Credit.

[songsmith]

Why are taxes at their lowest point as a percentage of income in 50 years?

I don't have any empirical data on that, but I would suspect that because of bad economic times, income levels at the lower end of the income scale have dropped so significantly as to take them completely off the tax rolls in large numbers and even into the negative tax class of Earned Income Credit.

So there's no chance that taxes as a percentage of income are at their lowest point since the Korean War because Obama has not raised rates, as promised by the rightwingers? There's no way myriad tax loopholes and credits have contributed to an overall decrease in the local, state, and federal tax rates, which is the opposite of what conservatives claimed?
Oh, I'm sorry, that was TWO questions, and you can't possibly be expected to reply on more than one. Please note: both questions ask the same thing, but I needed to be specific.
You're not going to paint me into a corner, no matter how hard you try. I can follow your arbitrary rules, and still prove you utterly wrong.
The high taxes we were told by the right would happen, have not happened. I'll let YOU pick the next question you're going to answer, from my previous post. We'll do them one by one.

[lonewolf]

Why are taxes at their lowest point as a percentage of income in 50 years?

I don't have any empirical data on that, but I would suspect that because of bad economic times, income levels at the lower end of the income scale have dropped so significantly as to take them completely off the tax rolls in large numbers and even into the negative tax class of Earned Income Credit.

So there's no chance that taxes as a percentage of income are at their lowest point since the Korean War because Obama has not raised rates, as promised by the rightwingers? There's no way myriad tax loopholes and credits have contributed to an overall decrease in the local, state, and federal tax rates, which is the opposite of what conservatives claimed?
Oh, I'm sorry, that was TWO questions, and you can't possibly be expected to reply on more than one. Please note: both questions ask the same thing, but I needed to be specific.
You're not going to paint me into a corner, no matter how hard you try. I can follow your arbitrary rules, and still prove you utterly wrong.
The high taxes we were told by the right would happen, have not happened. I'll let YOU pick the next question you're going to answer, from my previous post. We'll do them one by one.

Read your own links. They say its a result of the economy.

If rates haven't changed (in math terms, remained constant) under Obama, how could that possibly be the cause?

[songsmith]

Read your own links. They say its a result of the economy.

If rates haven't changed (in math terms, remained constant) under Obama, how could that possibly be the cause?

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. The real problem is spending,counters Adam Brandon of FreedomWorks, which organizes Tea Party groups. "The money we borrow is going to be paid back through taxation in the future," he says.

Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.

This tax drop has boosted consumer spending and the economy, which grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter. It also has contributed to the federal debt growing to $8.4 trillion.
Taxes paid have fallen much faster than income in this recession. Personal income fell 2% last year. Taxes paid dropped 23%. The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.

Why the tax bite has eased:

• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.

• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.

• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.

A Gallup Poll last month found that 48% thought taxes were "too high" and 45% thought they were "about right." Those saying taxes are "too high" remain near a 50-year low.

The lower tax burden should last at least through 2010, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year," he says. "So the key decision is whether to extend them into 2011."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only place it mentions a downturn in the economy as a cause for lower tax rates is in consumer spending which fell sharply in 2009 and that was sales tax, which didn't drop rate-percentage-wise, but as a percentage of income. It had to fall, because low wages and high bills mean working America didn't have it to spend.

The extreme high taxes we were promised with an Obama presidency have not materialized. Extreme high corporate profits are another story altogether.

[lonewolf]

Read your own links. They say its a result of the economy.

If rates haven't changed (in math terms, remained constant) under Obama, how could that possibly be the cause?

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. The real problem is spending,counters Adam Brandon of FreedomWorks, which organizes Tea Party groups. "The money we borrow is going to be paid back through taxation in the future," he says.

Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, [/color]the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.

This tax drop has boosted consumer spending and the economy, which grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter. It also has contributed to the federal debt growing to $8.4 trillion.
Taxes paid have fallen much faster than income in this recession. Personal income fell 2% last year. Taxes paid dropped 23%. The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.

Why the tax bite has eased:

• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.

• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.

• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.

A Gallup Poll last month found that 48% thought taxes were "too high" and 45% thought they were "about right." Those saying taxes are "too high" remain near a 50-year low.

The lower tax burden should last at least through 2010, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year," he says. "So the key decision is whether to extend them into 2011."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only place it mentions a downturn in the economy as a cause for lower tax rates is in consumer spending which fell sharply in 2009 and that was sales tax, which didn't drop rate-percentage-wise, but as a percentage of income. It had to fall, because low wages and high bills mean working America didn't have it to spend.

The extreme high taxes we were promised with an Obama presidency have not materialized. Extreme high corporate profits are another story altogether.

Geez Johnny, we can read...even articles that are nearly 2 years old.

Even though its ancient history, i like how they try to compare 3 years worth of tax declines with data from one quarter of GDP growth and come to baseless conclusions. Like the data for one quarter of growth makes up for all the lost jobs and revenue during a 3 year period. That's not even smoke and mirrors, its just plain wrong.

Their use of the term tax "rates" is completely different from mine. Those are snapshot percentage calculations as opposed to my reference to income tax rates that have remained unchanged since the early years of the Bush administration. Apples & oranges.

Like I said, I don't have the numbers, but tax policy hasn't changed, so what has? Upper income brackets are still paying the same income tax rate now as before the recession, so that doesn't change anything. Maybe a large percentage of 1% got laid off and no longer pay taxes? Highly unlikely...there aren't nearly enough of them (hence, the term 1%).

Or, maybe more plausible reasons are:

1) there are fewer people employed today than before the recession. Flat out unemployment doesn't affect wage data, since unemployed people do not receive wages.

2) underemployment and declines in wages were enough to move large numbers of low income workers into even lower or no-tax brackets.

In calculable terms, what do you think the reasons are?

[songsmith]

Geez Johnny, we can read...even articles that are nearly 2 years old.

Yeah, I know, 2 whole years would put us two-thirds of the way back to prehistory, back through the sands of time to when the mythical Bush-voter is thought to have existed.
If, as you say, the rates haven't changed, 2 years wouldn't matter.

Even though its ancient history , i like how they try to compare 3 years worth of tax declines with one quarter of GDP growth and come to baseless conclusions. Like the data for one quarter of growth makes up for all the lost jobs and revenue during a 3 year period. That's not even smoke and mirrors, its just plain wrong.

We've had growth, albeit slow growth, since the time the article was published. We've had 22 months of net job growth in the private sector as well. Public-sector jobs took a huge hit, but hey, that's the conservative way, so you can't really complain about that. It sure sounds like YOU who is wrong.

Their use of the term tax "rates" is completely different from mine. Those are snapshot percentage calculations as opposed to my reference to income tax rates that have remained unchanged since the early years of the Bush administration. Apples & oranges.

That sounds like parsing to me. "I didn't mean that, I meant something else..."

like I said, I don't have the numbers, but tax policy hasn't changed, so what has? Upper income brackets are still paying the same income tax rate now as before the recession, so that doesn't change anything.

Ah, but upper income brackets are not paying the same rate, especially not near as much as they paid in the last 50 years. The percentage dropped drastically. In the 1961 tax year, the top rate was 91%. This was at a time of unprecedented growth. Now it's 35%, but that's up from 28% under Reagan. NOW... factor in the point I often make, that most top-level pay now comes as capital gains, which is taxed at only 15%. Add to that the Tea Party d-bags influence on the starvation-death of local and some state government tax rates, and TAXES ARE LOWER THAN AT ANYTIME IN THE LAST 50 YEARS.

Maybe a large percentage of 1% got laid off and no longer pay taxes? Highly unlikely...there aren't enough of them (thus, the term 1%).

Not as funny as I'm sure you hoped, but again, the 1% is doing quite well. Their income increased tremendously lately, it's a really good time to be wealthy.

Or, maybe more plausible reasons are:

1) there are fewer people employed today than before the recession. Flat out unemployment doesn't affect wage data, since unemployed people do not receive wages.

2) underemployment and declines in wages were enough to move large numbers of low income workers into even lower or no-tax brackets.

In calculable terms, what do you think the reasons are?

1) Fewer people are employed, that's true, but since according to ucjoey, Unemployment Compensation is taxable income, the rate would be the same.
2) That's actually plausible, but the net result is lower taxes, not higher, as I said.
In calculable terms, I would say the reasons tax rates are lower now than in the last 50 years is:
A. FAR lower top tax rate.
B. Capital gains tax rate reduction combined with a tendency away from traditional pay in order to avoid taxation.
C. Myriad tax cuts, loopholes, credits, and government subsidies for business. Also includes shelters, investment loopholes and offshore banking for wealthy individuals.
D. Obstructionism from the right defends corporate and top-wage interests.

All these things are quantifiable, and therefore calculable, but I'm not doing all the heavy lifting, you look it up if you're not satisfied.
The original question remains unanswered:
Where are the high taxes we were promised due to the Obama presidency?

[lonewolf]

Where are the high taxes we were promised due to the Obama presidency?

I guess the short answer is: I don't know, you'll have to ask Obama.

According to that link I posted way back there, revenues are estimated to be at an all time high in FY 2012.

What is there about that statement and the government-backed figures that you do not understand?

Of course, that is a current estimate as opposed to a nearly two year old article with fudged and biased numbers.

[Banned]

Maybe this has something to do with the tax situation:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch ... enter-2012

"#1 Today, only 55.3 percent of all Americans between the ages of 16 and 29 have jobs.

#2 In the United States today, there are 240 million working age people. Only about 140 million of them are working.

#3 According to CareerBuilder, only 23 percent of American companies plan to hire more employees in 2012.

#4 Since the year 2000, the United States has lost 10% of its middle class jobs. In the year 2000 there were about 72 million middle class jobs in the United States but today there are only about 65 million middle class jobs.

#5 According to the New York Times, approximately 100 million Americans are either living in poverty or in "the fretful zone just above it".

#6 According to that same article in the New York Times, 34 percent of all elderly Americans are living in poverty or "near poverty", and 39 percent of all children in America are living in poverty or "near poverty".

#7 In 1984, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 or older was 10 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone 35 or younger. Today, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 or older is 47 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone 35 or younger.

#8 Since the year 2000, incomes for U.S. households led by someone between the ages of 25 and 34 have fallen by about 12 percent after you adjust for inflation.

#9 The total value of household real estate in the U.S. has declined from $22.7 trillion in 2006 to $16.2 trillion today. Most of that wealth has been lost by the middle class.

#10 Many formerly great manufacturing cities are turning into ghost towns. Since 1950, the population of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has declined by more than 50 percent. In Dayton, Ohio 18.9 percent of all houses now stand empty.

#11 Since 1971, consumer debt in the United States has increased by a whopping 1700%.

#12 The number of pages of federal tax rules and regulations has increased by 18,000% since 1913. The wealthy know how to avoid taxes, but most of those in the middle class do not.

#13 The number of Americans that fell into poverty (2.6 million) set a new all-time record last year and extreme poverty (6.7%) is at the highest level ever measured in the United States.

#14 According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 dropped by 27 percent after you account for inflation.

#15 According to U.S. Representative Betty Sutton, America has lost an average of 15 manufacturing facilities a day over the last 10 years. During 2010 it got even worse. Last year, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities a day shut down in the United States.

#16 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

#17 Most Americans are scratching and clawing and doing whatever they can to make a living these days. Half of all American workers now earn $505 or less per week.

#18 Food prices continue to rise at a very brisk pace. The price of beef is up 9.8% over the past year, the price of eggs is up 10.2% over the past year and the price of potatoes is up 12% over the past year.

#19 Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

#20 The average American household will have spent a staggering $4,155 on gasoline by the end of 2011.

#21 If inflation was measured the exact same way that it was measured back in 1980, the rate of inflation in the United States would be well over 10 percent.

#22 If the number of Americans considered to be "looking for work" was the same today as it was back in 2007, the "official" unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would be up to 11 percent.

#23 According to the Student Loan Debt Clock, total student loan debt in the United States will surpass the 1 trillion dollar mark at some point in 2012. Most of that debt is owed by members of the middle class.

#24 Incredibly, more than one out of every seven Americans is on food stamps and one out of every four American children is on food stamps at this point.

#25 Since Barack Obama took office, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased by 14.3 million.

#26 In 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.

#27 In 1970, 65 percent of all Americans lived in "middle class neighborhoods". By 2007, only 44 percent of all Americans lived in "middle class neighborhoods".

#28 According to a recent report produced by Pew Charitable Trusts, approximately one out of every three Americans that grew up in a middle class household has slipped down the income ladder.

#29 In the United States today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

#30 The poorest 50 percent of all Americans now collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.

Sadly, this article could have been much, much longer. There are so many other statistics about the middle class that could have been included.

For even more insane economic numbers that show just how dramatically the U.S. economy is declining, just check out this article: "50 Economic Numbers From 2011 That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe".

What is even more frightening is that this is about as good as things are going to get.

We have already had "the economic recovery", such as it was."

[lonewolf]

1) Fewer people are employed, that's true, but since according to ucjoey, Unemployment Compensation is taxable income, the rate would be the same.
2) That's actually plausible, but the net result is lower taxes, not higher, as I said.
In calculable terms, I would say the reasons tax rates are lower now than in the last 50 years is:
A. FAR lower top tax rate.
B. Capital gains tax rate reduction combined with a tendency away from traditional pay in order to avoid taxation.
C. Myriad tax cuts, loopholes, credits, and government subsidies for business. Also includes shelters, investment loopholes and offshore banking for wealthy individuals.
D. Obstructionism from the right defends corporate and top-wage interests.

All these things are quantifiable, and therefore calculable, but I'm not doing all the heavy lifting, you look it up if you're not satisfied.
The original question remains unanswered:
Where are the high taxes we were promised due to the Obama presidency?

1) What is there about "unemployment does not affect wage data" that you do not understand? Sure, UC is taxable, but it is not wages. Or perhaps you just don't know the difference between wages and taxable income?

Or perhaps if you cannot say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say?

2, A & B & C) The lower tax rate, the 15% capital gains rate and all the loopholes have been around for more than 10 years. After they were changed, tax revenues hit an all time high, even when adjusted for inflation. More tax revenues, not less. Unlike partisan ideologues, I prefer this scenario over higher rates with fewer revenues. Paying employees with stock has been around as long as corporations have been.

I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.

Of course, that never manages to sink in. Why don't I help you with that:

I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.
I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.
I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.
I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.
I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.
I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.
I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.
I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.
I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.
I don't like C) any more than you do. That is why instead of whining about it, I prefer my flat tax idea.

Did ya get that?

D) because of all of the above, right wing obstructionism is moot.