Page 94 of 194 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104144 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 1936

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

  1. #931
    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 The Barbarian View Post
    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
    it would be curious to see how this would play had such restrictions had been applied. I know most our situation here, and the state did start the process of thinking and planning down the road. We're better off for the time given. I can't speak to the entire nation though. And not sure who deserves the most blame for any that didn't use that time.

    Also, how would giving people that much money have played? What would be the counter proposal to the stimulus?

    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.

  2. #932
    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 Goldenboy219 View Post
    This is not what you said. For a refreshment:





    Incorrect, which proves you really have no business discussing these topics to the length at which you go.



    We import oil.

    And to think, you ran a $200 million business
    Yes, I ran a 200 million dollar business, what did you run?

    We import oil and we more for our dollars when it is worth more.

    I have seen no evidence that you are anything other than a book smart liberal who has never run or managed anything.

  3. #933
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Windy City
    Last Seen
    09-21-11 @ 11:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    397

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Hopefully you are sending your Bush tax cuts back to the govt. to reward them for their great stewardship of the economy and for creating a 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Love how stealing from the poor is allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Wonder how those evil Republicans cutting taxes increased govt. revenue?

    Personal income taxes by year

    Individual Income tax

    2010 898.5
    2009 915.3
    2008 1,145.7
    2007 1,163.7
    2006 1,043.9
    2005 927.2
    2004 808.9
    2003 793.7

    U.S. Treasury

    Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
    Tax revenue generally increases year after year no matter what. There's no way you can directly link a tax cut to a % revenue increase. Also, the data is further meaningless without posting at least the amount revenue collected before the cuts - right?

    Who's to say that the gov't wouldn't have collected more money without the cuts? Only way to do that would be to have an alternate parallel universe which you enact a different tax policy and see the results. Until then, it’s all speculation.
    Last edited by David D.; 09-07-11 at 03:31 PM.

  4. #934
    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
    It does when tied to a thread about August Job performance
    not even then, because none of it stands alone, owing nothing to history.

    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.

  5. #935
    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 Conservative View Post
    Good post but what really bothers me is how so many people want to reward politicians that ran up the current debt and penalizing the taxpayers for what those politicians did. Not once has anyone addressed spending only revenue and that is a travisty.
    You know Conservative, I'm on the same side of the coin with you, and agree with you on many things. But besides being a conservative myself, I'm also a realist. As such, I would only ask you to do the same. Blame? There is enough to go around for everyone. While I respect Bush on some issues, his deficit spending was terrible and having roughly 5 trillion added to our debt under him is something I can't defend. Now we agree fully that Obama has made the situation even worse and for the life of me, I can't understand the liberal view that it's suddenly okay to be running a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.
    But all that aside we are where we are, and we can place all the blame we want it doesn't change where we are. Where we are is dire to put it mildly, and we can't get out of it with just spending cuts, as much as you or I would like that to happen, it's just not feasible. Think about it for a moment, we are 15 trillion dollars in debt, we are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion a year, that means we would have to cut 2 trillion dollars a year in spending just to start paying down our debt by 500 billion per year.

    Now I'm with you 100% on reasonable cuts in spending, and I'm talking about real verifiable cuts in spending, give me that first … then I'm willing to give you the Bush tax cuts back …. but not just the wealthy but all of them. See what you and other conservatives sometimes fail to see, is that it was these tax cuts, that “added” to that number of people that pay no taxes. I believe that we as a nation got ourselves into this mess, and we as a nation need to help get us out of it

    The best thing we could do (IMO) is to completely redo our tax system, hell I would go so far as to reduce our corporate tax to 10% with no deductions, I'd rather see that, then companies like GE and others getting off with paying nothing. I have always been in favor of only one federal tax, and that being a consumption tax, with everyone getting a pre-bate check from the government for taxes paid up to the poverty level. I am for this sort of tax because it brings such things as illegal money getting taxed where it doesn't now, and even helps with the illegal alien problem, because they still spend money while they are here and thus would be paying taxes.

  6. #936
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yes, I ran a 200 million dollar business, what did you run?
    That's a shame for the business.

    We import oil and we more for our dollars when it is worth more.
    Um.... what?

    I have seen no evidence that you are anything other than a book smart liberal who has never run or managed anything.
    Just because i called you out for not understanding the role of currency exchange in regards to international trade does not equate to me being a "book smart liberal who has never run or managed anything".

    But the fact that you are having trouble understanding such a simple concept shows you have no business discussing these topics ad nauseum.

    Admit you were wrong, and go on your way.
    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. #937
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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.
    That's because we didn't do it during Bush 41 (last two years) and Clinton, all they did was cut the hell out of the budget. Thus Bush had to start out doing both (technology development and warfighting). Research pay off doesn't show up in just a couple of years, sometimes it takes a decade; sometimes longer. Bush had to start first finding out about the IED threat, and then start out with a military unprepared for it. Body armor manufacturers were working 24/7 to develop, qualify and build armor, all while taking a beating in the press. Tons of "armor experts" showed up with armor designs that didn't work. Armor development is a very sophisticated undertaking. Very few people even understand how to improve performance and reduce weight simultaneously of LIGHT WEIGHT armor. Guess what, armor is high tech. The Humvee was developed in the late 70's and fielded in the 80's under a completely different doctrine. When the USSR fell, everyone thought we could take a breather.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #938
    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 David D. View Post
    Tax revenue generally increases year after year no matter what. There's no way you can directly link a tax cut to a % revenue increase. Also, the data is further meaningless without posting at least the amount revenue collected before the cuts - right?

    Who's to say that the gov't wouldn't have collected more money without the cuts? Only way to do that would be to have an alternate parallel universe which you enact a different tax policy and see the results. Until then, it’s all speculation.
    Aw but tax revenue went down in 2009-2010. Who says they would? Liberals love to make that claim but my question again is why would you reward the politicians for their bad behavior by sending them more money? Amazing how liberals ignore how our money is being spent but instead focus on the amount of revenue the govt. gets. What does more revenue to the govt. generate? Hmmmm, more power and greater dependence. Keep supporting that liberals.

  9. #939
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Windy City
    Last Seen
    09-21-11 @ 11:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    397

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Aw but tax revenue went down in 2009-2010. Who says they would? Liberals love to make that claim but my question again is why would you reward the politicians for their bad behavior by sending them more money? Amazing how liberals ignore how our money is being spent but instead focus on the amount of revenue the govt. gets. What does more revenue to the govt. generate? Hmmmm, more power and greater dependence. Keep supporting that liberals.
    C-Man, was just making the point that a graph that shows us tax revenue increasing year after year does not in any way prove that the tax cuts directly cause an increase in government revenue above what the gov't would have collected without the tax cut (btw, I see you have left out the numbers from 2000-2002 - why?).

    I never said I support higher taxes or believe the government deserves more of our paycheck. I was just pointing out that your example does not prove anything.

  10. #940
    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
    it would be curious to see how this would play had such restrictions had been applied. I know most our situation here, and the state did start the process of thinking and planning down the road. We're better off for the time given. I can't speak to the entire nation though. And not sure who deserves the most blame for any that didn't use that time.

    Also, how would giving people that much money have played? What would be the counter proposal to the stimulus?
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we really should have given those people that money, it was just kinda a thought thrown out there to consider if we would have gotten more or less bang for our buck then the way it was spent. Think about it 14 million people fired or laid off getting 200 to 400 dollars a week in unemployment benefits, or handing them what would be equal to 30 months of unemployment at one shot to spend .. We may well have seen more spending during that first year the we did from the way the stimulus was spent.

Posting Permissions

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