Page 157 of 197 FirstFirst ... 57107147155156157158159167 ... LastLast
Results 1,561 to 1,570 of 1961

Thread: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

  1. #1561
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You mean when the republican house took over and GDP growth went to hell?
    Not to mention, in 1982 Q2, GDP posted a 2.2% increase under Reagan's policies. The next two quarters had -1.5% and .3%, which, by Conservative's standards, means Reagan really sucked.

    GDP Percent Change by Year (Adjusted for Inflation in 2005 Dollars)

    1982q2 2.2
    1982q3 -1.5
    1982q4 0.3

  2. #1562
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Jryan View Post
    I don't disagree... Hey, I even gave you a like .
    That doesn't make a lot of sense but thanks for admitting that you were wrong, not refute the data in the posts instead of posting trends that mean nothing especially when 4.2 trillion has been added to generate worse employment and worse unemployment than was inherited. Reagan did a much better job at much lower costs and ended up generating 17 million jobs in 8 years. Obama has a 2.6 million net job loss after three

    Obama economic results in 2011,
    .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
    25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
    2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
    4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
    Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
    Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
    38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)

  3. #1563
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    Not to mention, in 1982 Q2, GDP posted a 2.2% increase under Reagan's policies. The next two quarters had -1.5% and .3%, which, by Conservative's standards, means Reagan really sucked.

    GDP Percent Change by Year (Adjusted for Inflation in 2005 Dollars)

    1982q2 2.2
    1982q3 -1.5
    1982q4 0.3
    Think that the working people during the 80's that generated those GDP numbers compared them to 2005 prices? Think the debt created in the 80's created debt service in 2005 prices? Amazingly distorted analysis

  4. #1564
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Think that the working people during the 80's that generated those GDP numbers compared them to 2005 prices? Think the debt created in the 80's created debt service in 2005 prices? Amazingly distorted analysis
    I am going to explain this one more time. Please, try to read it. I'm serious, it's really simple and really important when discussing GDP. You could make those numbers be any year. It will not change their ratio. Adjust them to 1981 dollars if you want, it doesn't matter. Whatever year dollar you choose, that ratio will be exactly the same.

    The only key is that all of the years be adjusted for the same year's dollars. Do you want to see my tutorial again? I thought it did a good job explaining why you need to adjust for inflation, and I am pretty sure you never read it. I will copy and paste it for you if you want?

  5. #1565
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    I am going to explain this one more time. Please, try to read it. I'm serious, it's really simple and really important when discussing GDP. You could make those numbers be any year. It will not change their ratio. Adjust them to 1981 dollars if you want, it doesn't matter. Whatever year dollar you choose, that ratio will be exactly the same.

    The only key is that all of the years be adjusted for the same year's dollars. Do you want to see my tutorial again? I thought it did a good job explaining why you need to adjust for inflation, and I am pretty sure you never read it. I will copy and paste it for you if you want?
    Look, I understand what you are trying to do however what happened in the 80's is relevant to the 80's not the present, expenses and revenue are in 80's dollars, not 2005 chained dollars. It really is simple, the American people benefited from the Reagan economy and haven't benefited from the Obama economy. 17 million jobs were created during the Reagan years and so far we have a net loss of 2.6 million with no end in site. Don't really care about ratios or percentage change because neither means a damn thing to the average American.

    I posted the actual dollars of GDP generated by Reagan from 1980 which was the base until the end of his economic policy 1989. If you want to drop off 1989 so be it, still excellent economic results that generated actual job creation.

    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

  6. #1566
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Look, I understand what you are trying to do however what happened in the 80's is relevant to the 80's not the present, expenses and revenue are in 80's dollars, not 2005 chained dollars. It really is simple, the American people benefited from the Reagan economy and haven't benefited from the Obama economy. 17 million jobs were created during the Reagan years and so far we have a net loss of 2.6 million with no end in site. Don't really care about ratios or percentage change because neither means a damn thing to the average American.

    I posted the actual dollars of GDP generated by Reagan from 1980 which was the base until the end of his economic policy 1989. If you want to drop off 1989 so be it, still excellent economic results that generated actual job creation.

    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
    First of all, you posted numbers from 1980-1989 - that's 9 years of numbers. Secondly, I don't think you are grasping the idea of inflation adjusted numbers - still! Let me put it to you this way:

    Let's say I tell you the mean salary someone has is $30,000. The first reaction you'll get is, wow, that's low. Now, if I tell that was their salary in 1981, all of the sudden, that number is not nearly as bad. If you adjust that salary from 1981 to 2010, that person was making $71,018.00 in today's dollars. Do you see why that is such a discrepancy? I am sorry, I just don't see how I can make it any more clear. If it wasn't important, why would they include it on every database?

    The Importance Of Inflation And GDP
    GDP
    Gross domestic product in the United States represents the total aggregate output of the U.S. economy. It is important to keep in mind that the GDP figures as reported to investors are already adjusted for inflation. In other words, if the gross GDP was calculated to be 6% higher than the previous year, but inflation measured 2% over the same period, GDP growth would be reported as 4%, or the net growth over the period.

  7. #1567
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    First of all, you posted numbers from 1980-1989 - that's 9 years of numbers. Secondly, I don't think you are grasping the idea of inflation adjusted numbers - still! Let me put it to you this way:

    Let's say I tell you the mean salary someone has is $30,000. The first reaction you'll get is, wow, that's low. Now, if I tell that was their salary in 1981, all of the sudden, that number is not nearly as bad. If you adjust that salary from 1981 to 2010, that person was making $71,018.00 in today's dollars. Do you see why that is such a discrepancy? I am sorry, I just don't see how I can make it any more clear. If it wasn't important, why would they include it on every database?

    The Importance Of Inflation And GDP
    He also likes to compare Obama's increase in debt/deficit to Reagan in nominal dollars and avoids all ratios. If we do the same in a comparison of Reagan to FDR suddenly he falls silent or starts bitching about the thread topic or does his copy and paste.

  8. #1568
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    First of all, you posted numbers from 1980-1989 - that's 9 years of numbers. Secondly, I don't think you are grasping the idea of inflation adjusted numbers - still! Let me put it to you this way:

    Let's say I tell you the mean salary someone has is $30,000. The first reaction you'll get is, wow, that's low. Now, if I tell that was their salary in 1981, all of the sudden, that number is not nearly as bad. If you adjust that salary from 1981 to 2010, that person was making $71,018.00 in today's dollars. Do you see why that is such a discrepancy? I am sorry, I just don't see how I can make it any more clear. If it wasn't important, why would they include it on every database?

    The Importance Of Inflation And GDP
    I find it interesting that you are worried about how GDP is compared between Administrations. I am not worried about GDP numbers but rather than how many jobs are created and how much tax revenue comes into the govt. You are getting down into weeds with this argument so tell me do you really believe that the voters in this country care about how much GDP comes in or how it is calculated? I can answer that, NO, they don't care, they care whether or not they have or can get a job and a growing GDP generates greater demand for jobs. A growing GDP also grows govt. revenue and both matter when you cut spending and increase govt revenue.

    What I pointed out in the Obama numbers is that the GDP for 2011 was very low and I should have put in 2010 numbers showing the decline. That is what matters not the actual numbers adjusted for inflation as there was very little inflation.
    Last edited by Conservative; 10-25-11 at 09:22 PM.

  9. #1569
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    He also likes to compare Obama's increase in debt/deficit to Reagan in nominal dollars and avoids all ratios. If we do the same in a comparison of Reagan to FDR suddenly he falls silent or starts bitching about the thread topic or does his copy and paste.
    Unlike some here debt service is the problem with the debt and the debt service is on the 1.7 trillion dollars created during the Reagan years vs. the debt service on the 4.2 trillion dollars during the Obama term. Which one is worse and costs the taxpayer more.

  10. #1570
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Republicans block Obama jobs bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Unlike some here debt service is the problem with the debt and the debt service is on the 1.7 trillion dollars created during the Reagan years vs. the debt service on the 4.2 trillion dollars during the Obama term. Which one is worse and costs the taxpayer more.
    If debt service was actually a concern of yours you would have never voted for Reagan considering it was an extraordinarily expensive time to accumulate debt.


    For example:


    Title: 10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate Series ID: GS10 Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Release: H.15 Selected Interest Rates Seasonal Adjustment: Not Applicable Frequency: Monthly Units: Percent Date Range: 1953-04-01 to 2011-09-01 Last Updated: 2011-10-12 4:31 PM CDT Notes: Averages of business days. For further information regarding treasury constant maturity data, please refer to http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...urrent/h15.pdf and Treasury Yield Curve Methodology. DATE 1980-08-01 11.10 1980-09-01 11.51 1980-10-01 11.75 1980-11-01 12.68 1980-12-01 12.84 1981-01-01 12.57 1981-02-01 13.19 1981-03-01 13.12 1981-04-01 13.68 1981-05-01 14.10 1981-06-01 13.47 1981-07-01 14.28 1981-08-01 14.94 1981-09-01 15.32 1981-10-01 15.15 1981-11-01 13.39 1981-12-01 13.72 1982-01-01 14.59 1982-02-01 14.43 1982-03-01 13.86 1982-04-01 13.87 1982-05-01 13.62 1982-06-01 14.30 1982-07-01 13.95 1982-08-01 13.06 1982-09-01 12.34 1982-10-01 10.91 1982-11-01 10.55 1982-12-01 10.54 1983-01-01 10.46 1983-02-01 10.72 1983-03-01 10.51 1983-04-01 10.40 1983-05-01 10.38 1983-06-01 10.85 1983-07-01 11.38 1983-08-01 11.85 1983-09-01 11.65 1983-10-01 11.54 1983-11-01 11.69 1983-12-01 11.83 1984-01-01 11.67 1984-02-01 11.84 1984-03-01 12.32 1984-04-01 12.63 1984-05-01 13.41 1984-06-01 13.56 1984-07-01 13.36 1984-08-01 12.72 1984-09-01 12.52 1984-10-01 12.16 1984-11-01 11.57 1984-12-01 11.50 1985-01-01 11.38 1985-02-01 11.51 1985-03-01 11.86 1985-04-01 11.43 1985-05-01 10.85 1985-06-01 10.16 1985-07-01 10.31 1985-08-01 10.33 1985-09-01 10.37 1985-10-01 10.24 1985-11-01 9.78 1985-12-01 9.26 1986-01-01 9.19 1986-02-01 8.70 1986-03-01 7.78 1986-04-01 7.30 1986-05-01 7.71 1986-06-01 7.80 1986-07-01 7.30 1986-08-01 7.17 1986-09-01 7.45 1986-10-01 7.43 1986-11-01 7.25 1986-12-01 7.11 1987-01-01 7.08 1987-02-01 7.25 1987-03-01 7.25 1987-04-01 8.02 1987-05-01 8.61 1987-06-01 8.40 1987-07-01 8.45 1987-08-01 8.76 1987-09-01 9.42 1987-10-01 9.52 1987-11-01 8.86 1987-12-01 8.99 1988-01-01 8.67 1988-02-01 8.21 1988-03-01 8.37 1988-04-01 8.72 1988-05-01 9.09 1988-06-01 8.92 1988-07-01 9.06 1988-08-01 9.26 1988-09-01 8.98 1988-10-01 8.80 1988-11-01 8.96 1988-12-01 9.11 1989-01-01 9.09 1989-02-01 9.17 1989-03-01 9.36 1989-04-01 9.18 1989-05-01 8.86 1989-06-01 8.28 1989-07-01 8.02 1989-08-01 8.11 1989-09-01 8.19 1989-10-01 8.01 1989-11-01 7.87 1989-12-01 7.84 1990-01-01 8.21 1990-02-01 8.47 1990-03-01 8.59 1990-04-01 8.79 1990-05-01 8.76 1990-06-01 8.48 1990-07-01 8.47 1990-08-01 8.75 1990-09-01 8.89 1990-10-01 8.72 1990-11-01 8.39 1990-12-01 8.08 1991-01-01 8.09 1991-02-01 7.85 1991-03-01 8.11 1991-04-01 8.04 1991-05-01 8.07 1991-06-01 8.28 1991-07-01 8.27 1991-08-01 7.90 1991-09-01 7.65 1991-10-01 7.53 1991-11-01 7.42 1991-12-01 7.09 1992-01-01 7.03 1992-02-01 7.34 1992-03-01 7.54 1992-04-01 7.48 1992-05-01 7.39 1992-06-01 7.26 1992-07-01 6.84 1992-08-01 6.59 1992-09-01 6.42 1992-10-01 6.59 1992-11-01 6.87 1992-12-01 6.77 1993-01-01 6.60 1993-02-01 6.26 1993-03-01 5.98 1993-04-01 5.97 1993-05-01 6.04 1993-06-01 5.96 1993-07-01 5.81 1993-08-01 5.68 1993-09-01 5.36 1993-10-01 5.33 1993-11-01 5.72 1993-12-01 5.77 1994-01-01 5.75 1994-02-01 5.97 1994-03-01 6.48 1994-04-01 6.97 1994-05-01 7.18 1994-06-01 7.10 1994-07-01 7.30 1994-08-01 7.24 1994-09-01 7.46 1994-10-01 7.74 1994-11-01 7.96 1994-12-01 7.81 1995-01-01 7.78 1995-02-01 7.47 1995-03-01 7.20 1995-04-01 7.06 1995-05-01 6.63 1995-06-01 6.17 1995-07-01 6.28 1995-08-01 6.49 1995-09-01 6.20 1995-10-01 6.04 1995-11-01 5.93 1995-12-01 5.71 1996-01-01 5.65 1996-02-01 5.81 1996-03-01 6.27 1996-04-01 6.51 1996-05-01 6.74 1996-06-01 6.91 1996-07-01 6.87 1996-08-01 6.64 1996-09-01 6.83 1996-10-01 6.53 1996-11-01 6.20 1996-12-01 6.30 1997-01-01 6.58 1997-02-01 6.42 1997-03-01 6.69 1997-04-01 6.89 1997-05-01 6.71 1997-06-01 6.49 1997-07-01 6.22 1997-08-01 6.30 1997-09-01 6.21 1997-10-01 6.03 1997-11-01 5.88 1997-12-01 5.81 1998-01-01 5.54 1998-02-01 5.57 1998-03-01 5.65 1998-04-01 5.64 1998-05-01 5.65 1998-06-01 5.50 1998-07-01 5.46 1998-08-01 5.34 1998-09-01 4.81 1998-10-01 4.53 1998-11-01 4.83 1998-12-01 4.65 1999-01-01 4.72 1999-02-01 5.00 1999-03-01 5.23 1999-04-01 5.18 1999-05-01 5.54 1999-06-01 5.90 1999-07-01 5.79 1999-08-01 5.94 1999-09-01 5.92 1999-10-01 6.11 1999-11-01 6.03 1999-12-01 6.28 2000-01-01 6.66 2000-02-01 6.52 2000-03-01 6.26 2000-04-01 5.99 2000-05-01 6.44 2000-06-01 6.10 2000-07-01 6.05 2000-08-01 5.83 2000-09-01 5.80 2000-10-01 5.74 2000-11-01 5.72 2000-12-01 5.24 2001-01-01 5.16 2001-02-01 5.10 2001-03-01 4.89 2001-04-01 5.14 2001-05-01 5.39 2001-06-01 5.28 2001-07-01 5.24 2001-08-01 4.97 2001-09-01 4.73 2001-10-01 4.57 2001-11-01 4.65 2001-12-01 5.09 2002-01-01 5.04 2002-02-01 4.91 2002-03-01 5.28 2002-04-01 5.21 2002-05-01 5.16 2002-06-01 4.93 2002-07-01 4.65 2002-08-01 4.26 2002-09-01 3.87 2002-10-01 3.94 2002-11-01 4.05 2002-12-01 4.03 2003-01-01 4.05 2003-02-01 3.90 2003-03-01 3.81 2003-04-01 3.96 2003-05-01 3.57 2003-06-01 3.33 2003-07-01 3.98 2003-08-01 4.45 2003-09-01 4.27 2003-10-01 4.29 2003-11-01 4.30 2003-12-01 4.27 2004-01-01 4.15 2004-02-01 4.08 2004-03-01 3.83 2004-04-01 4.35 2004-05-01 4.72 2004-06-01 4.73 2004-07-01 4.50 2004-08-01 4.28 2004-09-01 4.13 2004-10-01 4.10 2004-11-01 4.19 2004-12-01 4.23 2005-01-01 4.22 2005-02-01 4.17 2005-03-01 4.50 2005-04-01 4.34 2005-05-01 4.14 2005-06-01 4.00 2005-07-01 4.18 2005-08-01 4.26 2005-09-01 4.20 2005-10-01 4.46 2005-11-01 4.54 2005-12-01 4.47 2006-01-01 4.42 2006-02-01 4.57 2006-03-01 4.72 2006-04-01 4.99 2006-05-01 5.11 2006-06-01 5.11 2006-07-01 5.09 2006-08-01 4.88 2006-09-01 4.72 2006-10-01 4.73 2006-11-01 4.60 2006-12-01 4.56 2007-01-01 4.76 2007-02-01 4.72 2007-03-01 4.56 2007-04-01 4.69 2007-05-01 4.75 2007-06-01 5.10 2007-07-01 5.00 2007-08-01 4.67 2007-09-01 4.52 2007-10-01 4.53 2007-11-01 4.15 2007-12-01 4.10 2008-01-01 3.74 2008-02-01 3.74 2008-03-01 3.51 2008-04-01 3.68 2008-05-01 3.88 2008-06-01 4.10 2008-07-01 4.01 2008-08-01 3.89 2008-09-01 3.69 2008-10-01 3.81 2008-11-01 3.53 2008-12-01 2.42 2009-01-01 2.52 2009-02-01 2.87 2009-03-01 2.82 2009-04-01 2.93 2009-05-01 3.29 2009-06-01 3.72 2009-07-01 3.56 2009-08-01 3.59 2009-09-01 3.40 2009-10-01 3.39 2009-11-01 3.40 2009-12-01 3.59 2010-01-01 3.73 2010-02-01 3.69 2010-03-01 3.73 2010-04-01 3.85 2010-05-01 3.42 2010-06-01 3.20 2010-07-01 3.01 2010-08-01 2.70 2010-09-01 2.65 2010-10-01 2.54 2010-11-01 2.76 2010-12-01 3.29 2011-01-01 3.39 2011-02-01 3.58 2011-03-01 3.41 2011-04-01 3.46 2011-05-01 3.17 2011-06-01 3.00 2011-07-01 3.00 2011-08-01 2.30 2011-09-01 1.98
    \
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GS10.txt

Posting Permissions

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