Page 103 of 194 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105113153 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,030 of 1936

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

  1. #1021
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    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.
    you are missing the point .... besides Bush's rebate ... Bush also gave tax cuts ... that are paid out every pay day ... those started in 2003 or 2004 ... and are "still" going on .. you do remember that Bush did pass a tax cut don't you ??? So please explain how Obama's tax holiday is any different then the Bush tax cuts

  2. #1022
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,299

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Lemme see if I understand your [fuzzy] math ...

    ... you think if the difference between 8% unemployed and 10% unemployed is 25 million?
    Obama has 16.2% unemployment including the under employed after spending a trillion dollars. It will be that record on the ballot in 2012.

  3. #1023
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Graph's are fun

    Owners' Equity in Household Real Estate - Net Worth - Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations

    During the Reagan era recession:




    During the Bush/Obama Recession:



    Total Time Frame:




    And people are wondering why employment growth is so slow....
    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

  4. #1024
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,299

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Nope! It is at this level because we experienced the worst financial shock since 1929.



    Notice we never witnessed a real loss in wealth during any time period since the data collection began until.....

    The Reagan recession era:



    The Bush/Obama recession era:



    There really is no comparison when we consider the sheer amount of wealth lost during the two distinct recessions. Nearly 25% of the TOTAL WEALTH of the entire nation was lost between the peak to trough. Last time something of this magnitude occurred? You guessed it.....


    BTW, does a stronger dollar make U.S. goods more competitive overseas?
    The question is how did the recession of 1981-82 affect the American people compared to 2007-2009 and the answer is in the misery index as well as the unemployment rate. Charts comparing balance sheets are irrelevant, different time and different income levels. Paying 17.5% for a home loan and having 10.8%unemployment compared today doesn't compare at all. Reagan did the right thing, empowered the American people with tax cuts and Obama has empowered the American govt. and believes the govt. creates jobs, apparently just like you.

  5. #1025
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    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.


    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.
    Okay now that you are getting somewhat reasonable, I don't blame Clinton for the attack .... and I didn't blame him for the first. I don't blame Bush for the attack either. When people are willing to jump into the seat of an air line and crash that plane killing themselves ..... there is "NO" way to stop such an act. If you are lucky you can make it more difficult, but you aren't going to stop anyone that intent on killing people.

    That same holds true, if someone wanted you or I dead, and they made up that mind that at any cost they were going to get us, then by gawd I'll be willing to bet he would.

    As much as I have looked into this in the past .. the thing that seems most ineffective was the way the intelligence community refused to share information.

    But hey .. if you really feel that way .. here is some intel for you . . in LA, sometime this week .. . there is going to be a drive by shooting. It's going to be done by gang members. Now I expect that to be stopped ... .after all .. I narrowed it down to a week, gave you the city, and narrowed it down to one of the gangs there. That intel is 250 time more specific then was given to Bush. So there should be no problem right ?


    Oh and one other piece of information, show me one time that Bush ever blamed Clinton for the attacks of 9/11..... show Me one time where Bush was running around pointing fingers at Clinton for him inheriting the dot com bust. Yet here we are nearly 3 years after Obama takes office, and we are "still" hearing how it's Bush's fault .. . or the Republicans fault, or the tea party's fault .... Pardon me for saying this, but I think that speaks volumes as to the character of both of them.
    Last edited by The Barbarian; 09-07-11 at 09:31 PM.

  6. #1026
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The question is how did the recession of 1981-82 affect the American people compared to 2007-2009 and the answer is in the misery index as well as the unemployment rate. Charts comparing balance sheets are irrelevant, different time and different income levels.
    The point being, there was not a downward slope, at any time, during the Reagan Presidency in terms of household net worth. How can households be suffering when their net worth continued to appreciate?

    Paying 17.5% for a home loan and having 10.8%unemployment compared today doesn't compare at all.
    Exactly, we would be begging for such a situation now.

    Reagan did the right thing, empowered the American people with tax cuts and Obama has empowered the American govt. and believes the govt. creates jobs, apparently just like you.
    Of course tax cuts were a necessity; top rates were @ 90% and tax cuts helped pull prices downward.
    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

  7. #1027
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,299

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    The point being, there was not a downward slope, at any time, during the Reagan Presidency in terms of household net worth. How can households be suffering when their net worth continued to appreciate?

    Exactly, we would be begging for such a situation now.

    Of course tax cuts were a necessity; top rates were @ 90% and tax cuts helped pull prices downward.
    Household net worth was nowhere near what it is now nor did they have the ability to rebound as quickly as they do now. That rebound occurred quite quickly without Obama's help. I was trying to survive during the recession of 1981-82, what were you doing? I voted for Carter and then voted for Reagan. I haven't voted for a Democrat for President since Carter. Living during both and working during both, the high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment affected the majority more than the 2007-09 recession even though Household net worth dropped. People don't live off net worth, they live off their personal income which took a direct hit because of high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment that hurt the economy more than the 07-09 recession. Living during both you cannot convince me that this one was worse so we will just agree to disagree.

  8. #1028
    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
    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!
    Let me know when a loan is not a loan. Speaking of misrepresentation ... if you had already researched this you would have known there was a bailout ... or as you might say liquidity challanged.

    If you basing your debate on a loan is not a loan .... errr you win the debate. Based upon that logic GE and GM were not bailed out ... it was ahh an overnight adjustment to liquidity. Here ... let me make it revolving.

    A loan is not a loan and because we are friends ... we will just call it ... not a loan ... its a special kind of GFEWZ adjustment to the liquidity challenged.
    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

  9. #1029
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Household net worth was nowhere near what it is now
    Not the point, it did not fall AT ALL during the Reagan recession.

    nor did they have the ability to rebound as quickly as they do now.
    No need. It it was constantly going up!

    Living during both and working during both, the high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment affected the majority more than the 2007-09 recession even though Household net worth dropped.
    That is your opinion, you have no way to prove it!

    People don't live off net worth
    They did during the housing bubble. Homeowners were taking equity out of their homes and using it for consumption (hence negative savings rate during the 2000's).

    they live off their personal income which took a direct hit because of high inflation
    Incorrect. Inflation also extends to wages, which should seem obvious given inflation cannot go higher without wage increases!

    high interest rates, and high unemployment that hurt the economy more than the 07-09 recession
    Opinion. You have no way to prove it. On the contrary, i can show dozens of statistics that prove you incorrect.

    Living during both you cannot convince me that this one was worse so we will just agree to disagree.
    Anecdotal evidence proves squat.
    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

  10. #1030
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    Let me know when a loan is not a loan. Speaking of misrepresentation ... if you had already researched this you would have known there was a bailout ... or as you might say liquidity challanged.

    If you basing your debate on a loan is not a loan .... errr you win the debate. Based upon that logic GE and GM were not bailed out ... it was ahh an overnight adjustment to liquidity. Here ... let me make it revolving.

    A loan is not a loan and because we are friends ... we will just call it ... not a loan ... its a special kind of GFEWZ adjustment to the liquidity challenged.
    Don't attempt to change the nature of the debate because you were wrong.

    The $16 trillion figure was intellectually dishonest. Time to man up!
    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

Posting Permissions

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