• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Barbarian said:
okay, and what was the 400 dollars tax rebate from the stimulus ... a one time payment ?? kinda like the The Bush rebate ? and Bush's tax cut which everyone received ( and is still receiving) a portion of in each paycheck, the only difference is Bush's wasn't a one year program.
Click to expand...

The only distinction I was trying to make is that the Bush rebate was delivered in a lump sum payment -- one check -- while the Obama's payroll cut was doled out each week in increments. The point being that, according to economists, smaller weekly payments are a more effective method if your aim to is to stimulate the economy. It's likely that people who get an extra $50 or $80 a week are going to spend it on stuff and things, whereas if you get a check for $400 you might decide to spend the whole nut paying down a credit card or something. Nothing wrong with doing that, of course, but it doesn't have the same multiplier effect as putting back into the retail channel.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
No, they did not count the TAF loans (the largest of all loans) in the same manner that they counted the PDCF. If they were to apply the same accounting technique to all credit facilities listed, the quantity of loans could easy have reached $40 trillion (the TAF loans alone were more than 8x's greater than the PDCF on a factored term basis).



I was well aware of the subject, as i explained the counting technique before you posted the source. CNBC did a report on this back in July, and essentially poked fun at anyone who attempted to capitalize (on a political basis) with the $16 trillion number.



You're taking it out of context. Credit contracted to the point where companies were going to go bankrupt without access to credit. The freeze in the commercial paper market alone would have caused an unprecendted amount of bankruptcies without access to these credit facilities. Yes, some entities were bailed out (Fannie and Freddy), but not to the tune of $16 trillion.



No, it was a simple mistake. I apologize.



Not at all. I simply will not allow you to misrepresent figures in a low brow manner. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but you are at fault for not having a clear understanding of the situation.



Items 1-4 are strawmen you have created to attempt to hide the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about, within the context of the various monetary policy initiatives taken in the midst of the financial crisis.

Now man up and admit your error. Again, there is no shame.
Click to expand...

So these 16 trillion in loans were made to viable operations? You or I could have gotten credit based upon performance such as theirs? I fail to grasp whether its PDCF or TAF ... how loaning money to a nonviable entity is not .... a loan or a bailout. What happened to Lehman ... were they not "viable" enough for bailout?

Basically you are loaning to operations that cannot survive on their own ... correct or incorrect? I don't get the loan term as "not" of interest. You are still loaning to a business that will sink without support.

That's how I see it ... if I lose my job ... I'm not getting an overnight loan or any loan to prop me up until my bottom line recovers. No bank is funding a revolving credit line for me to pay my operations.

No bank ... I don't get it ... trust me I don't ... loaning money to an operation that can only survive with its support. And you don't want to call it a loan. Buying up junk assets basically to back the loans. crazy, mad, ... supporting junk ... and what would have happened if they defaulted? Wasn't there already a TARP or blanket or throwcover for these $##% clowns.

And the FED loaning them money for their 30x and 35x poker games.

Loan me a few billion for a few nights ... I'm good for it!
 
AdamT said:
The only distinction I was trying to make is that the Bush rebate was delivered in a lump sum payment -- one check -- while the Obama's payroll cut was doled out each week in increments. The point being that, according to economists, smaller weekly payments are a more effective method if your aim to is to stimulate the economy. It's likely that people who get an extra $50 or $80 a week are going to spend it on stuff and things, whereas if you get a check for $400 you might decide to spend the whole nut paying down a credit card or something. Nothing wrong with doing that, of course, but it doesn't have the same multiplier effect as putting back into the retail channel.
Click to expand...

this just confirms that you either don't have a job or aren't seeing your paycheck. The Bush tax cuts were in two forms, one was a rebate check that you received in 2001-2002, the second part was the rate reduction which you are receiving today. Most people that are working understand that, but those who don't have a job don't have a clue and think it was a rebate check.
 
The Barbarian said:
Hmm wait .. wait .. I seem to remember something about 1993 ... what was it again .. the 1st bombing of the World Trade Center .. under who's watch was that again ?? Guess nothing was being done back then either
Click to expand...
Right, there was an attack on the WTC 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency and I don't recall anyone blaming Bush Sr. Eight months into Bush Jr. presidency and Conservatives blame Clinton.

The Barbarian said:
As to your translation, will you please explain to all the folks here .. what one of those things he put into place that was so effective .. did Bush over turn ??
Click to expand...
For one, he rejected the FBI's request for additional funding for counter-terrorism. But mostly he did nothing. As Conservative aluded to, in 1998, Clinton was handed a similar PDB that was given to Bush in the summer of 2001. Where Bush did nothing and the attack occurred, in 1998-99, there was no attack after Clinton had airport security raised at suspected airports until the threat passed. Who knows, maybe 9.11 would have not happened had Bush taken some proactive measures like that.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, aside from that report not saying there was a net job loss, I'm eager to see your explanation of how the U3 unemplyment rate remained at 9.1% from the previous month if there was a net loss since it takes at least a net gain of about 150,000 just to keep the unemployment rate level.

G'head . . .

Conservative said:
16.2% U-6 explains it well for you
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ahh, no, the U6 rate does not explain why the U3 rate remained level. Guess you don't know that the U6 rate and the U3 rate measure different aspects of unemployment. Guess you also don't know that in oprder to keep the U3 unemployment rate level, at least 150,000 jobs must be added. And I guess you don't know the BLS recorded 331 thousand jobs added last month.
 
Conservative said:
this just confirms that you either don't have a job or aren't seeing your paycheck. The Bush tax cuts were in two forms, one was a rebate check that you received in 2001-2002, the second part was the rate reduction which you are receiving today. Most people that are working understand that, but those who don't have a job don't have a clue and think it was a rebate check.
Click to expand...

Good God, get a clue, people. How many times do I have to say that I was comparing ONLY the delivery method of Bush's 2008 rebate and Obama's payroll tax cut?!
 
Michael H said:
So these 16 trillion in loans were made to viable operations? You or I could have gotten credit based upon performance such as theirs? I fail to grasp whether its PDCF or TAF ... how loaning money to a nonviable entity is not .... a loan or a bailout. What happened to Lehman ... were they not "viable" enough for bailout?

Basically you are loaning to operations that cannot survive on their own ... correct or incorrect? I don't get the loan term as "not" of interest. You are still loaning to a business that will sink without support.

That's how I see it ... if I lose my job ... I'm not getting an overnight loan or any loan to prop me up until my bottom line recovers. No bank is funding a revolving credit line for me to pay my operations.

No bank ... I don't get it ... trust me I don't ... loaning money to an operation that can only survive with its support. And you don't want to call it a loan. Buying up junk assets basically to back the loans. crazy, mad, ... supporting junk ... and what would have happened if they defaulted? Wasn't there already a TARP or blanket or throwcover for these $##% clowns.

And the FED loaning them money for their 30x and 35x poker games.

Loan me a few billion for a few nights ... I'm good for it!
Click to expand...

Stop with the charades and admit the $16 trillion figure is a misrepresentation of the various lending facilities offered by the Fed. I do have to admit i kinda set you up for the failure, but it would have not have been attainable if you bothered to check your sources.

Adios!
 
Conservative said:
When you take money from SS and put it on budget you affect the public debt but as was shown there was no surplus there either, but there was a PROJECTED surplus.
Click to expand...
Yes, when Bush started, there was a projected surplus of about 6 trillion over the next ten years ... when Bush left office, there was a projected deficit of about 8 trillion. A 14 trillion dollar difference.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

:lol:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ahh, no, the U6 rate does not explain why the U3 rate remained level. Guess you don't know that the U6 rate and the U3 rate measure different aspects of unemployment. Guess you also don't know that in oprder to keep the U3 unemployment rate level, at least 150,000 jobs must be added. And I guess you don't know the BLS recorded 331 thousand jobs added last month.
Click to expand...

Take your opinion to the American people and see if they agree. Currently they don't. It does appear that you don't realize that discouraged workers enter and leave the market and that affects the labor force number with impacts the unemployment rates. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence and experience would know that.
 
AdamT said:
Good God, get a clue, people. How many times do I have to say that I was comparing ONLY the delivery method of Bush's 2008 rebate and Obama's payroll tax cut?!
Click to expand...

You still don't know what payroll taxes fund, do you? How does cutting payroll taxes help the individual in the long run or are you just another live for today liberal?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yes, when Bush started, there was a projected surplus of about 6 trillion over the next ten years ... when Bush left office, there was a projected deficit of about 8 trillion. A 14 trillion dollar difference.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

:lol:
Click to expand...

I love projections, don't you? When Obama was selling the stimulus plan it was projected that unemployment would not exceed 8% and that after the stimulus unemployment would drop. How did that projection work out?
 
Conservative said:
Doesn't matter what Clinton did or what Bush did only what Obama is DOING. You cannot change the past but you can change the future. Obama has put Bush spending on steroids as evidenced by his budgets.
Click to expand...
It matters when showing that you have a miserable track record for picking presidents. It speaks loudly towards your biased criticisms of Obama.
 
Conservative said:
I love projections, don't you? When Obama was selling the stimulus plan it was projected that unemployment would not exceed 8% and that after the stimulus unemployment would drop. How did that projection work out?
Click to expand...

That was a serious error on behalf of the Obama administration. They completely underestimated the severity of this financial and economic downturn. But then again, so do you....
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It matters when showing that you have a miserable track record for picking presidents. It speaks loudly towards your biased criticisms of Obama.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be talking picking Obama. Who would you have voted for, Bush or Gore, then Bush or Kerry? that miserable track record is subject to opinion and yours isn't worth much.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
That was a serious error on behalf of the Obama administration. They completely underestimated the severity of this financial and economic downturn. But then again, so do you....
Click to expand...

No, I have a pretty good idea of the financial meltdown as well as how much 800 plus billion is and how it was spent. It was a waste of money and spent poorly. The financial condition of the country is worse today because of the incompetent in the WH. Reality sucks, doesn't it?
 
Conservative said:
I love projections, don't you? When Obama was selling the stimulus plan it was projected that unemployment would not exceed 8% and that after the stimulus unemployment would drop. How did that projection work out?
Click to expand...
Obama's projection, off by 2 percentage points ... budget projects over Bush's 8 years in office, off by 14 trillion dollars.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Obama's projection, off by 2 percentage points ... budget projects over Bush's 8 years in office, off by 14 trillion dollars.
Click to expand...

Now that is incredible spin, 25 million Americans unemployed and under employed make up those percentage points which make the numbers 16.2% not 9.1%. A lot easier talking about percentages isn't it?
 
Boo Radley said:
yes, Clinton did not take OBL. He likely shoudl have. However, during the 9/11 commission hearings, both parties agreed that taking him would not have stopped 9/11.
Click to expand...
Umm, the 9.11 Commission also concluded there was no evidence to support the notion that there was ever a deal to extradite bin Laden to the U.S.

Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding.

- 9/11 commission​
 
Conservative said:
Now that is incredible spin, 25 million Americans unemployed and under employed make up those percentage points which make the numbers 16.2% not 9.1%. A lot easier talking about percentages isn't it?
Click to expand...
Lemme see if I understand your [fuzzy] math ...

... you think if the difference between 8% unemployed and 10% unemployed is 25 million?
 
Conservative said:
No, I have a pretty good idea of the financial meltdown as well as how much 800 plus billion is and how it was spent. It was a waste of money and spent poorly. The financial condition of the country is worse today because of the incompetent in the WH. Reality sucks, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Nope! It is at this level because we experienced the worst financial shock since 1929.

fredgraph.png


Notice we never witnessed a real loss in wealth during any time period since the data collection began until.....

The Reagan recession era:

fredgraph.png


The Bush/Obama recession era:

fredgraph.png


There really is no comparison when we consider the sheer amount of wealth lost during the two distinct recessions. Nearly 25% of the TOTAL WEALTH of the entire nation was lost between the peak to trough. Last time something of this magnitude occurred? You guessed it.....


BTW, does a stronger dollar make U.S. goods more competitive overseas?:lol:
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The only distinction I was trying to make is that the Bush rebate was delivered in a lump sum payment -- one check -- while the Obama's payroll cut was doled out each week in increments. The point being that, according to economists, smaller weekly payments are a more effective method if your aim to is to stimulate the economy. It's likely that people who get an extra $50 or $80 a week are going to spend it on stuff and things, whereas if you get a check for $400 you might decide to spend the whole nut paying down a credit card or something. Nothing wrong with doing that, of course, but it doesn't have the same multiplier effect as putting back into the retail channel.
Click to expand...

you are missing the point .... besides Bush's rebate ... Bush also gave tax cuts ... that are paid out every pay day ... those started in 2003 or 2004 ... and are "still" going on .. you do remember that Bush did pass a tax cut don't you ??? So please explain how Obama's tax holiday is any different then the Bush tax cuts
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Lemme see if I understand your [fuzzy] math ...

... you think if the difference between 8% unemployed and 10% unemployed is 25 million?
Click to expand...

Obama has 16.2% unemployment including the under employed after spending a trillion dollars. It will be that record on the ballot in 2012.
 
Graph's are fun:)

[h=1]Owners' Equity in Household Real Estate - Net Worth - Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations[/h]
During the Reagan era recession:

fredgraph.png



During the Bush/Obama Recession:

fredgraph.png


Total Time Frame:

fredgraph.png



And people are wondering why employment growth is so slow....
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Nope! It is at this level because we experienced the worst financial shock since 1929.

fredgraph.png


Notice we never witnessed a real loss in wealth during any time period since the data collection began until.....

The Reagan recession era:

fredgraph.png


The Bush/Obama recession era:

fredgraph.png


There really is no comparison when we consider the sheer amount of wealth lost during the two distinct recessions. Nearly 25% of the TOTAL WEALTH of the entire nation was lost between the peak to trough. Last time something of this magnitude occurred? You guessed it.....


BTW, does a stronger dollar make U.S. goods more competitive overseas?:lol:
Click to expand...

The question is how did the recession of 1981-82 affect the American people compared to 2007-2009 and the answer is in the misery index as well as the unemployment rate. Charts comparing balance sheets are irrelevant, different time and different income levels. Paying 17.5% for a home loan and having 10.8%unemployment compared today doesn't compare at all. Reagan did the right thing, empowered the American people with tax cuts and Obama has empowered the American govt. and believes the govt. creates jobs, apparently just like you.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Right, there was an attack on the WTC 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency and I don't recall anyone blaming Bush Sr. Eight months into Bush Jr. presidency and Conservatives blame Clinton.


For one, he rejected the FBI's request for additional funding for counter-terrorism. But mostly he did nothing. As Conservative aluded to, in 1998, Clinton was handed a similar PDB that was given to Bush in the summer of 2001. Where Bush did nothing and the attack occurred, in 1998-99, there was no attack after Clinton had airport security raised at suspected airports until the threat passed. Who knows, maybe 9.11 would have not happened had Bush taken some proactive measures like that.
Click to expand...

Okay now that you are getting somewhat reasonable, I don't blame Clinton for the attack .... and I didn't blame him for the first. I don't blame Bush for the attack either. When people are willing to jump into the seat of an air line and crash that plane killing themselves ..... there is "NO" way to stop such an act. If you are lucky you can make it more difficult, but you aren't going to stop anyone that intent on killing people.

That same holds true, if someone wanted you or I dead, and they made up that mind that at any cost they were going to get us, then by gawd I'll be willing to bet he would.

As much as I have looked into this in the past .. the thing that seems most ineffective was the way the intelligence community refused to share information.

But hey .. if you really feel that way .. here is some intel for you . . in LA, sometime this week .. . there is going to be a drive by shooting. It's going to be done by gang members. Now I expect that to be stopped ... .after all .. I narrowed it down to a week, gave you the city, and narrowed it down to one of the gangs there. That intel is 250 time more specific then was given to Bush. So there should be no problem right ?


Oh and one other piece of information, show me one time that Bush ever blamed Clinton for the attacks of 9/11..... show Me one time where Bush was running around pointing fingers at Clinton for him inheriting the dot com bust. Yet here we are nearly 3 years after Obama takes office, and we are "still" hearing how it's Bush's fault .. . or the Republicans fault, or the tea party's fault .... Pardon me for saying this, but I think that speaks volumes as to the character of both of them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom