Page 96 of 194 FirstFirst ... 46869495969798106146 ... LastLast
Results 951 to 960 of 1936

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

  1. #951
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    72,498

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    For you and those like you the pie keeps growing for those in the middle class and poor class the pie keeps getting smaller, bringing over 2.5 billion workers into the labor pool reduced employment opportunities for the middle class and poor and allowed the rich to prosper from the cheap labor and the lack of regulations in foreign countries.

    You ain't all that smart, truth be known if money was removed you couldn't survive in a world of where you actually had to earn a living by working for it
    This is a country of equal opportunity not equal outcome. You want to redistribute wealth where I have no problem with you getting part of the pie. What is preventing you from becoming one of those evil top 20%. If you want an answer, I can give it to you.

  2. #952
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Windy City
    Last Seen
    09-21-11 @ 10:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    397

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    because the Bush tax cuts were in two parts, one for 2001 and another down the road. The first part was passed in June 2001 and took four months to distribute that money which put it at the end of fiscal year 2001 which was Sept 30, 2001. Fiscal year of the govt. runs from October to Sept. so you cannot hold Bush responsible for the 2001 numbers since his policy wasn't even in place until later in that year. Then remember what happened in Sept. 2001 and how that affected employment and thus revenue. The real tax cuts didn't happen until July 2003 and that is when real tax cuts started benefiting the economy, see 2004 through 2007
    Fair enough.

    But I guess the thing I would have a problem with Ė especially with using a starting point of 2003 Ė is that just because govít revenue was greater year after year *does not prove* that the tax cuts led to a greater revenue collection than what the govít would have collected w/out the tax cuts. Tax revenue usually always increases year after year no matter what.


    Take this example:

    3 - $8
    4 - $9
    5 - $10
    6 - $11
    7 - $12

    This looks like revenue is increasing.

    1 - $10
    2 - $11
    (tax cut)

    3 - $8
    4 - $9
    5 - $10
    6 - $11
    7 - $12

    This looks like we have lost money because you would have expected the $12 to hit in yr 3 when in fact we saw $8. This was a loss of $4. I would have expected $13 to hit in yr4 without the cut so thatís another loss of $4.

    Do you see my point?

  3. #953
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 01:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

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

    =Goldenboy219;1059782178]It was a simple mathematical representation that proves what happens when you cut government spending, ceteris paribus. Of course, cutting government spending during periods of high unemployment will also cause investment and consumption to decrease, but that was beyond the point i was trying to convey. Reason being, if cops, military personal, permit issuers, statisticians, etc... employed by the government lose their jobs, they will undoubtedly spend less, which will cause local companies to layoff workers, which causes consumption to fall until it reaches a bottom.

    If our economy falls by 20%, it will require 25% of growth to get back to its previous level. In the meantime, capital depreciates, people get older, and skills begin to stagnate as unemployment continues to stay high.

    I COMPLETELY agree we need to cut spending, but not when unemployment is @ 9.1%. The best time to cut government spending is when the economy is strong, so it can pick up the slack of the public sector.

    Now is not the time.
    Here is where we disagree. While I can see you point that elimination of government jobs will indeed cut the purchasing power. But why does spending cuts always have to relate to the loss of jobs?

    I've said this before, why can't we look to cut waste and fraud? Why can't we just end earmarks? What about staff for our elected officials, here are a couple of links,
    Congressional staff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Congressional offices and staff - SourceWatch

    Are all those really necessary? I just know this, that if you or I was able to view the budget of every dept. line item by line item within our government, I have not doubt that either of us could come up with ample cuts. That would effect a very few people, and I don't think that is too much to ask of our elected officials as well.

    Now I will grant you these type of cuts would be nominal, but even if 5% was found in waste and fraud in every dept of government, with a budget of 3.5 trillion, thats a savings of 175 billion dollars a year. That type of cut doesn't effect anyone, it just makes the spending of our money efficient and it's a start, that we could implement now. Then continue with more cuts as our economy improves .

  4. #954
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    72,498

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

    Quote Originally Posted by David D. View Post
    Fair enough.

    But I guess the thing I would have a problem with – especially with using a starting point of 2003 – is that just because gov’t revenue was greater year after year *does not prove* that the tax cuts led to a greater revenue collection than what the gov’t would have collected w/out the tax cuts. Tax revenue usually always increases year after year no matter what.


    Take this example:

    3 - $8
    4 - $9
    5 - $10
    6 - $11
    7 - $12

    This looks like revenue is increasing.

    1 - $10
    2 - $11
    (tax cut)

    3 - $8
    4 - $9
    5 - $10
    6 - $11
    7 - $12

    This looks like we have lost money because you would have expected the $12 to hit in yr 3 when in fact we saw $8. This was a loss of $4. I would have expected $13 to hit in yr4 without the cut so that’s another loss of $4.

    Do you see my point?
    What is projected seldom occurs particularly when it comes to CBO or liberals neither of whom understand human behavior. My question to you is why do you care so much about how much money goes to the Federal Govt? Why would you reward bad behavior and don't you believe you can make better use of your money than the Govt?

  5. #955
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    09-25-11 @ 11:44 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    You make a statement about $16 trillion in secret loans yet were unable to provide an adequate source that put the Fed's various lending facilities into context. When i explain to you why the $16 trillion figure was intellectually dishonest (via the use of inconsistent counting techniques), you now want to side step the the issue and pretend like it never happened.

    Here's the deal. If you have an agenda to post low-brow propaganda, i am going to call you out on it. In the future, it will be helpful to have a clear understanding of the content of your post
    Lets recap ... you don't know what a loan is, you don't know what a bailout us, you can't add to 16 trillion, you don't know what secrecy is, you don't know what a conspiracy is, and your waiting for someone else to research for you.

    Your also a protector of the faithful like Iron Man, protecting America from lowbrow agendas, for truth, righteousness and theeeeeeeee American waaaayy. Protect us Captain Goldenbuoy.

    my post:
    Add 16 trillion in secret loans to derivative gamblers ... now there a bailout.
    your reply:
    The conspiracy section is here.
    Did you provide evidence of conspiracy? Unawareness is not conspiracy.

    my reply:
    Enjoy Senator Sanders conspiracy page
    your reply:
    Would it be too much to ask for you to provide a bit more... eh... detail in regards to these $16 trillion in loans? For example, where did the money go (what parties are liable), who holds the debt (which is an asset), and has there been any defaults?

    I guess if Bank of America would borrow $100 billion per day and repay it the following day and the process is repeated 160 times, i can see how "$16 trillion in loans" could emerge in the time span of 160 days or so. However, the Fed does not have $16 trillion in assets from these loans on their books.

    Talk about misrepresenting the situation.... If you really knew what you were talking about, the term "notional amount" would have been used quite a bit!
    So we have gone from me stating there were 16 trillion dollars in secret bailouts to ... your request for info whom was it loaned to, liability, and are their any defaults. And the FED not having 16 trillion. And a lesson in banking for me. Bank of America taking 1 day loans for 100 billion 160 times ... So I misrepresented notional amounts and you as yet had no info on the loans.

    my reply:
    As it was common knowledge and I do know where it went ... or a great portion ... its inconsequential. It was a stimulus to the banks and businesses recovery from losses. Its a search away on google ... and I've already debated the issue. Foreign and national interests were helped. That's what matters. If you like this stuff ... do a search on Q2 600 billion going to foreign banks through their American subsidiaries. So much for credit being available here in the US. Our little contribution to the PIIGS 's problems.
    Basically ... look for your self if you are interested. Foreign and national interests were helped.

    your reply:
    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:
    Now that's a doozy ... a loan is not a bailout. The FED expectations as a lender have what to do with the amounts they loaned? 16 Trillion reduced to to 16 Billion? Were the loans secret? Did anyone in government have knowledge of these loans? Did any of these loans make it into a newspaper?

    Your reply:
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by GAO
    Table 8 aggregates total dollar transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans but does not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs in the term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to the total transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that made loans for periods longer than overnight.
    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.
    Actually 16 trillion is technically correct ... that was the amount of the loans. If you would like to prove the GAO report of 266 pages is a lie ... step up to the plate.

    So is an overnight loan ... not a loan? Is it the money fairy come to visit you in your sleep?

    Page 144 of the report ... see that little number in the lower right hand corner ... that's the loan amount.

    sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf

    FED table 8.jpg

    my reply:

    This is where I have to explain to an economics expert that a loan is a bailout. You didn't actually respond to this did you?

    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]
    My reply:

    This is where I have to explain to you it was a one time audit the FED was trying to avoid. See when you have no oversight ... you can do what ever you want ... like 16 trillion in secret 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.
    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

  6. #956
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by David D. View Post
    Fair enough.

    But I guess the thing I would have a problem with – especially with using a starting point of 2003 – is that just because gov’t revenue was greater year after year *does not prove* that the tax cuts led to a greater revenue collection than what the gov’t would have collected w/out the tax cuts. Tax revenue usually always increases year after year no matter what.


    Take this example:

    3 - $8
    4 - $9
    5 - $10
    6 - $11
    7 - $12

    This looks like revenue is increasing.

    1 - $10
    2 - $11
    (tax cut)

    3 - $8
    4 - $9
    5 - $10
    6 - $11
    7 - $12

    This looks like we have lost money because you would have expected the $12 to hit in yr 3 when in fact we saw $8. This was a loss of $4. I would have expected $13 to hit in yr4 without the cut so that’s another loss of $4.

    Do you see my point?
    That is exactly right, and very clearly stated. As I've poined out several times, no one seriously argues that tax cuts pay for themselves anymore. Laffer never said they did and the architects of both Reagan and Bush's tax cuts have said quite emphatically that they did not.

  7. #957
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Windy City
    Last Seen
    09-21-11 @ 10:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What is projected seldom occurs particularly when it comes to CBO or liberals neither of whom understand human behavior. My question to you is why do you care so much about how much money goes to the Federal Govt? Why would you reward bad behavior and don't you believe you can make better use of your money than the Govt?
    Explain why I care how much $ goes to the federal gov't? I'm not the one posting the exact statistics.

    Anyways, I was just sharing my view on those statistics, that's all.

  8. #958
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-05-18 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,862

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.
    Might have. But such a proposal would never fly. In fact, we'd never see the discussion on the benefits and pitfalls of such a plan. We function within a certain context, which limits us to some degree.

    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.

  9. #959
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I've said this before, why can't we look to cut waste and fraud? Why can't we just end earmarks? What about staff for our elected officials, here are a couple of links,
    Congressional staff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Congressional offices and staff - SourceWatch

    Are all those really necessary? I just know this, that if you or I was able to view the budget of every dept. line item by line item within our government, I have not doubt that either of us could come up with ample cuts. That would effect a very few people, and I don't think that is too much to ask of our elected officials as well.
    While good this falls along the same concept of why don't politicians go on social security, why don't they stop voting themselves raises, etc.

    It's a pipe dream that even the tea party and other conservatives dont hold their representatives to. Politicians as a majority will NEVER give up their luxuries just as their voters don't vote them out as a majority to do it.

    It's a nice pipe dream but until people stop thinking in terms of GOP and Dem it isn't going to happen.

  10. #960
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Might have. But such a proposal would never fly. In fact, we'd never see the discussion on the benefits and pitfalls of such a plan. We function within a certain context, which limits us to some degree.
    In reality it's actually the other way around. People tend to spend money if it's doled out in small quantities, as Obama has done with the payroll tax cuts. When you hand out the money in a lump sum, as Bush did, people tend to bank it or use it to pay down debt.

Posting Permissions

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