US Creates 69,000 New Jobs, Unemployment Rate 8.2%

Re: One of these things is not like the other one.

Any way you spin it, Obama doesn't have a clue on the economy. With a community organizer background, who woulda guessed.

Re: One of these things is not like the other one.

Meathead said:

Any way you spin it, Obama doesn't have a clue on the economy. With a community organizer background, who woulda guessed.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the non-argument. Any more unsupported, conclusory nuggets you'd like to favor us with?

Re: One of these things is not like the other one.

AdamT said:

Yes, it's certainly helping to lower the unemployment rate -- no argument there. And the big bump in people reentering the work force is essentially what caused the uneployment rate to tick up last month.

Click to expand...

I have no response except to laugh out loud. Your non-acceptance of the reality of the situation is breathtaking in its ignorance. We had 70k job creation as a monthly statistic and here you are trying to spin this crap as being good.

Your bubble must be a mile thick. Nothing gets through.

Re: One of these things is not like the other one.

AdamT said:

Thanks for the non-argument. Any more unsupported, conclusory nuggets you'd like to favor us with?

Click to expand...

Being such a hack, it must be difficult for you to distinguish between an observation and an argument.

AdamT said:

You don't have to be an economic genius to understand how idiotic your statement is. First, this was one of the biggest tax cuts in US history, on an annual basis. It delivers a significant amount of cash to every working man and woman in the country on a weekly or biweekly basis. Most of that money was pumped back into the economy and that is what stimus is all about.

Click to expand...

LMFAO this from someone who hates the Bush Tax Cuts, because he feels they've cost revenue... yet, if Obama cut taxes, he's all for it... :roll:

Guess how those working families are going to fare when Obama can't pass tax legislation and the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and suddenly they go from 10% tax rate to 15% tax rate, or 15% tax rate to 25% tax rate...

That money was not pumped back into the economy... Christ you really are naive at times... Tax loopholes for the poor arent taken advantage of, because they don't have tax prep know-how, and can't afford quality tax prep... Those few who do have tax know-how, do it as a cost saving measure, to get away with not paying for things... Not so they can use money elsewhere... Poor people taxed less means they can afford the basic items... It doesnt mean they're pumping money into the economy... They don't have money to be pumping into the economy... the rich do... but you'd rather punish them, and they know it, so they've dumped their money onto off-shore accounts to avoid Obama's Robinhood tax hike approach... and he's given them 4 years of ample warning that it's coming, so they did so in incriments to avoid paying serious taxes as they did...

AdamT said:

Implementing significant austerity measures now would almost certainly send the economy back into recession, as has happened in many Europen countries that went to austerity too soon. The end result would be higher -- not lower -- debt. The CBO has made this quite clear. CBO warns of 2013 recession - Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

There's a HUGE difference between Europe and America... why do you people continue to struggle with this concept...

In Europe, they take EXTREMELY HIGH personal income taxes nearing 35-50%, and moderately high corporate tax rates of 25%... Then additionally there is the VAT So the government is taking on the whole 60-75% in taxes from people, and then take more on the business they conduct.... so basically, its people work to pay the government, and the government is supposed to provide all the services... When the government stops providing services, the people are working for nothing, and get pissed about it..... Duh!

In American, we take fairly low personal income taxes, from 10%-35%, and EXTREMELY HIGH corporate taxes, and adds on Capital Gains taxes, Payroll taxes, healthcare taxes, etc... Thus people have money when they can earn it, and they spend it however they chose... except, since corportations are being punished, they're laying off people left and right, so not as many people are employed with money to be spending... The government collects enough to provide some basic services, but people are expected to be able to provide for themselves... Thus, if the government trims back on the services, most people will still be able to get by... for those who can't there are numerous charities, where people who have wealth give an additional 15% to assist with causes, such as food pantries, etc. The problem isn't cuts from the government... the problem is lowering the corporate tax rates, and the other punishments that are being placed on businesses and people with wealth, who can help spark investment, and employment, so people begin spending....

America will not have the same problems Europe has with Austerity, because Americans do not rely on the government to provide all their services for them... those who can still have money and do that for themselves...

In America, the recession is being caused not by the government, but by a government that wants to prevent success and punish it, with high restrictions and regulation, high taxes, and punishments for hiring people... If we make cuts in government, and let businesses thrive, the people as a whole will thrive...

AdamT said:

They obviously did underestimate the recession as unemployment went higher with the stimulus than they thought it would go with no stimulus. This is pre-economics 101 stuff.

Click to expand...

So they mishandled the economy... They're also currently underestimating the decline back into recession since the companies they propped up for 3 years are now faltering... and that's what happens when you prop up failing industries with government money... which is why government money is not the way out of a recession... economic growth needs to occur naturally... that is basic finance, which trumps your pre-economics 101 mindset... this is pre-lemonade stand basics which still hold true every time... if there's no market, no one is going to buy anything...

Obama backs the overpaid blue collar workers.

Overpaid blue collar workers are why we've sent so many jobs to China.

Re: One of these things is not like the other one.

Meathead said:

Any way you spin it, Obama doesn't have a clue on the economy. With a community organizer background, who woulda guessed.

Click to expand...

You are right.

But neither did Bush Jr. or Clinton or....

POTUS's are notorious for being absolutely clueless when it comes to macro-economics.

People should NEVER look to this office for economic direction.

That is why governments should stay as far out of the economy as possible.

Whenever they get involved, they almost always (if not always) just mess it up.


BTW - the above goes for the Fed as well.

They are made up of bankers - and bankers are almost as clueless as lawyers (what most POTUS's are) when it comes to macro-economics.

Oh, they are good bean counters - but almost always rotten at anything larger.

AdamT said:

You don't have to be an economic genius to understand how idiotic your statement is. First, this was one of the biggest tax cuts in US history, on an annual basis. It delivers a significant amount of cash to every working man and woman in the country on a weekly or biweekly basis. Most of that money was pumped back into the economy and that is what stimus is all about.

Click to expand...

Former president Bill Clinton caused additional headaches for the Obama campaign on Tuesday when he told CNBC that he wouldn't have a problem with Congress temporarily extending all the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of the year.

Bill Clinton: Bush Tax Cuts Should Be Extended Temporarily (VIDEO)

I would suggest Bill Clinton does not agree with you, he is a Democrat you know.

Originally Posted by AdamT

You don't have to be an economic genius to understand how idiotic your statement is. First, this was one of the biggest tax cuts in US history, on an annual basis. It delivers a significant amount of cash to every working man and woman in the country on a weekly or biweekly basis. Most of that money was pumped back into the economy and that is what stimus is all about.

Click to expand...

IndepCentristMA said:

LMFAO this from someone who hates the Bush Tax Cuts, because he feels they've cost revenue... yet, if Obama cut taxes, he's all for it... :roll:

Click to expand...

All tax cuts are not created equal, obviously. The Bush tax cuts were long-term and justified on the basis of there being TOO MUCH revenue rolling in to the government. They were his answer to the question, "what the heck are we going to do with all this money from the Clinton surplus?!" Unfortunately, as with so many Bush policies, it very quickly became apparent that the justification was bogus, but there was no effort to amend the policy.

In contrast, the Obama tax cut was short term and put in place to stimulate the economy during a massive demand-side recession. The justification was real and the tax cut was well targeted to address it.

My view of the Bush tax cuts is that the should never have been passed. The Clinton-era tax rates struck a very good balance between revenue and growth. In a perfect world we would eliminate all of Bush tax cuts now and replace them with more effective stimulus. Unfortunately that's a political impossibility with Republicans and some Democrats burrowing full-bore into a Hooveresque austerity rabbit hole. Ultimately, however, tax rates will have to go up. Nothing could be clearer.

Born Free said:

Former president Bill Clinton caused additional headaches for the Obama campaign on Tuesday when he told CNBC that he wouldn't have a problem with Congress temporarily extending all the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of the year.

Bill Clinton: Bush Tax Cuts Should Be Extended Temporarily (VIDEO)

I would suggest Bill Clinton does not agree with you, he is a Democrat you know.

Click to expand...

What does Clinton's statement about the Bush tax cut extensions have to do with my statement about the payroll tax cut? Nothing.

AdamT said:

All tax cuts are not created equal, obviously. The Bush tax cuts were long-term and justified on the basis of there being TOO MUCH revenue rolling in to the government. They were his answer to the question, "what the heck are we going to do with all this money from the Clinton surplus?!" Unfortunately, as with so many Bush policies, it very quickly became apparent that the justification was bogus, but there was no effort to amend the policy.

In contrast, the Obama tax cut was short term and put in place to stimulate the economy during a massive demand-side recession. The justification was real and the tax cut was well targeted to address it.

My view of the Bush tax cuts is that the should never have been passed. The Clinton-era tax rates struck a very good balance between revenue and growth. In a perfect world we would eliminate all of Bush tax cuts now and replace them with more effective stimulus. Unfortunately that's a political impossibility with Republicans and some Democrats burrowing full-bore into a Hooveresque austerity rabbit hole. Ultimately, however, tax rates will have to go up. Nothing could be clearer.

Click to expand...

I would be interested to hear your comments on how the United States Treasury figures show our debt increasing every year of the Clinton Presidency if we had a massive surplus?

The only actual surplus I have seen was a "projected" surplus -- and if you read the CBO report on the matter, their methodology was quite laughable.

NolaMan said:

I would be interested to hear your comments on how the United States Treasury figures show our debt increasing every year of the Clinton Presidency if we had a massive surplus?

The only actual surplus I have seen was a "projected" surplus -- and if you read the CBO report on the matter, their methodology was quite laughable.

Click to expand...

I didn't say Clinton has a "massive" surplus, first of all. Second, the suprlus was in the debt owed to the public which does not include debt that the government owest to itself. The gross debt never ran a surplus, but it was very nearly eliminated and projected to go into a large surplus -- which was the basis for the Bush tax cuts.

AdamT said:

I didn't say Clinton has a "massive" surplus, first of all.

Click to expand...

Massive was my word -- stemming from the projections Senator Kerry used at the time.

Second, the suprlus was in the debt owed to the public which does not include debt that the government owest to itself. The gross debt never ran a surplus, but it was very nearly eliminated and projected to go into a large surplus -- which was the basis for the Bush tax cuts.

Click to expand...

So, in terms of the CBO methodology to assume those projections -- have you by chance had an opportunity to read that report and see how they made those assumptions? They are quite eye opening.

AdamT said:

All tax cuts are not created equal, obviously. The Bush tax cuts were long-term and justified on the basis of there being TOO MUCH revenue rolling in to the government. They were his answer to the question, "what the heck are we going to do with all this money from the Clinton surplus?!" Unfortunately, as with so many Bush policies, it very quickly became apparent that the justification was bogus, but there was no effort to amend the policy.

In contrast, the Obama tax cut was short term and put in place to stimulate the economy during a massive demand-side recession. The justification was real and the tax cut was well targeted to address it.

My view of the Bush tax cuts is that the should never have been passed. The Clinton-era tax rates struck a very good balance between revenue and growth. In a perfect world we would eliminate all of Bush tax cuts now and replace them with more effective stimulus. Unfortunately that's a political impossibility with Republicans and some Democrats burrowing full-bore into a Hooveresque austerity rabbit hole. Ultimately, however, tax rates will have to go up. Nothing could be clearer.

Click to expand...

You really are blatantly ignorant often... The Bush Tax Cuts were a short-term measure to stimulate growth... Since the trouble getting the economy going in the wake of the Dot-com bust and the 9/11 attacks which kind of paralyzed the nation, and people were hoarding savings expecting the worst... Bush came up with the stimulus checks, and then the Tax Cuts, down from Clinton's unrealistically high tax rates (in his own words)... It was initially done as a stimulus, and it worked... the Bush economy for 6 of the 8 years was of solid growth... the Bush Tax Cuts worked, and that's when they began to advocate extending them... and did...

The Clinton tax rates isn't what drove revenue, it was the massive growth in the 90s spurred on by technology advancements in computers, cell phones, the internet, etc. That growth spike enhanced revenue... Once the growth period leveled off in the early 2000s it was clear that the high tax rates were a burden on the economy...

The right balance is never in existence... since growth and decline fluctuate, and you could never be in a balance with them, unless you convert to a flat tax rate, but even still you would likely fluctuate that rate...

There is no absolute theory on what has to happen... you advance arguments that are solely based on your opinion... yet treat them as facts everyone else should have to agree with without question when instead intelligent and educated minds with hands on experience in this topic drastically disagree with you...

When Bill Clinton spoke recently on this issue of taxes and the economy, he said the three ways to fix the economy is to 1) create growth, 2) create the necessary spending constraints, and 3) increase the revenue stream... in that very order... He never said "taxes"... revenue can increase without taxes... Yes he did add that he thinks that the tax rates will have to go up... but he recognizes that right now the economy will not support the return to his tax rates, since they'd be way too high on the middle and low end tax brackets... That jump of 10% to 15%, and 15% to 25% would cause a lot of families that are barely scraping by to be forced into bankruptcy/poverty... He advocated an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts... and then a gradual progression to lift tax rates...

For me, there are many other ways the government can generate revenue that aren't tax rates... There's selling off land, there is raising fees for service, there is selling off naming rights to certain government held property (like bridges, tunnels, etc.), and the like, which aren't being explored by Democrats in Washington, but fiscal conservatives are looking heavily into... That's much of the trouble, Democrats are locked into "taxes", and can't figure out other solutions...

However, what you don't get is that when growth occurs in the market, even with the same current existing rates, the revenue stream will go up, to cover the spending, once spending cuts are in place... That's what Romney intends on doing... Revenue has gone from $2.1T to $2.3T, and should soon be back at $2.5T... if we grow, expect that even without tax increases, revenue will grow and approach $3T towards the back half of the next presidential administration... So all Romney has to do is foster that very growth, and create the spending cuts to bring spending down to pre-2009 levels... and the budget will be balanced, and we can begin paying down the debt...

IndepCentristMA said:

You really are blatantly ignorant often... The Bush Tax Cuts were a short-term measure to stimulate growth...

Click to expand...

Get real, Dude. First, 10 years isn't short term. Second, Rublicans wanted to make the cuts permanent but didn't have the votes to pull it off. Another factor was that making them permanent blew long term debt projections (who'd have guessed?). It's a joke to suggest that they were intended as short term stimulus. Romney and his supporters have MAJOR problems telling the truth.

As for Clinton's tax rates, you can stow the straw man. No one claims that they drove the booming economy. Dems simply point out that the higher tax rates didn't prevent the economy from prospering, and they did help obliterate deficits.

Perhaps you can name some of the bills filed in the House by conservatives on those alternative revenue measures you mentioned. I'm sure there must be many as you claim they are pursuing it heavily. opcorn2:

IndepCentristMA said:

For me, there are many other ways the government can generate revenue that aren't tax rates... There's selling off land, there is raising fees for service, there is selling off naming rights to certain government held property (like bridges, tunnels, etc

Click to expand...

That is an awesome idea. I can see it now ... the christening of our new stealth destroyer ... the USS Vagisil. The SEALs stage a lightning raid taking out AQ leader al Zawahiri, in what has been officially named Operation Doritos Sour Cream & Onion Vengeance!!

AdamT said:

Get real, Dude. First, 10 years isn't short term. Second, Rublicans wanted to make the cuts permanent but didn't have the votes to pull it off. Another factor was that making them permanent blew long term debt projections (who'd have guessed?). It's a joke to suggest that they were intended as short term stimulus. Romney and his supporters have MAJOR problems telling the truth.

Click to expand...

10 years? Where do you get your math from? The first act of the Bush Tax Cuts was in 2001, to drop the AMT, Capital Gains, and marginal tax rates... then in 2003, the act was passed to lower the tax rates... the discussions about making them permanent didn't occur until the 2004 election, once they'd been proven successful... which is why in 2005 they set the sunset on the rates for 2010... Those rates were inacted for 2003 to 2010, which is 8 years, and the years for which budgets he was going to be responsible for... They were part of a series of stimulus actions taken by Bush between 2001-2003 to stimulate the growth, which then began occuring in 2003 and carried on until 2007... The Bush Tax Cuts were successful stimulus... they arent effective as a long term strategy... unfortunately, the economy doesn't support raising the taxes back up yet... and even your boy Clinton recognizes that...

AdamT said:

As for Clinton's tax rates, you can stow the straw man. No one claims that they drove the booming economy. Dems simply point out that the higher tax rates didn't prevent the economy from prospering, and they did help obliterate deficits.

Click to expand...

They didn't prevent the economy from prospering during the 90s because it was a strong growing economy, with the aspects I talked about earlier... the technological advancements, etc. Then when the economy weakened, with the dot-com bubble bursting... those tax rates were like a noose keeping the economy down... So Dems are being disingenuous to suggest it didnt hurt the economy under Clinton... Why did Clinton's presidency end in a recession? How were those tax cuts helping once that recession occured?

AdamT said:

Perhaps you can name some of the bills filed in the House by conservatives on those alternative revenue measures you mentioned. I'm sure there must be many as you claim they are pursuing it heavily. opcorn2:

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

That is an awesome idea. I can see it now ... the christening of our new stealth destroyer ... the USS Vagisil. The SEALs stage a lightning raid taking out AQ leader al Zawahiri, in what has been officially named Operation Doritos Sour Cream & Onion Vengeance!!

Click to expand...

Bills? Pull down your dress, your ignorance is showing again... Most of those things I discussed are administrative actions... and are outside the realm of legislative actions, and up to the executive branch to carry out...

Regarding the selling off of public land, here's an article about a former famous conservative president who did sell off federal land to raise revenue quite successfully...

THE PRIVATIZATION DEBATE: AN INSIDER'S VIEW

But, definitely one of the issues at the major heart of this campaign is the sale of government land which shale is below to companies who will then frack for it. That will create revenue for the government, lower fuel prices, making the US less dependent on foreign sources of oil. That's both growth and revenue at the same time... without raising taxes...

Energy, Shale Gas, Maryland


Regarding the selling of naming rights... that's already being done (or sought after), at many levels... And here's a few stories with governmental, and pseudo governmental agencies trying to sell naming rights to close revenue gaps...

Transit Terminals

More transit agencies looking to sell naming rights to generate revenue - Article - METRO Magazine

The T's naming rights deal - CommonWealth Magazine

DRPA considering selling naming rights to its PATCO stations as a revenue generator | NJ.com

Roads

McDonnell proposes selling bridge, highway naming rights - Washington Business Journal

Streets for Sale: VDOT Considers Selling Naming Rights - BristowBeat : BristowBeat

Virginia weighs naming rights for roads to raise revenues | Fox News

Va. to sell naming rights for roads, bridges - Daily Press

Bridges
Geico - and Gecko - Denied GWB Ad Placement: Gothamist

Christy Mihos on Technology

NY Parks Dept
Parks Department revives plan to sell naming rights | The New York World

Military Equipment and Installations
Military to Balance Budget via Naming Rights*|*GlossyNews.com


And finally... if you need any sources of the House Republicans attempted to transform the entitlement programs by making them more fee-for-service oriented, than you really aren't worthy of being in this discussion...

IndepCentristMA said:

10 years? Where do you get your math from?

Click to expand...

I got this particular math from first grade. The 2001 tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. :lol:

I don't know what rest of your novella says. I've read enough fiction for one day.

AdamT said:

I got this particular math from first grade. The 2001 tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. :lol:

I don't know what rest of your novella says. I've read enough fiction for one day.

Click to expand...

right... and the 2001 portion of the tax cuts expired long ago... regarding capital gains, amt, and the like...

those stimulus checks were obviously 1 time payements...

and the personal income tax rates you speak of that were set to expire in 2010 were established in 2003... that would be 8 years...

I could suggest you repeat first grade... or at least some remedial prep before going on "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"

You may also want to look up the definition "novella" before that appearance... 2 paragraphs, a couple lines, and the links to the sources you requested hardly qualifies as a "novella"... I didn't meant to overwhelm with so many words, and facts, and evidence which disproves your bogus claims... But, I can guess a different reason why you wouldn't want to read them... as you show a persistent failure to admit when you're wrong and/or grasp reality...