• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
Data is what drives liberals crazy and leads to the personal attacks levied against individuals here.
Click to expand...

It;s amusing watching you try that line, and then be a total hypocrite about it. When I cited Texas deficit data....all you did was throw insults. You even tried to call the Republican Comptroller a Democrat.

I can take the personal attacks up to a point but then it gets to the point of being over the top and will lead to putting someone on ignore either officially or simply ignoring their posts on the board.
Click to expand...

That's largely because you cannot refute their points and they make a mockery of your arguments.

When I post data I put it into context.
Click to expand...

And that context is almost always wrong.

I believe what OC is talking about is the Discouraged Workers data. That term, discouraged workers, came about in 1994 and was a way to eliminate workers from the unemployment count. I wonder if there is anyone here that believes discouraged workers aren't unemployed and shouldn't be counted?
Click to expand...

Way to be more dishonest here. Your argument was that you were arguing that the cumulative discouraged workers was doubling every month, ergo Obama bad. People pointed out how the chart was not cumulative. You threw insults at them rather then actually stop and think about if it was or wasn't. Furthermore, when we applied you asinine logic to the other tables, it means that the US population was doubling monthly. Did you even stop to think, hey maybe this isn't right? You were so adamant about attacking Obama that you failed to even understand the table you were citing. Sheik is right in that you do not understand the data you post.

Now the question is the number for the month or cumulative?
Click to expand...

Obviously cumulative. The past months have been in the high single digits to low double digits. If it was for the month, total discouraged workers would be nearly half the population of the United States. Does that make any sense? Well, that would require you to actually stop and think about it. That ain't going to happen.

I still am not sure but I am not sure that it really matters.
Click to expand...

That is appalling you still don't know.

What matters is the labor force number and the total number employed which comes from the BLS. Regardless of what anyone thinks of BLS, it reports non partisan data,like it or not. That data didn't seem to be a problem when Clinton was in the WH so why is it a problem now?
Click to expand...

Nice fallacy of changing the subject. Rather than address how you cannot understand your own data... you try to change the subject. Your dishonestly knows no bounds.

Anyway, I understand that data can cause the glazed look in some, but noticed that liberals have no problem posting data from places like the CBO even though they don't understand how CBO works. I will try to use less data but won't be communicating with those who generate personal attacks.
Click to expand...

Really? People you disagree with don't understand how the CBO works?

This is rich coming from a guy who argued that BLS cumulative tables were monthly changes when it meant the US populated doubled monthly.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Your problem is you don't understand much of the data you post and the data you do understand, you misrepresent. Like the discouraged workers OC mentioned; you thought the numbers you were posting were totals when they were actually cumulative. Like you not understanding the difference between nominal figures from real figures. And then there's your blatant dishonesty where you cherry-pick data that you find most favorable de la minute. Case in point, point out how there was a net gain of 23 million jobs created during Clinton's 8 years, and you insist that doesn't count because it comes from BLS's payroll data, that you have to use household survey data; but then here you are criticizing Obama for zero net jobs gained for August, even though that number comes from BLS's payroll data.

Don't think for a moment that your dishonesty goes unnoticed by the denizens here.
Click to expand...

It's really pathetic how some people will suspend all thinking and logic when they see something they think may make a politician look bad.

A reasonable person should have looked at the BLS data and instantly figure it was cumulative. Only a crackpot thinks that it's monthly numbers when the aggregate monthly numbers meant that discouraged workers were half of the total US population. Furthermore, the fact that total US population was in the same subset of tables is even more alarming. Does the US population double monthly? Well, that SHOULD be a rhetorical question, but given Conservative's demonstrated epic and constant failure to understand his own data, I cannot be certain.
 
phattonez said:
Oh wow, you really think that private companies wouldn't have made planes, invested in space, invested in nuclear energy, or researched new medical techniques? People don't demand these things?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. The upfront capital costs to actually produce commercializable aspects of those were massive. Without the government funding of applied sciences for NASA, we would not have the materials that allow civilian space projects to function. And I'm not even considering the expertise that was cultivated under decades of government space programs. Same goes for nuclear energy. And many drugs the NHS found were actually accidental, but shown a slight promise elsewhere. In a commercial drug lab, that kind of slight potential does not warrant a billion dollar investment. Basically your argument ignores that business is out to make money. It will not shoulder massive upfront costs that do not show real tangible commercial gains in a reasonable period of time. Just because people demand it doesn't mean business will provide it. There has to be profit in it.

Yeah, taking more capital away from individuals is the best way to get more growth. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually you can have increased tax revenue without increased tax rates. It's called economic activity.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm not saying that it wouldn't have happened eventually, but the fact is that it did not happen without the government. While you can't say if not A therefore not B, you also can't say if not A therefore B, which is what you're trying to do.

Would nuclear energy have been discovered without the government? Maybe. Probably. Nobody really knows for sure because it didn't happen that way.
Click to expand...

Well, you would have to assume that the government would have ever allowed a private program develop nuclear power, weapons, or whatever. I'm not sure how you would keep this under wraps.
 
1Perry said:
Obama says he is wanting to further cut the payroll tax. (Social Security). Why is he wanting to do this? To give people more money to spend. So if we simply have to raise them later to make up for the shortage we are going to create, is that not going to curb spending?
Click to expand...

By that measure all tax cuts reduce purchasing power. Furthermore, purchasing power is not tied directly to the amount of money you make or have. It's how much an individual currency unit will buy. I think you are confusing your terms.

We currently have private companies doing all of those things.
Click to expand...

And how many of them did it from scratch relying upon nothing from previous programs?

Well, you would have to assume that the government would have ever allowed a private program develop nuclear power, weapons, or whatever. I'm not sure how you would keep this under wraps
Click to expand...

Care to tell me what firm in the 50s had a couple billions dollars in 1950s money to spend on something that could not commercialize for possibly decades?
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Pretty much. The upfront capital costs to actually produce commercializable aspects of those were massive. Without the government funding of applied sciences for NASA, we would not have the materials that allow civilian space projects to function. And I'm not even considering the expertise that was cultivated under decades of government space programs. Same goes for nuclear energy. And many drugs the NHS found were actually accidental, but shown a slight promise elsewhere. In a commercial drug lab, that kind of slight potential does not warrant a billion dollar investment. Basically your argument ignores that business is out to make money. It will not shoulder massive upfront costs that do not show real tangible commercial gains in a reasonable period of time. Just because people demand it doesn't mean business will provide it. There has to be profit in it.
Click to expand...

And there is no profit in being the first to discover something? Tell me, since apparently these investments take too long to be profitable given the up-front costs, how long does it take for a new auto manufacturing plant to become profitable?

Actually you can have increased tax revenue without increased tax rates. It's called economic activity.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and taxing more will get you less of it.
 
And how many of them did it from scratch relying upon nothing from previous programs?

Care to tell me what firm in the 50s had a couple billions dollars in 1950s money to spend on something that could not commercialize for possibly decades?
Click to expand...

The lack of previous example in history is not proof of the possibility of something. Which is not to say that there are no examples, but I'm trying to show that your argument rests on faulty logic.
 
phattonez said:
And there is no profit in being the first to discover something?
Click to expand...

Short of a patent, not really in the context of long commercialization periods.

Tell me, since apparently these investments take too long to be profitable given the up-front costs, how long does it take for a new auto manufacturing plant to become profitable?
Click to expand...

Are you really comparing a car manufacturing plant to a nascent industry that has no precedent of sales, customers or profit? Seriously?

Yeah, and taxing more will get you less of it.
Click to expand...

By that measure we should cut taxes to 1%. You do know that Laffer himself stated that it's not a public policy tool no?

The lack of previous example in history is not proof of the possibility of something. Which is not to say that there are no examples, but I'm trying to show that your argument rests on faulty logic.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I'm pointing out massive upfront capital costs create massive disincentives for firms to invest when the potential product, if any, may take decades to commercialize. You are deliberately ignoring this as it blows a universe size hole in your argument and beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Your problem is you don't understand much of the data you post and the data you do understand, you misrepresent. Like the discouraged workers OC mentioned; you thought the numbers you were posting were totals when they were actually cumulative. Like you not understanding the difference between nominal figures from real figures. And then there's your blatant dishonesty where you cherry-pick data that you find most favorable de la minute. Case in point, point out how there was a net gain of 23 million jobs created during Clinton's 8 years, and you insist that doesn't count because it comes from BLS's payroll data, that you have to use household survey data; but then here you are criticizing Obama for zero net jobs gained for August, even though that number comes from BLS's payroll data.

Don't think for a moment that your dishonesty goes unnoticed by the denizens here.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know what honesty is as I have misrepresented anything, whether or not the number is cumulative or not isn't the question, it still has been over 1 million as an average during the Obama term and the fact remains discouraged workers are dropped from the unemployment roles making the unemployment numbers look better than they are. You simply want to divert from the FACT that Obama spent over a trillion dollars and still has a net job loss, declining labor force, 25 plus million unemployed and under employed workers and there is nothing you can say to change that.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Sounds like a bank, to me. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So history is another subject you know little about. Is that the way SS was intended? You aren't forced to put your money into a bank but you are forced to "contribute" to SS. Keep buying the leftwing rhetoric and by the way, thanks for "contributing" to my SS check. Glad you are helping me get my "investment" back.
 
Conservative said:
You really have been brainwashed and I am sorry to hear that. You simply cannot believe that the govt. has lied to you but it has. Your money contributed has long been spent and now someone else is paying you. That wasn't the intent of SS and that is what makes it a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...
Why do have to be condescending when someone disagrees with you? I understand that you don't like Social Security and don't like being forced to contribute, I get that. But being forced to contribute doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. For someone who says they ran a million dollars, I am surprised how ignorant you are on the subject. Read Boo's post above.
 
pbrauer said:
Why do have to be condescending when someone disagrees with you? I understand that you don't like Social Security and don't like being forced to contribute, I get that. But being forced to contribute doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. For someone who says they ran a million dollars, I am surprised how ignorant you are on the subject. Read Boo's post above.
Click to expand...

Nothing you have said proves that it doesn't have the characteristics of a ponzi scheme and that really is the point. You contributed your money to SS and your money because more was coming in that going out was put on budget and spent on something other than SS. LBJ and Congress made that legal but your money is gone, period, so you will get your money when some other worker pays it and when the govt. cashes in the IOU's by borrowing or printing money. Where do you think that money is going to come from to buy back those IOU's?
 
phattonez said:
Someone missed my point about GDP minus government spending.
Click to expand...
Umm, even without government spending, our economy had recovered from the Great Depression by 1941...


1938-6.5%
19396.8%
194010.1%
194123.2%
194212.3%
1943-8.5%
19443.2%
1945-2.6%
194630.2%
194730.2%
194815.2%
1949-2.8%
 
pbrauer said:
Why do have to be condescending when someone disagrees with you? I understand that you don't like Social Security and don't like being forced to contribute, I get that. But being forced to contribute doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. For someone who says they ran a million dollars, I am surprised how ignorant you are on the subject. Read Boo's post above.
Click to expand...

I wish he would. And I hope he understands and responses appropreately, . .. with no squirrels. ;)
 
Conservative said:
Nothing you have said proves that it doesn't have the characteristics of a ponzi scheme and that really is the point. You contributed your money to SS and your money because more was coming in that going out was put on budget and spent on something other than SS. LBJ and Congress made that legal but your money is gone, period, so you will get your money when some other worker pays it and when the govt. cashes in the IOU's by borrowing or printing money. Where do you think that money is going to come from to buy back those IOU's?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it has been given. SS is not an investment in which you hope to have your money make money. It cannot be a Ponzi scheme. Read the links.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, even without government spending, our economy had recovered from the Great Depression by 1941...


1938-6.5%
19396.8%
194010.1%
194123.2%
194212.3%
1943-8.5%
19443.2%
1945-2.6%
194630.2%
194730.2%
194815.2%
1949-2.8%
Click to expand...

Typical, anything to divert from the Obama Job's Plan, poor economic performance, and disastrous Simulus One, but no big you have your job and nothing else matters. How about those Obama tax cuts, Sheik. Now why would he do that since tax cuts are an expense to the govt. and will do nothing to create jobs according to liberals? But since you want to make this about SS, why would you support cutting payroll taxes which fund Social Security. Isn't it in big enough trouble now? Oh, well, what are a few more trillion in IOU's?
 
Conservative said:
Nothing you have said proves that it doesn't have the characteristics of a ponzi scheme and that really is the point. You contributed your money to SS and your money because more was coming in that going out was put on budget and spent on something other than SS. LBJ and Congress made that legal but your money is gone, period, so you will get your money when some other worker pays it and when the govt. cashes in the IOU's by borrowing or printing money. Where do you think that money is going to come from to buy back those IOU's?
Click to expand...
Jesus Conservative, a ****ing pig has many characteristics of human being, but they are not human beings, are they?
 
Boo Radley said:
Yeah, it has been given. SS is not an investment in which you hope to have your money make money. It cannot be a Ponzi scheme. Read the links.
Click to expand...

You were forced into SS and were told that your money would be there for you when you retired. That was a lie after LBJ put the surplus on budget. That makes someone else responsible for funding your SS when you retire as your money is gone. How can you defend that? Those are the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. Now of course "your" President has just requested extension of the Payroll tax cuts which fund SS. Since tax cuts don't create jobs and you want a solvent SS fund I am sure you will be telling Obama he is doing the wrong thing?
 
pbrauer said:
Jesus Conservative, a ****ing pig has many characteristics of human being, but they are not human beings, are they?
Click to expand...

Continue to be a brainwashed liberal which suits you well and is much easier than thinking
 
Conservative said:
You were forced into SS and were told that your money would be there for you when you retired. That was a lie after LBJ put the surplus on budget. That makes someone else responsible for funding your SS when you retire as your money is gone. How can you defend that? Those are the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. Now of course "your" President has just requested extension of the Payroll tax cuts which fund SS. Since tax cuts don't create jobs and you want a solvent SS fund I am sure you will be telling Obama he is doing the wrong thing?
Click to expand...

No, they are not the characteristics of a ponzi scheme. I gave you a link explaining a ponzi scheme. All mistakes, even lies, are no ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes fit a specfici definition. It requires you investing you money for the purpose of that money, your money, to make money for you. And the person committing the scheme knows for the begining that there is no possible way for your money to make money.

As for Obama, another issue (squirrel), Obama like too many bow to political pressures. He seeks compromise. But at least it is a targeted compromise, in which something has to be done to earn the cut.
 
Conservative said:
You wouldn't know what honesty is as I have misrepresented anything, whether or not the number is cumulative or not isn't the question, it still has been over 1 million as an average during the Obama term and the fact remains discouraged workers are dropped from the unemployment roles making the unemployment numbers look better than they are. You simply want to divert from the FACT that Obama spent over a trillion dollars and still has a net job loss, declining labor force, 25 plus million unemployed and under employed workers and there is nothing you can say to change that.
Click to expand...
Your record of dishonesty is here for all to see ... your posts speak for themselves.
 
Conservative said:
So history is another subject you know little about. Is that the way SS was intended? You aren't forced to put your money into a bank but you are forced to "contribute" to SS. Keep buying the leftwing rhetoric and by the way, thanks for "contributing" to my SS check. Glad you are helping me get my "investment" back.
Click to expand...
Umm, like SS, the money you get back was put in the bank by someone else since the bank uses the money you put in to make them more money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom