Page 101 of 194 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111151 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 1936

Thread: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

  1. #1001
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    okay, and what was the 400 dollars tax rebate from the stimulus ... a one time payment ?? kinda like the The Bush rebate ? and Bush's tax cut which everyone received ( and is still receiving) a portion of in each paycheck, the only difference is Bush's wasn't a one year program.
    The only distinction I was trying to make is that the Bush rebate was delivered in a lump sum payment -- one check -- while the Obama's payroll cut was doled out each week in increments. The point being that, according to economists, smaller weekly payments are a more effective method if your aim to is to stimulate the economy. It's likely that people who get an extra $50 or $80 a week are going to spend it on stuff and things, whereas if you get a check for $400 you might decide to spend the whole nut paying down a credit card or something. Nothing wrong with doing that, of course, but it doesn't have the same multiplier effect as putting back into the retail channel.
    Last edited by AdamT; 09-07-11 at 07:44 PM.

  2. #1002
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    09-25-11 @ 12:44 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    157

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    No, they did not count the TAF loans (the largest of all loans) in the same manner that they counted the PDCF. If they were to apply the same accounting technique to all credit facilities listed, the quantity of loans could easy have reached $40 trillion (the TAF loans alone were more than 8x's greater than the PDCF on a factored term basis).



    I was well aware of the subject, as i explained the counting technique before you posted the source. CNBC did a report on this back in July, and essentially poked fun at anyone who attempted to capitalize (on a political basis) with the $16 trillion number.



    You're taking it out of context. Credit contracted to the point where companies were going to go bankrupt without access to credit. The freeze in the commercial paper market alone would have caused an unprecendted amount of bankruptcies without access to these credit facilities. Yes, some entities were bailed out (Fannie and Freddy), but not to the tune of $16 trillion.



    No, it was a simple mistake. I apologize.



    Not at all. I simply will not allow you to misrepresent figures in a low brow manner. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but you are at fault for not having a clear understanding of the situation.



    Items 1-4 are strawmen you have created to attempt to hide the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about, within the context of the various monetary policy initiatives taken in the midst of the financial crisis.

    Now man up and admit your error. Again, there is no shame.
    So these 16 trillion in loans were made to viable operations? You or I could have gotten credit based upon performance such as theirs? I fail to grasp whether its PDCF or TAF ... how loaning money to a nonviable entity is not .... a loan or a bailout. What happened to Lehman ... were they not "viable" enough for bailout?

    Basically you are loaning to operations that cannot survive on their own ... correct or incorrect? I don't get the loan term as "not" of interest. You are still loaning to a business that will sink without support.

    That's how I see it ... if I lose my job ... I'm not getting an overnight loan or any loan to prop me up until my bottom line recovers. No bank is funding a revolving credit line for me to pay my operations.

    No bank ... I don't get it ... trust me I don't ... loaning money to an operation that can only survive with its support. And you don't want to call it a loan. Buying up junk assets basically to back the loans. crazy, mad, ... supporting junk ... and what would have happened if they defaulted? Wasn't there already a TARP or blanket or throwcover for these $##% clowns.

    And the FED loaning them money for their 30x and 35x poker games.

    Loan me a few billion for a few nights ... I'm good for it!
    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. Patton
    New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. John Locke

  3. #1003
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The only distinction I was trying to make is that the Bush rebate was delivered in a lump sum payment -- one check -- while the Obama's payroll cut was doled out each week in increments. The point being that, according to economists, smaller weekly payments are a more effective method if your aim to is to stimulate the economy. It's likely that people who get an extra $50 or $80 a week are going to spend it on stuff and things, whereas if you get a check for $400 you might decide to spend the whole nut paying down a credit card or something. Nothing wrong with doing that, of course, but it doesn't have the same multiplier effect as putting back into the retail channel.
    this just confirms that you either don't have a job or aren't seeing your paycheck. The Bush tax cuts were in two forms, one was a rebate check that you received in 2001-2002, the second part was the rate reduction which you are receiving today. Most people that are working understand that, but those who don't have a job don't have a clue and think it was a rebate check.

  4. #1004
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post

    Hmm wait .. wait .. I seem to remember something about 1993 ... what was it again .. the 1st bombing of the World Trade Center .. under who's watch was that again ?? Guess nothing was being done back then either
    Right, there was an attack on the WTC 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency and I don't recall anyone blaming Bush Sr. Eight months into Bush Jr. presidency and Conservatives blame Clinton.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post

    As to your translation, will you please explain to all the folks here .. what one of those things he put into place that was so effective .. did Bush over turn ??
    For one, he rejected the FBI's request for additional funding for counter-terrorism. But mostly he did nothing. As Conservative aluded to, in 1998, Clinton was handed a similar PDB that was given to Bush in the summer of 2001. Where Bush did nothing and the attack occurred, in 1998-99, there was no attack after Clinton had airport security raised at suspected airports until the threat passed. Who knows, maybe 9.11 would have not happened had Bush taken some proactive measures like that.

  5. #1005
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post

    Umm, aside from that report not saying there was a net job loss, I'm eager to see your explanation of how the U3 unemplyment rate remained at 9.1% from the previous month if there was a net loss since it takes at least a net gain of about 150,000 just to keep the unemployment rate level.

    G'head . . .


    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    16.2% U-6 explains it well for you
    Ahh, no, the U6 rate does not explain why the U3 rate remained level. Guess you don't know that the U6 rate and the U3 rate measure different aspects of unemployment. Guess you also don't know that in oprder to keep the U3 unemployment rate level, at least 150,000 jobs must be added. And I guess you don't know the BLS recorded 331 thousand jobs added last month.

  6. #1006
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    this just confirms that you either don't have a job or aren't seeing your paycheck. The Bush tax cuts were in two forms, one was a rebate check that you received in 2001-2002, the second part was the rate reduction which you are receiving today. Most people that are working understand that, but those who don't have a job don't have a clue and think it was a rebate check.
    Good God, get a clue, people. How many times do I have to say that I was comparing ONLY the delivery method of Bush's 2008 rebate and Obama's payroll tax cut?!

  7. #1007
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    So these 16 trillion in loans were made to viable operations? You or I could have gotten credit based upon performance such as theirs? I fail to grasp whether its PDCF or TAF ... how loaning money to a nonviable entity is not .... a loan or a bailout. What happened to Lehman ... were they not "viable" enough for bailout?

    Basically you are loaning to operations that cannot survive on their own ... correct or incorrect? I don't get the loan term as "not" of interest. You are still loaning to a business that will sink without support.

    That's how I see it ... if I lose my job ... I'm not getting an overnight loan or any loan to prop me up until my bottom line recovers. No bank is funding a revolving credit line for me to pay my operations.

    No bank ... I don't get it ... trust me I don't ... loaning money to an operation that can only survive with its support. And you don't want to call it a loan. Buying up junk assets basically to back the loans. crazy, mad, ... supporting junk ... and what would have happened if they defaulted? Wasn't there already a TARP or blanket or throwcover for these $##% clowns.

    And the FED loaning them money for their 30x and 35x poker games.

    Loan me a few billion for a few nights ... I'm good for it!
    Stop with the charades and admit the $16 trillion figure is a misrepresentation of the various lending facilities offered by the Fed. I do have to admit i kinda set you up for the failure, but it would have not have been attainable if you bothered to check your sources.

    Adios!
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #1008
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    When you take money from SS and put it on budget you affect the public debt but as was shown there was no surplus there either, but there was a PROJECTED surplus.
    Yes, when Bush started, there was a projected surplus of about 6 trillion over the next ten years ... when Bush left office, there was a projected deficit of about 8 trillion. A 14 trillion dollar difference.

    Conservative:
    "Four more years!!"


  9. #1009
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Ahh, no, the U6 rate does not explain why the U3 rate remained level. Guess you don't know that the U6 rate and the U3 rate measure different aspects of unemployment. Guess you also don't know that in oprder to keep the U3 unemployment rate level, at least 150,000 jobs must be added. And I guess you don't know the BLS recorded 331 thousand jobs added last month.
    Take your opinion to the American people and see if they agree. Currently they don't. It does appear that you don't realize that discouraged workers enter and leave the market and that affects the labor force number with impacts the unemployment rates. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence and experience would know that.

  10. #1010
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Good God, get a clue, people. How many times do I have to say that I was comparing ONLY the delivery method of Bush's 2008 rebate and Obama's payroll tax cut?!
    You still don't know what payroll taxes fund, do you? How does cutting payroll taxes help the individual in the long run or are you just another live for today liberal?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •