Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

j-mac · Sep 10, 2011

obvious Child said:
Hence why one must figure out their priorities.

He laid out the priorities, and to tell you the truth I couldn't tell much difference from this speech and the first stimulus speech as far as what they plan to spend on, other than the language used ... It was about extending unemployment for the people that have lost jobs, I feel their pain however 2 years of government tit sucking is about enough don't you think? We heard how there are just gazillions of 'shovel ready' er, ahem, I'm sorry, "Infrastructure" jobs just waiting for the money to start....Then there is the wonderful $15 bucks a week token in tax cut that doesn't make one bit of difference in my overall budget, but gives him a way to say he cut taxes for me....pfft! give me a break.

I'll put it this way. He could not figure out that the BLS data he was citing was cumulative. He thought it was all monthly changes. That the US unemployment population increased by 10 million every month. The problem is that the next column over, total US population would double every month as well. Half a dozen pages of people pointing stuff like that out couldn't get it through his head that he was wrong. It took a very public poll making a mockery of him to get him to realize he was reading his own data wrong. I'm on his ignore list for that very reason. When a user cannot even understand the data he cites, it's hard to respect him. Especially when he refuses to admit he's wrong in the face of basic chart and graph reading.

Oh come on, be truthful, statistics can be molded, and shaped to say nearly anything anyone wants them to. I'll admit that when the numbers start flying back and forth being used as a defense, or an argument my eyes tend to glaze a bit....Right now though I don't trust a single number from anyone! The truth of the matter if you really dug deep and searched, that you were placed on his ignore list is probably more to do with at some point being a bit of a jack ass to him, rather than your claim. I only say that because that seems to be libs go to crutch when in debate, and a tactic that is well worn today, mockery and ridicule. You may think it funny, and biting, but in reality it is really boorish, rude, and just plain stupid.

Greece has cut everything from public pensions to emergency worker payrolls. Greeks are rioting in the streets for basically good reasons. Their government is cutting to the point where public safety is becoming questionable.

So it doesn't matter if they can't pay for it, only that people will get mad and riot like children when their desert is taken away? How about future Greek generations, I guess the current crop of dumb asses just say screw them, I want mine now!

It's not backwards at all. When tax revenues to pay off debt increase due to increased activity rather than spending cuts, it's a sign you're back on track.

There is also a point where your tax rate becomes burdensome, and entities look for ways to avoid paying that tax is there not? Isn't that why many companies take their money off shore?

Corporations never quite feel they are doing better in the long run when their profits expand from bottom line cuts. They feel better when it's top line growth. You only can cut so much before you encounter structural problems. Debt reduction from top line growth is a sign you're actually on the manageable path to solvency.

It is rather Twilight Zone of you to use a Corporation as your example when liberals end game today seems to be the destruction of such.

j-mac

Conservative · Sep 10, 2011

pbrauer said:
Should I assume you're not accepting any Social Security benefits, Conservative?

What does that have to do with the fact that SS is a ponzi scheme and that you don't give a **** aboout the condition of the account? Why would anyone who put money into the account not expect to get their money back especially sinced they were forced to contribute?

Conservative · Sep 10, 2011

j-mac said:
He laid out the priorities, and to tell you the truth I couldn't tell much difference from this speech and the first stimulus speech as far as what they plan to spend on, other than the language used ... It was about extending unemployment for the people that have lost jobs, I feel their pain however 2 years of government tit sucking is about enough don't you think? We heard how there are just gazillions of 'shovel ready' er, ahem, I'm sorry, "Infrastructure" jobs just waiting for the money to start....Then there is the wonderful $15 bucks a week token in tax cut that doesn't make one bit of difference in my overall budget, but gives him a way to say he cut taxes for me....pfft! give me a break.

Oh come on, be truthful, statistics can be molded, and shaped to say nearly anything anyone wants them to. I'll admit that when the numbers start flying back and forth being used as a defense, or an argument my eyes tend to glaze a bit....Right now though I don't trust a single number from anyone! The truth of the matter if you really dug deep and searched, that you were placed on his ignore list is probably more to do with at some point being a bit of a jack ass to him, rather than your claim. I only say that because that seems to be libs go to crutch when in debate, and a tactic that is well worn today, mockery and ridicule. You may think it funny, and biting, but in reality it is really boorish, rude, and just plain stupid.

So it doesn't matter if they can't pay for it, only that people will get mad and riot like children when their desert is taken away? How about future Greek generations, I guess the current crop of dumb asses just say screw them, I want mine now!

There is also a point where your tax rate becomes burdensome, and entities look for ways to avoid paying that tax is there not? Isn't that why many companies take their money off shore?

It is rather Twilight Zone of you to use a Corporation as your example when liberals end game today seems to be the destruction of such.

j-mac

Thanks, j-mac for the post and for the most part I agree with it, however in evaluating any performance results have to be quantified and the only way to do that is with data. Much of the data can indeed be manipulated which is why I always use bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Dept data. All is actual data including the information coming from the checkbook of the U.S. Can it be manipulated, or course but only if not put into context of the economic conditions at the time.

Data is what drives liberals crazy and leads to the personal attacks levied against individuals here. I can take the personal attacks up to a point but then it gets to the point of being over the top and will lead to putting someone on ignore either officially or simply ignoring their posts on the board.

When I post data I put it into context. I believe what OC is talking about is the Discouraged Workers data. That term, discouraged workers, came about in 1994 and was a way to eliminate workers from the unemployment count. I wonder if there is anyone here that believes discouraged workers aren't unemployed and shouldn't be counted? Now the question is the number for the month or cumulative? I still am not sure but I am not sure that it really matters. What matters is the labor force number and the total number employed which comes from the BLS. Regardless of what anyone thinks of BLS, it reports non partisan data,like it or not. That data didn't seem to be a problem when Clinton was in the WH so why is it a problem now?

Anyway, I understand that data can cause the glazed look in some, but noticed that liberals have no problem posting data from places like the CBO even though they don't understand how CBO works. I will try to use less data but won't be communicating with those who generate personal attacks.

pbrauer · Sep 10, 2011

Conservative said:
What does that have to do with the fact that SS is a ponzi scheme and that you don't give a **** aboout the condition of the account? Why would anyone who put money into the account not expect to get their money back especially sinced they were forced to contribute?

Well no matter how much you claim that Social Security in a Ponzi scheme, it doesn't make it true. For you to claim that it is makes you look foolish and ignorant. Ponzi schemes are fraudulent because they entice investors by offering big rewards, but quickly run out of cash leaving future investors with nothing.

Gov. Perry may get the nomination with his rhetoric, but it come back to bite him in the ass in the general. Romney is also on shaky ground too because he has suggested privatizing Social Security in the past. Obama is blessed.

phattonez · Sep 10, 2011

obvious Child said:
That depends on how you define efficient. There's no question government wastes money. But at the same time, without government expenditures, we wouldn't have a nuclear industry, a space industry, commercial airlines, dozens of major drugs and many major medical breakthroughs. I don't see how spending money on a plant to make pet rocks is more efficient use of capital then using it on medical research.

Oh wow, you really think that private companies wouldn't have made planes, invested in space, invested in nuclear energy, or researched new medical techniques? People don't demand these things?

Just because the debt is still there doesn't mean they haven't cut enough. No one rational expects Greece to get rid of its debt quickly. But a sign of good governance is when debt reduction starts to come primarily from increased revenues from activity rather than cuts.

Yeah, taking more capital away from individuals is the best way to get more growth. :roll:

rocket88 · Sep 10, 2011

phattonez said:
invested in nuclear energy

Nuclear energy was discovered on the government's dime. So without the government, they wouldn't have any nuclear energy to invest in.

Conservative · Sep 10, 2011

pbrauer said:
Well no matter how much you claim that Social Security in a Ponzi scheme, it doesn't make it true. For you to claim that it is makes you look foolish and ignorant. Ponzi schemes are fraudulent because they entice investors by offering big rewards, but quickly run out of cash leaving future investors with nothing.

Gov. Perry may get the nomination with his rhetoric, but it come back to bite him in the ass in the general. Romney is also on shaky ground too because he has suggested privatizing Social Security in the past. Obama is blessed.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Keep saying it isn't a duck, but that doesn't make it anything other than a duck.

In the case of SS you aren't enticed to invest, you are forced to contribute.

1Perry · Sep 10, 2011

obvious Child said:
You're going to have to clarify that.

Obama says he is wanting to further cut the payroll tax. (Social Security). Why is he wanting to do this? To give people more money to spend. So if we simply have to raise them later to make up for the shortage we are going to create, is that not going to curb spending?

pbrauer · Sep 10, 2011

Conservative said:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Keep saying it isn't a duck, but that doesn't make it anything other than a duck.

In the case of SS you aren't enticed to invest, you are forced to contribute.

Okay, so I guess I'll have chock it up to ignorance on your part. Social Security may look like a duck to YOU, but it isn't. The very fact that Social Security forces contributions makes it so unlike a Ponzi scheme, but you can keep up your delusion or ignorance if like.

1Perry · Sep 10, 2011

phattonez said:
Oh wow, you really think that private companies wouldn't have made planes, invested in space, invested in nuclear energy, or researched new medical techniques? People don't demand these things?

We currently have private companies doing all of those things.

Conservative · Sep 10, 2011

pbrauer said:
Okay, so I guess I'll have chock it up to ignorance on your part. Social Security may look like a duck to YOU, but it isn't. The very fact that Social Security forces contributions makes it so unlike a Ponzi scheme, but you can keep up your delusion or ignorance if like.

You really have been brainwashed and I am sorry to hear that. You simply cannot believe that the govt. has lied to you but it has. Your money contributed has long been spent and now someone else is paying you. That wasn't the intent of SS and that is what makes it a ponzi scheme.

winston53660 · Sep 10, 2011

Conservative said:
You really have been brainwashed and I am sorry to hear that. You simply cannot believe that the govt. has lied to you but it has. Your money contributed has long been spent and now someone else is paying you. That wasn't the intent of SS and that is what makes it a ponzi scheme.

So what makes you right?

Boo Radley · Sep 10, 2011

Conservative said:
You really have been brainwashed and I am sorry to hear that. You simply cannot believe that the govt. has lied to you but it has. Your money contributed has long been spent and now someone else is paying you. That wasn't the intent of SS and that is what makes it a ponzi scheme.

A pnzi scheme. Someone is picking up on a tag line.

Anyway, ponzi scheme:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors.
Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, when we contribute to SS, for this to be the same, we must consider it an investment in which we profit not from our own money, but through some stock we invest in that makes money for us.

Ponzi vs. Social Security

Social Security is and always has been either a "pay-as-you-go" system or one that was partially advance-funded. Its structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes or chain letters or pyramid schemes.

The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days.

Social Security Online - HISTORY, Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security

Now I know it is hard to ignore a good tag line and be honest about things. In our world today lies too often have more traction than the turth. But remember, for this to happen, the liar needs those willing to accpet the lie and not think at all as to whether it is a lie or the truth.

phattonez · Sep 10, 2011

rocket88 said:
Nuclear energy was discovered on the government's dime. So without the government, they wouldn't have any nuclear energy to invest in.

If A therefore B does not mean if not A therefore not B.

For instance, you could say if it is raining the grass is wet. That does not mean that if it is not raining that the grass is not wet. You could have dew, sprinklers, etc.

rocket88 · Sep 10, 2011

phattonez said:
If A therefore B does not mean if not A therefore not B.

For instance, you could say if it is raining the grass is wet. That does not mean that if it is not raining that the grass is not wet. You could have dew, sprinklers, etc.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't have happened eventually, but the fact is that it did not happen without the government. While you can't say if not A therefore not B, you also can't say if not A therefore B, which is what you're trying to do.

Would nuclear energy have been discovered without the government? Maybe. Probably. Nobody really knows for sure because it didn't happen that way.

phattonez · Sep 10, 2011

rocket88 said:
I'm not saying that it wouldn't have happened eventually, but the fact is that it did not happen without the government. While you can't say if not A therefore not B, you also can't say if not A therefore B, which is what you're trying to do.

Would nuclear energy have been discovered without the government? Maybe. Probably. Nobody really knows for sure because it didn't happen that way.

Then you can't make the argument as you tried to do that nuclear power would not have existed if not for government.

Kushinator · Sep 10, 2011

Paul Krugman On the Inadequacy of the Stimulus

Krugman said:
Hmm. I don’t think I’ve ever put up a simple explanation of why the stimulus was so clearly inadequate to the task. By the way, my point here is not what Obama shoulda-coulda done; I just want to look at the straight economics.

So here’s the thing: the financial crisis, and in particular the popping of the housing bubble, had two big effects on spending. One was that housing investment plunged from well-above-normal to well-below-normal levels. The other was that consumers suddenly increased their savings. Here’s a picture, with the red line showing residential construction as a percentage of GDP and the blue line showing the personal savings rate:

Krugman said:
Put these together and you have a negative shock on the order of 6 percent of GDP.

Against this you had a stimulus bill of $800 billion — except $100 billion of that was AMT extension that was going to happen anyway, another $200 billion was other tax cuts of dubious effectiveness, so you were left with $500 billion of spending, spread over more than 2 years — maybe 1.5 percent of GDP or less.

A quality read for those interested in the political economy.

phattonez · Sep 10, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
Paul Krugman On the Inadequacy of the Stimulus

An quality read for those interested in the political economy.

The constant excuse, that the spending was simply not enough. Tell me, do you have any examples besides WWII where spending actually did solve anything? Because even in WWII, you have this problem:

US-Government-Spending-As-Percent-Of-GDP-Fiscal-Ye-43054341693.png

Take away government spending and you have negative GDP growth during WWII.

Kushinator · Sep 10, 2011

phattonez said:
The constant excuse, that the spending was simply not enough. Tell me, do you have any examples besides WWII where spending actually did solve anything? Because even in WWII, you have this problem:

There has been no other time (not even post 9/11) since before WWII where the federal government was put into a position to have to spend in order to prevent economic free fall.

Take away government spending and you have negative GDP growth during WWII.

Ok.

You of course would have preferred double digit UE until the economy was able to "dig its way out".

phattonez · Sep 10, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
There has been no other time (not even post 9/11) since before WWII where the federal government was put into a position to have to spend in order to prevent economic free fall.

Ok.

You of course would have preferred double digit UE until the economy was able to "dig its way out".

The point is that WWII didn't solve anything. The economy only truly began to recover after WWII when regulations were finally relaxed.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 10, 2011

Conservative said:
When I post data I put it into context. I believe what OC is talking about is the Discouraged Workers data. That term, discouraged workers, came about in 1994 and was a way to eliminate workers from the unemployment count.

Your problem is you don't understand much of the data you post and the data you do understand, you misrepresent. Like the discouraged workers OC mentioned; you thought the numbers you were posting were totals when they were actually cumulative. Like you not understanding the difference between nominal figures from real figures. And then there's your blatant dishonesty where you cherry-pick data that you find most favorable de la minute. Case in point, point out how there was a net gain of 23 million jobs created during Clinton's 8 years, and you insist that doesn't count because it comes from BLS's payroll data, that you have to use household survey data; but then here you are criticizing Obama for zero net jobs gained for August, even though that number comes from BLS's payroll data.

Don't think for a moment that your dishonesty goes unnoticed by the denizens here.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 10, 2011

Conservative said:
Your money contributed has long been spent and now someone else is paying you. That wasn't the intent of SS and that is what makes it a ponzi scheme.

Sounds like a bank, to me. :shrug:

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 10, 2011

phattonez said:
The point is that WWII didn't solve anything. The economy only truly began to recover after WWII when regulations were finally relaxed.

Not true. GDP:

1938	-3.4
1939	8.1
1940	8.8
1941	17.1
1942	18.5
1943	16.4
1944	8.1
1945	-1.1
1946	-10.9

GDP was way up before we even entered the war, though much of that growth was due to preperation for it.

phattonez · Sep 10, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Not true. GDP:

1938 -3.4
1939 8.1
1940 8.8
1941 17.1
1942 18.5
1943 16.4
1944 8.1
1945 -1.1
1946 -10.9

GDP was way up before we even entered the war, though much of that growth was due to preperation for it.

Someone missed my point about GDP minus government spending.

obvious Child · Sep 10, 2011

j-mac said:
He laid out the priorities, and to tell you the truth I couldn't tell much difference from this speech and the first stimulus speech as far as what they plan to spend on,other than the language used ... It was about extending unemployment for the people that have lost jobs, I feel their pain however 2 years of government tit sucking is about enough don't you think? We heard how there are just gazillions of 'shovel ready' er, ahem, I'm sorry, "Infrastructure" jobs just waiting for the money to start....Then there is the wonderful $15 bucks a week token in tax cut that doesn't make one bit of difference in my overall budget, but gives him a way to say he cut taxes for me....pfft! give me a break.

Sounds like you didn't watch or read the transcript then. This bill is rather different in that it boosts the payroll tax cut, gives it to the employers as well, creates an infrastructure bank (which is a bit reminiscent of China's industry bank) and focuses primarily more on actual infrastructure jobs. The Stimulus bill was largely tax cuts coupled with direct payments to states who used that money on all sorts of completely unrelated to infrastructure spending programs.

Oh come on, be truthful, statistics can be molded, and shaped to say nearly anything anyone wants them to.

Not the BLS data. Furthermore, his complete lack of any thinking is a sign he simply does not get it. To a rational person, the fact that the Total US working population is around 160 million suggests that the column showing that number is cumulative. Furthermore, BLS data does not mix cumulative and noncumulative unless stated. Conservative completely failed to realize this and cast it ALL as cumulative. Meaning the US population basically doubles monthly. You don't need to be a genius to figure this out. Only to have some basic critical thinking skills. He has demonstrated he does not.

I'll admit that when the numbers start flying back and forth being used as a defense, or an argument my eyes tend to glaze a bit....Right now though I don't trust a single number from anyone! The truth of the matter if you really dug deep and searched, that you were placed on his ignore list is probably more to do with at some point being a bit of a jack ass to him, rather than your claim.

On the contrary, right after I made the poll mocking him, he completely stopped responding to me.

I only say that because that seems to be libs go to crutch when in debate, and a tactic that is well worn today, mockery and ridicule. You may think it funny, and biting, but in reality it is really boorish, rude, and just plain stupid.

Mockery is only the useful tool against someone who lacks the basic maturity and intelligence to reflect upon their own refuted positions. When you cannot figure out that data is cumulative, there's little I can do for you.

So it doesn't matter if they can't pay for it, only that people will get mad and riot like children when their desert is taken away? How about future Greek generations, I guess the current crop of dumb asses just say screw them, I want mine now!

So basic services like police and fire should be sacrificed?

There is also a point where your tax rate becomes burdensome, and entities look for ways to avoid paying that tax is there not? Isn't that why many companies take their money off shore?

No not really. The notion of lower taxes as a reason for offshoring is a myth. The primary reason is labor costs. Considering how labor costs often are above 50% of costs to many businesses, where taxes are a tiny portion, it's the labor that's driving it. South East Asia for the most part has higher taxes when China, but firms are starting to vacate China because the labor costs are rising. Furthermore, people tend to ignore that Amnerica has basically socialized infrastructure. Firms ted not to go overseas because the local governments require them to put in all of the improvements. Manufacturing hasn't moved to India partially because the Indian government refuses to pay for the costs to improve roads, electricity, sewage and water. An American corporation can pay nothing for years during the startup phase and basically get all of that for dirt cheap. If they went to a 3rd world country, they'd have to pony up the cash. Offshoring for tax reasons alone is a very ignorant position to have. And before you even mention Ireland, Ireland basically socialized infrastructure costs too at the same me as shoulding the costs to educate an English Speaking, but EU integrated population. Many firms moved there because it was cheaper in taxes, closer to the EU market, they didn't have to pay for infrastructure improvements and pay was lower there compared to America and Mainland Europe.

It is rather Twilight Zone of you to use a Corporation as your example when liberals end game today seems to be the destruction of such.

j-mac

It's pathetic that instead of an adult response, all you can do is label.

Nothing you said refutes my point regarding top line growth as a sign of better governance.

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

j-mac

Conservative

Conservative

pbrauer

phattonez

Catholic

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Conservative

1Perry

pbrauer

1Perry

Conservative

winston53660

Boo Radley

phattonez

Catholic

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

phattonez

Catholic

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

phattonez

Catholic

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

phattonez

Catholic

Sheik Yerbuti

Sheik Yerbuti

Sheik Yerbuti

phattonez

Catholic

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater