Page 69 of 194 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179119169 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 1936

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

  1. #681
    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

    Keep reliving the past and explain to me why Obama had to spend the Bush budget since he took over in January 2009.
    Because the president doesn't control the purse strings. The president cannot tell the Congress how to spend money on a budget they passed in the previous year and under a previous administration. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of how our government functions knows that.

    Bush's final budget led to nearly $2 trillion in shortfalls. Minus the $200B Obama spent on stimulus for FY2009 still leaves some $1.7 trillion directly due to Bush's FY2009 budget and his policies. You can't wish that away. Nor can you grasp how much of an impact that $1.7 trillion had on the $4 trillion you're blaming Obama for.

  2. #682
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Do you have anything that counters the article I posted?
    Based upon what Krugman or Politifact posted? I have no idea where they got their information nor do I find it relevant without details. Provide the context

  3. #683
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yep, debt grew from 5.7 trillion to 10.7trillion or 5 trillion added to the debt. Obama debt today is 14.7 trillion so obviously the 4 trillion added to the debt since 2009 is much, much better than 5 trillion added in 8 years. Got it!
    Did I say better? Not doing the squirrel thing again are you you. Look back, I said both spend. You said Obama spent on steroids. Now you show Bush added 5 trillion and Obama 4 trillion. Taking your numbers, you're making quite a leap in your comments.

    Just saying. . . .

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #684
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Well not if you are poor:

    Paul Krugman says poorest 40 percent of Texans pay more in Texas than national average



    http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...texans-pay-mo/
    Speculation on how much people pay without knowing the situation in TX and without realizing that people choose where they live thus choose their property tax base. Here are the state sales taxes by state

    http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.pdf\

  5. #685
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Did I say better? Not doing the squirrel thing again are you you. Look back, I said both spend. You said Obama spent on steroids. Now you show Bush added 5 trillion and Obama 4 trillion. Taking your numbers, you're making quite a leap in your comments.

    Just saying. . . .
    Right, see your point, spending enough to create 5 trillion in 8 years certainly is spending a lot more than 4 trillion in less than 3. I can see how the Obama spending on steroids was the wrong thing to say, LOL

  6. #686
    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
    A loan is not a bailout.... The Fed is expected to be the lender of last resort.

    You made a statement that $16 billion in secret loans were given to banks, as though the Fed was doing something wrong. Consider this statment:



    Primary dealer credit facility (PDCF) loans were certainly not secret, and were a function of either the discount window or Fed funds overnight market. The manner in which they are being described is intellectually dishonest. Let's go directly to the source:



    Source

    Which is why posting "$16 trillion in loans" is not technically correct because it does not make a distinction between time frames. You may admit your error, there is no shame.
    First its a conspiracy ... did you respond to your conspiracy accusation? Now its not a conspiracy ... its worthy of discussion.

    Each time you try you ignore reality. "Secret" is not above board. Did you mention they didn't have 16 trillion .... hmmm run those printing presses.

    A loan is not a bailout?

    Bailout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In economics, a bailout is an act of loaning or giving capital to an entity (a company, a country, or an individual) that is in danger of failing, in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin; or to allow a failing entity to fail gracefully without spreading contagion.[1]

    hmmmm lol

    www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/21/audit-fed-gave-16-trillion-in-emergency-loans/
    The audit was conducted on a one-time basis, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed last year. Fed officials had strongly discouraged lawmakers from ordering the audit, claiming it may serve to undermine confidence in the monetary system.
    Last edited by Michael H; 09-06-11 at 04:34 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

  7. #687
    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

    It is more, TARP and Stimulus are one time programs, supplementals and thus not part of the budget. The liar in this thread seems to be you or you don't understand the difference between budgeted amounts and supplementals.
    Stop lying. Spending in 2010 was down from 2009...

    2009: 3518
    2010: 3456






    Spending drops in Obama's first budget year from $3,518B to $3,456B and you call that "Bush spending on steroids."

    Looks to me like it was Bush who was spending like Bush on steroids.

  8. #688
    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 AdamT View Post
    Interesting, but most of that appears to be dated or speculative, as in "some elements in Germany want to...." Since the first article was written in 2009 have we seen German banks pulling capital back in country? I'd say it's just the opposite. Germany has been the main (albeit reluctant) party keeping the troubled EU economies afloat. There are some interesting points in there, though. Particularly that protectionism these days is tending to take a less direct form, such as government support for industry (like our own subsidies for green energy, or cash for clunkers). South Korea has been a master of that, helping its industrial conglomerates outperform foreign competitors.

    But I guess that begs the question: is it really protectionism for a government to lends its resources to domestic private industry? I think there has to be a distinction between government helping industry become more competitive, and government directly intervening to benefit industry because it can't compete internationally. In for the former case government is helping to improve efficiency and competitiveness while in the latter government is in effect fostering inefficiency and uncompetitiveness by shielding companies from stronger competition.
    Wish I had bookmarked the other info it might have helped the discussion ... part of it was related to the auto industry and Japan ... EU countries limiting imports relative to Japans imports.

    Q2 was a dump by the FED of 600 billion to aid Europe. Germanies interests lie with the PIGS as they run a current account surplus with them ... they have to help.

    Germany publicly is very pro free trade ... when I find more examples ... I'll provide them ... I don't want to be slinging BS.

    I view any subsidy or tariff from government as protectionist. I've done some R+D with government funding that made my company more efficient, stuff that would not have been done otherwise. Just my opinion of protectionism ... and being progressive in support of such protectionism I've no desire to deny it exists.
    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. #689
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 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
    Stop lying. Spending in 2010 was down from 2009...

    2009: 3518
    2010: 3456






    Spending drops in Obama's first budget year from $3,518B to $3,456B and you call that "Bush spending on steroids."

    Looks to me like it was Bush who was spending like Bush on steroids.
    I am getting pretty sick and tired of you claiming lies. Spending was down in 2010 because most of TARP and much of the stimulus was SPENT in 2009. you seem to have a very hard time understanding basic facts.

  10. #690
    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

    Right, see your point, spending enough to create 5 trillion in 8 years certainly is spending a lot more than 4 trillion in less than 3. I can see how the Obama spending on steroids was the wrong thing to say, LOL
    Umm, the debt under Bush's budgets increased $6.1 trillion and $2.8 trillion under Obama's.

Posting Permissions

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