Page 108 of 194 FirstFirst ... 85898106107108109110118158 ... LastLast
Results 1,071 to 1,080 of 1936

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

  1. #1071
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

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

    Goldenboy219;1059784090]It was far too small, and was made up primarily of tax cuts/breaks (the largest portion).
    Much of those so called tax cuts were actual expense items funded out of the budget, ie, first time home credits, energy credits

    Obama tax cuts

    Total: $237 billion
    • $116 billion: New tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phase out begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
    • $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
    • $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
    • $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
    • $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
    • $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
    • $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
    • $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
    • $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

    But I do agree with you they blew it on how they spent the money but I disagree with you that it was too small. What did the Reagan stimulus cost the govt? Obama's fed his base and did nothing for the economy.


    $1.5 trillion spent with a multipler of 2 (i am assuming as a whole, the marginal propensity to consume domestic goods is 50%), spanned across 3 years would boost output by around $1 trillion a year on average.

    In retrospect, the $800 billion stimulus (assuming the same MPCDG, and therefore the same multiplier) only accounts for (on average) $533 billion per year for 3 years.
    There you go again, charts and graphs. Do you ever get out into the real world talking to real people and seeing how real people live? Charts and graphs don't show human behavior

    The Obama economic team blew it from the get-go, stating that unemployment would not even reach 9% WITHOUT stimulus! And with stimulus, it went all the way to 10.2%! This means they undershot the stimulus.
    Actual unemployment is much higher than the reported as discouraged workers, contract workers and closed small businesses aren't counted. Obama relies in the ignorance of supporters to spread misinformation

    Why? It worked during WWII when the government spent so much bloody money, the unemployment rate hit an all time low of 1.2% (10 years after the initial downturn). Why would it not work this time around?
    Different time and different world. No global economy then, war manufacturing, low GDP, low personal income, low cost of govt.

    Nonsense. I understand how our economy works, and the mechanisms within it far more than you ever will. The content of my post are representative of that.
    What you show is that you are book smart but lack street sense as well as an understandin of human behavior. Your posts come right out of the textbook that ignores logic and common sense as well as personal behavior.

    The early on Obama administration was trying to appease far to many sides of the political spectrum. The key is to invest in public works. Tax cuts will under-perform as a means of stimulus until the level of house hold debt as a % of GDP falls to around 60%. Remember, stimulus is always a short term fix, and saving tax proceeds does not boost the economy in the short term.
    The key is to turn the private sector loose not promote waste, fraud, abuse, and reward terrible behavior. The federal govt is ineffecient and has administrative costs that are way too high for the benefits received. I am amazed that someone as smart as you cannot see it.

    Regarding your chart, who measures household networth? How about people who aren't measured? What is the sample group? Where does personal responsibility lie in your world? Household debt is mostly a personal responsibility issue and the way out to liberals is to reward that behavior. You see today people get paid for two years not to work. Today people get rewarded for spending too much money by getting bailed out. Today people get ER services even though they have the opportunity to get healthcare. That didn't happen throughout history and the answer today seems to be doubling down.

  2. #1072
    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
    Have you read anything that i posted? I provided the same context to which i highlighted in the bold red. Why all the sudden do you feel the need to act as though this is some new information?


    I have little interest in continuing this discussion because you are being either purposely obtuse, or you are replying to my posts without reading them in their entirety.
    Here is the list of PDCF transactions ... amounts and collateral.

    5. Citigroup tapped the facility 279 times, followed by Merrill Lynch (226 times), Morgan Stanley (122) and Bank of America (BAC) (118). The use of PDCF was highly concentrated, with the top four banks amongst them using almost 70% of the facility.


    You convinced me to term the amount to a year ... so it could be appreciated relative to a more representational thought.

    How is it in black and white you have a problem with the black and white.

    16 trillion has been dragged out to table 9 ... a years term. How is it not that way, when it clearly states it is?

    Are you basing on a longer term? What evidence do you have that Table 8 is not the term adjusted data for table 9, and that it may or may not have been calculated erroneously.

    Note: The dollar amounts borrowed for each loan were term-adjusted by multiplying the loan amount by the term to maturity for the loan and dividing by 365 days. Term to maturity is calculated as the difference between the original loan maturity date and the trade date and does not reflect repayments of loans that occurred before the original loan maturity date. Total borrowing is aggregated at the parent company level and generally includes borrowing by branches, agencies, subsidiaries, and sponsored ABCP conduits that we could identify. Total borrowing for each parent company consolidates amounts borrowed by acquired institutions following the completion of acquisitions. PDCF totals include credit extensions to affiliates of some primary dealers and TSLF totals includeloans under the TSLF Options Program (TOP).
    Several of the programs saw greater use by large global institutions that
    were significant participants in the funding markets targeted by the
    Federal Reserve Board. Tables 8 and 9 rank the largest borrowing
    institutions according to aggregate borrowing (irrespective of differences
    in term to maturity) and total borrowing after adjusting for differences in
    loan terms
    seekingalpha.com/article/243181-the-use-and-abuse-of-the-primary-dealer-credit-facility
    Last edited by Michael H; 09-08-11 at 02:36 PM.
    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. #1073
    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

    Doesn't matter how long the Bush BUDGET ran, Obama spent the money and Obama approved the spending. Obama voted for the Budget as I pointed out earlier in this thread and thus Obama is responsible for the deficit as history will show
    Obama will never be responsible for Bush's budget, get real. As far as spending money, even attributing Bush's TARP and war costs to Obama, the most you can pawn off on Obama is $152B for TARP, $200B for ARRA, and $100B for the wars. The remaining is $1.4 trillion and all came from Bush's budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    If you read the report you will see that there were direct and indirect costs,, You don't know the difference. The direct costs were 639 billion and the indirect costs such as lost wages, lost tax revenue, etc took that well over 1 trillion dollars
    Instead of lying, show me where in the report it states that $639B is for direct costs only? It's not there, you're making that up. Show me where in the report where it states there was an additional some $400B in indirect costs? It's not there, you're making that up too.

    For the record, you have yet to prove your BS comment that the GAO reported the total cost for 9.11 was more than a trillion dollars. Of course, that doesn't even slow you down from lying and repeating that BS.


    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    You have posted percentage change which mean nothing but keep saying the same things over and over again and believe that they are true. You have a bad case of BDS as well as a lack of civics understanding
    You asked for side-by-side comparison. Figures that after I provide that, you complain about it.

  4. #1074
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

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

    Sheik Yerbuti;1059784240]Obama will never be responsible for Bush's budget, get real. As far as spending money, even attributing Bush's TARP and war costs to Obama, the most you can pawn off on Obama is $152B for TARP, $200B for ARRA, and $100B for the wars. The remaining is $1.4 trillion and all came from Bush's budget.
    Obama voted for the Bush budget, had 8 months to change it or request lowering the spending but didn't. He put his people in charge of the spending and thus the deficit is his

    Instead of lying, show me where in the report it states that $639B is for direct costs only? It's not there, you're making that up. Show me where in the report where it states there was an additional some $400B in indirect costs? It's not there, you're making that up too.


    You only read the part of the report that you wanted to read, read the entire report.

    For the record, you have yet to prove your BS comment that the GAO reported the total cost for 9.11 was more than a trillion dollars. Of course, that doesn't even slow you down from lying and repeating that BS.
    Now I could prove it but suffice it to say, I could do what you do all the time, round the direct costs up

    You asked for side-by-side comparison. Figures that after I provide that, you complain about it.
    With liberals it is always easier using percentages because that ignores real people. Numbers matter more than percentages. Obama will add more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 yet you think that is a good thing because the percentage is less. That is liberal logic

  5. #1075
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Much of those so called tax cuts were actual expense items funded out of the budget, ie, first time home credits, energy credits

    Obama tax cuts

    Total: $237 billion
    $116 billion: New tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phase out begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
    $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
    $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
    $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
    $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
    $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
    $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit which provides money to low income workers for families with at least three children.
    $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
    $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

    Did they put more of what people earn, back in their pocket? I would like you to answer this.

    But I do agree with you they blew it on how they spent the money but I disagree with you that it was too small.
    Based on what, gut feeling, so called street smarts, common sense?

    What did the Reagan stimulus cost the govt?
    3.8% of GDP. However the Reagan recession was manufactured by Paul Volker, as a means of reducing inflation expectations. Reagan did not inherit the worst financial crisis since 1929. There was not a 25% loss in household net worth, credit contraction (even though mortgages were expensive, people still were able to take them because their wages were being impacted upward due to the same inflation you site), mortgage meltdown, banking collapse, corporate bankruptcies whose assets were more than 10% of GDP, total shutdown of the commercial paper credit market, insolvency of the worlds largest insurance company, insolvency of Fannie and Freddie, 2 of the 3 largest U.S. auto manufactures collapse, a housing crisis that has left millions of homes vacant and millions of homeowners underwater on their mortgage, massive bank failures, more than 600,000 job losses per month, etc....

    But hey, there was 10.8% unemployment and inflation of 11% in the 1980's. WOW. You might want to use your head for something other than hanging a hat.

    Obama's fed his base and did nothing for the economy.
    Obama and his administration underestimated the size and magnitude of this financial crisis, much in the same way as you continue to do.

    There you go again, charts and graphs. Do you ever get out into the real world talking to real people and seeing how real people live? Charts and graphs don't show human behavior
    Charts and graphs? I used a basic macro model to illustrate why the stimulus package was too small. How on earth does talking to people and seeing how real people live give me insight into the adequacy of the ARRA? Please explain this.....

    Actual unemployment is much higher than the reported as discouraged workers, contract workers and closed small businesses aren't counted. Obama relies in the ignorance of supporters to spread misinformation
    You're resorting to semantics. The Obama administration made no reference to the U-6 unemployment rate, so it is irrelevant to consider given my previous statement.

    Different time and different world. No global economy then, war manufacturing, low GDP, low personal income, low cost of govt.
    None the less, the federal debt as a % of GDP skyrocketed to 144%. That was the greatest generation, they paid their debts with blood and hard work. It was your generation, the pass the buck generation, that has created this disaster.

    What you show is that you are book smart but lack street sense as well as an understandin of human behavior.
    How have i displayed any of that given we are discussing the macro economy, fiscal stimulus, business cycle behavior, and political economy? What specifically have i said that shows i do not understand human behavior? You continue to make these accusations on a consistent basis, yet are never able to exhibit exactly what lead you to this conclusion. In reality, this is really just a defense mechanism you've created when you cannot keep up with the discussion. How do you prove street smarts on an internet discussion about U.S. job creation?

    Your posts come right out of the textbook that ignores logic and common sense as well as personal behavior.
    Ok then prove it. What exactly is fallacious and lacks common sense? You seem to want to discuss me and what you perceive me to know rather than the topic at hand. I make a statement, and you call me into question without even acknowledging that very statement.

    The key is to turn the private sector loose not promote waste, fraud, abuse, and reward terrible behavior.
    The private sector has more liquidity, capital, and short term assets than they have ever had! EVER! In fact, there has never been this sort of short term assets and cash on corporate balance sheets during any time in history. They are sitting on $1.93 trillion in cash and short term assets!

    Today, these companies are sitting on US$1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets, rather than using this money in rebuilding its battered economy.
    The federal govt is ineffecient and has administrative costs that are way too high for the benefits received. I am amazed that someone as smart as you cannot see it.
    I agree. But when nobody is willing to spend money, it is the role of government to step in and provide a necessary jolt to prevent a depression. Did the great depression teach you anything?

    Regarding your chart, who measures household networth?
    The Federal Reserve Bank and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    How about people who aren't measured?
    Exactly who was not measured?

    What is the sample group?
    LOL! They simply relate the money supply, savings, equity, debt, and put it all together. For more information, look here. Remember, the Fed controls all financial accounts in the United States. All banks have an account at the Fed, and the Fed is responsible for making all banking transactions.

    Where does personal responsibility lie in your world?
    How is this relevant to the discussion? I was not making any judgement calls.

    Household debt is mostly a personal responsibility issue and the way out to liberals is to reward that behavior. You see today people get paid for two years not to work. Today people get rewarded for spending too much money by getting bailed out. Today people get ER services even though they have the opportunity to get healthcare. That didn't happen throughout history and the answer today seems to be doubling down.
    This is a red herring argument (a fallacy Mr. Logic), and in no way addresses my last point. People are so indebted, they will spend little of their tax proceeds from a tax cut, which is why it is a suboptimal was to stimulate the economy. Does this model human behavior correctly? If you were in debt nearly 90%, and got some money back from a tax cut, would you go out and buy a new car, or pay down your debt? How about actually answering one my my many points instead of hitting the reply button before you make it past 5 sentences....
    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

  6. #1076
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    Here is the list of PDCF transactions ... amounts and collateral.





    You convinced me to term the amount to a year ... so it could be appreciated relative to a more representational thought.

    How is it in black and white you have a problem with the black and white.

    16 trillion has been dragged out to table 9 ... a years term. How is it not that way, when it clearly states it is?

    Are you basing on a longer term? What evidence do you have that Table 8 is not the term adjusted data for table 9, and that it may or may not have been calculated erroneously.





    The Use and Abuse of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility - Seeking Alpha
    As stated earlier, you have no idea what you are talking about, and there is little point in continuing this conversation because you simply do not understand the material.
    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. #1077
    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
    As stated earlier, you have no idea what you are talking about, and there is little point in continuing this conversation because you simply do not understand the material.
    So you build credibility and throw it away with an attack ... no answer. What happened to honesty? It's in black and white ... do you not understand the data?
    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

  8. #1078
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    So you build credibility and throw it away with an attack ... no answer. What happened to honesty? It's in black and white ... do you not understand the data?
    I have already outlined my point, and still you do not understand what the GAO report states. On a term adjusted basis, in the span of those three years, banks received $1.39 trillion in loans... period. This is truth. None the less, it is beyond the scope of this topic. If you feel so strongly about this, make a thread in the Econ section and let us see what other posters have to say on the matter.
    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

  9. #1079
    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

    Obama voted for the Bush budget, had 8 months to change it or request lowering the spending but didn't. He put his people in charge of the spending and thus the deficit is his
    What a pity you have no concept of how our government functions. For your edification, it's the Congress which spends money, not people put in charge by Obama. Secondly, the president cannot tell Congress how to spend money from the previous budget. Why you persist with that nonsense even though you know that is beyond me, but if the president could do as you suggest, you would have shown where the Constitution grants the president such a power over the Congress by now. You haven't because you know the notion that the president controls the purse strings is completely absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    You only read the part of the report that you wanted to read, read the entire report.
    Well you're free to copy & paste the part you believe shows that 9.11 cost $1 trillion but you dont. And the reason you don't is because you can't and the reason you can't is because it's not in there. You are making that up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    Now I could prove it but suffice it to say, I could do what you do all the time, round the direct costs up
    More BS. If you could have proven it, you would have. You haven't proven it because you can't. Don't you even understand that everyone here reading this knows that?

    And claiming you are rounding only serves to expose more of your lies. Explain how $639B rounds up to "
    more than 1 trillion dollars?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    With liberals it is always easier using percentages because that ignores real people. Numbers matter more than percentages. Obama will add more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 yet you think that is a good thing because the percentage is less. That is liberal logic
    Numbers are useless in terms of comparison because they don't factor in workforce growth. You know this but you pretend like it doesn't matter because you like the numbers better without factoring in workforce growth.

  10. #1080
    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
    I have already outlined my point, and still you do not understand what the GAO report states. On a term adjusted basis, in the span of those three years, banks received $1.39 trillion in loans... period. This is truth. None the less, it is beyond the scope of this topic. If you feel so strongly about this, make a thread in the Econ section and let us see what other posters have to say on the matter.
    The GAO report is clear. This isn't Okun's, Say's, Chicago, Keynes, Global labor Arbitrage, ... it's black and white.

    Table 25 ranks the primary dealers by the total dollar amount of their
    borrowing through PDCF.


    Table 25.jpg
    Last edited by Michael H; 09-08-11 at 03:13 PM.
    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

Posting Permissions

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