Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Conservative · Sep 7, 2011

EarlzP said:
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.

David D. · Sep 7, 2011

Conservative said:
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 – 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?

The Barbarian · Sep 7, 2011

=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 .

Conservative · Sep 7, 2011

David D. said:
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?

Michael H · Sep 7, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
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:lol:

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

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.

AdamT · Sep 7, 2011

David D. said:
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.

David D. · Sep 7, 2011

Conservative said:
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.

Boo Radley · Sep 7, 2011

The Barbarian said:
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.

TheNextEra · Sep 7, 2011

The Barbarian said:
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.

AdamT · Sep 7, 2011

Boo Radley said:
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.

Conservative · Sep 7, 2011

AdamT said:
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.

You know there is absolutely nothing preventing you from sending in more of your money if you don't think you are paying enough in taxes. Go ahead and reward bad behavior. Maybe that is why you aren't in the top 20% of income earners because of that kind of attitude

AdamT · Sep 7, 2011

Conservative said:
You know there is absolutely nothing preventing you from sending in more of your money if you don't think you are paying enough in taxes. Go ahead and reward bad behavior. Maybe that is why you aren't in the top 20% of income earners because of that kind of attitude

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Conservative · Sep 7, 2011

David D. said:
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.

Right but your statistics assume that we would have the same number of taxpayers paying the higher taxes and there is no assurance of that happening just like there is no assurance that millions of new taxpayers would be created with the higher taxes. That is the falacy of your argument. We know what happened, you cannot predict what would have happened because human behavior changes depending on economic conditions.

Conservative · Sep 7, 2011

AdamT said:
Irrelevant to the discussion.

Speculation isn't relevant either because you cannot prove that human reaction would be the same with higher taxes especially after the 2001 recession and 9/11

Conservative · Sep 7, 2011

AdamT said:
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.

What are you going to do with the shortfall in SS and Medicare due to the payroll tax cuts?

AdamT · Sep 7, 2011

Conservative said:
What are you going to do with the shortfall in SS and Medicare due to the payroll tax cuts?

Pay it back when the economy is on solid footing. Medicare clearly needs to be reformed in any case.

Conservative · Sep 7, 2011

AdamT said:
Pay it back when the economy is on solid footing. Medicare clearly needs to be reformed in any case.

LOL, isn't that the way we created a 14.6 trillion dollar debt? Where is the assurance that politicians will pay it back as when are they going to payback the shortfall that is in SS and Medicare right now.

Boo Radley · Sep 7, 2011

AdamT said:
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.

Maybe. Like I said, we will never like have that discussion. But we could hand money directly to individuals and let them decide how to best spend it.

I find some of that interesting. But I don't think the discussion will ever really come up with our leaders.

AdamT · Sep 7, 2011

Conservative said:
LOL, isn't that the way we created a 14.6 trillion dollar debt? Where is the assurance that politicians will pay it back as when are they going to payback the shortfall that is in SS and Medicare right now.

There are no guarantees in life. We just have to hope that the next president who has the good fortune to serve during a good economy is more responsible than the last one.

Conservative · Sep 7, 2011

AdamT said:
There are no guarantees in life. We just have to hope that the next president who has the good fortune to serve during a good economy is more responsible than the last one.

I keep hearing about that outstanding Clinton economy, how much was paid back to the SS fund then? Politicians have no problem spending money but do have a problem paying back the Treasury.

AdamT · Sep 7, 2011

Conservative said:
I keep hearing about that outstanding Clinton economy, how much was paid back to the SS fund then? Politicians have no problem spending money but do have a problem paying back the Treasury.

Social Security is not in terrible shape. If that's all we had to worry about we would be fine. The point is that we had an opportunity to pay down debt over an extended period of time, and we blew it. Now we're paying the piper.

Conservative · Sep 7, 2011

AdamT said:
Social Security is not in terrible shape. If that's all we had to worry about we would be fine. The point is that we had an opportunity to pay down debt over an extended period of time, and we blew it. Now we're paying the piper.

Are you really this naive? Do you understand what an IOU is? Ever tried to spend an IOU at the grocery store? IOU's have to be funded and that is on top of the debt we have. You don't appear to have a clue

The Barbarian · Sep 7, 2011

=Conservative;1059782249]No one is condoning the amount "Bush" Spent but Bush never ran trillion dollar deficits and Bush had 9/11 which GAO puts the cost at over a trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs. I wasn't happy with Bush but faced with the alternative of Gore or Kerry, I chose wisely. Today I will never support sending more money to the Federal Govt. politicians that created this 14.6 trillion dollar debt. why reward bad behavior. It is time to cut Federal Spending and stimulate the private sector to grow our way out of this debt. Not going to happen by just slowing the growth of spending.

Okay, I understand what you are saying to a degree, but again, like Clinton or hate him, we had a good economy under him, and I'm not saying he did anything to influence that, but he didn't get in the way either. I'm only pointing this out to show that the tax rates in place at the time, didn't stop the growth of business, now certainly you can agree with that ?
Again, I agree I didn't like Gore or Kerry either. That has nothing to do with what was done. I agreed the tax cuts of 2003 were need to help jump start the economy, but knowing the war was going to be costly, IMO it was very short sighted of him to wait until 2010 to have them expire. 3 years should have been ample time, (and in fact was) to get our economy back on track. Raising those taxes back up would have been the prudent thing to do to help pay for the war, That tax increase could well have been set up to sunset out in five years or whatever time was deemed needed to finish what we started.

I am willing to send nothing more to the govt. until they get serious about debt reduction and that isn't going to happen by massive expansion of the Federal reach on things like Obamacare and other social engineering programs. That is the responsibility of the states not the Federal Govt. I am one of those conservatives that believe we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. In addition to the 47% of income earners that don't pay any FIT, we have 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans that aren't paying much either. Instead of creating an atmosphere that promotes job growth this govt. is destroying jobs

You're not alone, I have said we have a spending problem until I'm blue in the face, and I thought that is what I was saying is that I want to see real honest to goodness cuts before giving them any more money to spend... until I see that from them. Yes if their was ever a balanced budget Amendment put in place, then I would be all for an immediate tax hike, that could only be used to pay on the principle of our debt and nothing else.

Totally agree, we need a flat tax so that everyone pays something. Think of what $100 a year would generate from those 47% of the 140 million American workers that aren't paying any FIT? I want to see a govt. down to the 1.6 trillion dollar range and ould start by taking SS and Medicare off budget immediately. I then would bill every foreign country or deduct it from their foreign aid for illegals from their countries using our ER's. The only way I would support a tax increase is with a balanced budget amendment and then taking the existing debt and pay it off with a debt tax in the form of a Federal Sales Tax. The balanced budget amendment would have to be enforceable though.

Now as for those 47% that pay nothing in federal income tax, you and I are in complete agreement on this, each and every one of them should pay something even if only 2 or 3 dollars a week, everyone needs to pay for the privilege of living here, everyone. I was only pointing out that the Bush tax cuts, increased the number of people paying nothing.

Come on, you can't take SS and Medicare off the table immediately, that's just telling people that have paid in for the last 20, 30 or more years that they just got hammered with a huge tax increase.
SS is easily fixed, by simply ending early retirement now, and adding one more year of working for those that are 55, and two more years for those that are 45, and 3 more years for those that are 35 The only possible way to end SS would be to pay back every person the full amount plus a nominal interest rate of what they have paid in.

AdamT · Sep 7, 2011

Conservative said:
Are you really this naive? Do you understand what an IOU is? Ever tried to spend an IOU at the grocery store? IOU's have to be funded and that is on top of the debt we have. You don't appear to have a clue

You really don't know what the situation is, do you? We have many years to address the SS situation.

"The literal bottom line is that Social Security is financially more sound than the federal government as a whole.

Thanks to hikes in the Social Security payroll tax in the 1980s designed to create a surplus to handle the crunch of baby-boomer retirements, the program's trust fund is projected to grow steadily for nearly 20 more years — until 2027.

After that, officials estimate there will be sufficient money to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041, when the surplus is expected to be exhausted. From that year on, payroll tax revenue alone should be able to meet 78 percent of the program's obligations — even if no changes are made.

That would mean substantially smaller checks — but a long way from nothing."

Social Security more solvent than most Americans realize - News - Ohio

Boo Radley · Sep 7, 2011

I give you some credit Barbarian, you post shows you do see beyond partisanship. I may and do not agree with you on every point above, but it is a reasonable post. Kudos.

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Member