Page 91 of 194 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101141191 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 1936

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

  1. #901
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    If you want to continue to look back do so in a non partisan way, WTC 1 happened under Clinton, Clinton was handed Bin Laden but didn't take him, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, Clinton had a PDB in December 1998, Clinton shot a multi million dollar missile into a $10 tent and killed a camel.
    The Iraq Liberation Act was nothing more than to support rebels if they decided to take down Saddam, nothingmore, no military. Operation Desert Fox was a 4-day campaign in December of 1998 did plenty of damage to the Saddam regime.

  2. #902
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    New debt is never fixed
    When the treasury issues a 30 year bond with a coupon of 3.3%, it will pay 3.3% on the face value for the life of the bond.

    and refinancing old debt happens all the time. Higher interest rates equally higher growth is bs unless you have full employment and we don't.


    Outside of exogenous demand shocks (that impact inflation expectations), interest rates have an inverse relationship with the unemployment rate.

    Higher interest rates in the 80's led to 10.8% unemployment so your argument is bogus.
    Volker purposefully increased interest rates, thereby invoking a recession, to crush inflation. Understand exogenous supply shocks and inflation expectations before making such silly errors in the future.

    Right now there are over 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans, rising interest rates and taxes does nothing to put those people back to work
    Strawman. I never said that raising interest rates will increase unemployment. However, as interest rates rise from the zero bound, they will only do so if unemployment lowers. This is the mandate of the Federal Reserve.
    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

  3. #903
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Terrible because the Fed keeps pouring money into the economy. They can do that because of 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans and stagnant economic growth. Adding more debt right now is suicidal.
    Incorrect. The Fed ended their QEII program in June. Why have interest rates fallen lower than when the Fed was in full purchasing mode?

    If we do not add anymore debt, we will surely go back into recession. This much is clear.
    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. #904
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    The Iraq Liberation Act was nothing more than to support rebels if they decided to take down Saddam, nothingmore, no military. Operation Desert Fox was a 4-day campaign in December of 1998 did plenty of damage to the Saddam regime.
    Yes, and the Iraq Resolution of October 2002 gave the President the authority to do what HE deemed necessary and was pass by a Democrat Controlled Senate that could have prevented the resolution from even being brought up. The fact remains the Gulf War never really ended and throughout the 90's Saddam Hussein continued to violate the agreement ceasing hostilities. Bush removed Saddam Hussein but again a great topic for another thread. What does any of this have to do with August jobs?

  5. #905
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Incorrect. The Fed ended their QEII program in June. Why have interest rates fallen lower than when the Fed was in full purchasing mode?

    If we do not add anymore debt, we will surely go back into recession. This much is clear.
    Interest rates are inching towards record lows again because of terrible economic growth and high unemployment. Adding more debt at 14.6 trillion levels is a disaster, time for the market to correct itself and for Congress to go on a diet. Hardly going to happen with this Administration who seems to believe they are responsible for personal responsibility issues.

  6. #906
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    I don't know how that can haunt us, but we can clearly say we would have lost those jobs then. The people who stayed employed were able to pay bills and buy things and were not on unemployment.

    But that is what I mean by limits. The stimulus at best was a short term answer. Long term efforts have to come largely from the private sector when it comes to jobs. All the governemnt can do without hiring people is give stimulus dollars for the short erm.
    Again I somewhat agree with you, but you can't just hand a failing state government money without restriction and expect good results, each state that was given money should have had to give a detailed report on what they were going to do to help "themselves" balance their budgets. as it was they did nothing... . and just kicked the can down the road for a year. near 800 billion dollars for a one year delay, hardly seems like something that could be called successful. Even more so when you do some math, and say that we could have "given" every unemployed person in this country over $55,000 each and wouldn't have needed to pass the added billions in umemployment benefits
    Last edited by The Barbarian; 09-07-11 at 01:31 PM.

  7. #907
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Interest rates are inching towards record lows again because of terrible economic growth and high unemployment.
    No. The issue in Europe, the Swiss:Euro peg, and the sheer liquidity of our treasury market has pushed rates lower than they were when the Fed conducting QEI and QEII. At this point, the Fed is likely to begin a program deemed "Operation Twist".

    Adding more debt at 14.6 trillion levels is a disaster, time for the market to correct itself and for Congress to go on a diet. Hardly going to happen with this Administration who seems to believe they are responsible for personal responsibility issues.
    Andrew Mellon said the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Mellon
    liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.[
    In 1929. Which is why your "solution" is definitely not an option. How did that work out for Mellon? Was he correct?
    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. #908
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    No. The issue in Europe, the Swiss:Euro peg, and the sheer liquidity of our treasury market has pushed rates lower than they were when the Fed conducting QEI and QEII. At this point, the Fed is likely to begin a program deemed "Operation Twist".



    Andrew Mellon said the same thing.



    In 1929. Which is why your "solution" is definitely not an option. How did that work out for Mellon? Was he correct?
    This isn't 1929 and we didn't have a 14.6 trillion dollar debt then. Is there even enough debt for you to finally say enough is enough? who is calling for liquidation of stocks, real estate, etc. I am for rewarding the taxpayers not the politicians. I seem to understand what you have a problem understanding is that inflation is on the horizon and inflation will lead to higher interest rates. Imagine financing debt at Volcker's interest rates today. What was the debt in 1980-83? My solution is the only option, reward taxpayers and put the govt. on a diet. Here are the expenses of the govt. today vs. what they should be IMO

    Defense 696.1
    International Affairs 45.2
    Gen. Science, Space 30.9
    Energy 11.5
    Natural resources/env 41,6
    Agriculture 23.2
    Commerce 25.0
    Transportation 92.5
    Community Dev 24.9
    Education/Train/Social 125.1
    Health 369.0
    Medicare 451.6
    Income Security 624.0
    Social Security 706.7
    Veterans Benefits 108.4
    Justice 55.2
    General Govt. 18.1
    Net Interest 196.9


    Total 3604.3

    Defense 600.1
    International Affairs 30.1
    Gen. Science, Space 10.9
    Energy
    Natural resources/env
    Agriculture
    Commerce
    Transportation
    Community Dev
    Education/Train/Social
    Health 369.0
    Medicare
    Income Security 300.5
    Social Security
    Veterans Benefits 108.4
    Justice 55.2
    General Govt. 18.1
    Net Interest 196.9


    Total 1689.2

  9. #909
    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 American View Post
    /partisanship off
    Now you're talking about Bush obviously (i.e., low unemloyment and deficits). But guess what (and not to beat up on Clinton specifically), Clinton should have continued a sound investment in military research during his peacetime presidency. But he didn't, and then when the war came.....Bush had to do both (invest in research and fight a war). Now I'm not trying to start a debate about the merits of the war, but merely to show that Clinton could have bought the research at a cheaper price than Bush, not to mention it costs a lot more when you need it NOW. So these spending deficits get so huge when you don't maintain some consistency all the time. The same happened with Carter, he let the military rot and Reagan spent more to bring it back. So just remove the presidents' names, and look at the spending line being consistent. It's easier to prepare for war during peace time, when defense contractors have nothing else to do. Once war starts, everything goes fast track. Well the problem is that during peace time defense contractors are laying off people cause they have no work, and when the war comes they have to rebuild their workforce like RIGHT NOW. You can apply this to most things I believe. Clinton did it because the Cold War was "over", but it wasn't that over. They over-reduced like a pendulum, and then Bush had to swing it the other way. So bottomline, maintain your army and transform it gradually. If we did this I think we could eliminate most deficits.
    I agree in principle that we have to maintain a viable fighting force even during peacetime, but I'm not sure what research was produced during Bush's tenure that was instrumental to the war. Our technology was vastly superior to Iraq's. It seems to me that the main problem wasn't an absence of research, but a failure to adjust our spending priorities fast enough from a Europe ground war mentality to a urban assault/counter insurgency mentality. Our major deficiencies were an insufficient supply of body armor and light armored troop carriers -- not super high-tech stuff. Perhaps we should have anticipated the prevalence of IEDs, but hindsight is 20/20. Certainly we should have responded to the threat more quickly when it arose.

  10. #910
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    This isn't 1929 and we didn't have a 14.6 trillion dollar debt then. Is there even enough debt for you to finally say enough is enough? who is calling for liquidation of stocks, real estate, etc. I am for rewarding the taxpayers not the politicians. I seem to understand what you have a problem understanding is that inflation is on the horizon and inflation will lead to higher interest rates. Imagine financing debt at Volcker's interest rates today. What was the debt in 1980-83? My solution is the only option, reward taxpayers and put the govt. on a diet. Here are the expenses of the govt. today vs. what they should be IMO

    Defense 696.1
    International Affairs 45.2
    Gen. Science, Space 30.9
    Energy 11.5
    Natural resources/env 41,6
    Agriculture 23.2
    Commerce 25.0
    Transportation 92.5
    Community Dev 24.9
    Education/Train/Social 125.1
    Health 369.0
    Medicare 451.6
    Income Security 624.0
    Social Security 706.7
    Veterans Benefits 108.4
    Justice 55.2
    General Govt. 18.1
    Net Interest 196.9


    Total 3604.3

    Defense 600.1
    International Affairs 30.1
    Gen. Science, Space 10.9
    Energy
    Natural resources/env
    Agriculture
    Commerce
    Transportation
    Community Dev
    Education/Train/Social
    Health 369.0
    Medicare
    Income Security 300.5
    Social Security
    Veterans Benefits 108.4
    Justice 55.2
    General Govt. 18.1
    Net Interest 196.9


    Total 1689.2
    I have asked you a plethora of questions today, and you have yet to respond to one of them. It is not a conversation if you fail to address my questions; instead it is a rant.

    We really cannot cut government spending without invoking a massive recession worse than that of 2009.

    Remember, Y=C+I+G+NX If net exports is negative, any cuts in government spending greater than the absolute value of NX will INSTANTANEOUSLY result in a dollar for dollar loss in Y (or GDP). If you have the ability to negate this comment, then by all means go for it.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 09-07-11 at 01:40 PM.
    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
  •