Page 40 of 199 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090140 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 1989

Thread: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

  1. #391
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    [...] White House data breaks the data into two tables, on-budget and off-budget. Off-budget runs a surplus every year.
    Off budget is mostly the Social Security Trust Fund receipts. That surplus will probably be drying up over the next decade (at which time a new round of borrowing will likely begin in order to redeem those bonds).

  2. #392
    Sage

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

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    Karl was looking at treasury receipts of total debt outstanding to determine yoy deficits. I told him that if he prefers that method he would have to acknowledge that there was no surplus (decrease in total debt outstanding) in 1999/2000.
    Okay fair enough.

    Most people miss that spending came in line revenue during that time period.

  3. #393
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Speaking of ignorance, let's examine that issue.

    Your claim: "all with the "warz" [...] intact".
    Your source, dated January 2007, claims: "The projection for discretionary spending implicitly assumes that no additional funding is provided for the war in Iraq in 2007" (PDF page 13).
    Gosh, whysoever did you leave the rest of the sentence off?

    and that future appropriations for activities related to the war on terrorism remain equivalent, in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, to the $70 billion appropriated so far this year.
    Could it be that you wanted to make it seem that all funding for the war would be ended? Or did you simply stop reading when you found something you thought you could use?

    All that it means is that it figured spending wouldn't be INCREASED. I said "intact," not "escalated" -- as in, continuing as it was.

    Further in the report it envisions much lower Iraq/Afghanistan troop levels by 2010 than were actually achieved (30,000, with as little as 75,000 being 'over budget'). (PDF page 89).
    Sure. After the Obama surge. And I said it was based on then-current assumptions, quite specifically.

    Your claim: "all with the [...] tax cuts intact."
    Your source claims: "Revenues are projected to rise from 18.6 percent of GDP this year to almost 20 percent of GDP in 2012 and then remain near that historically high level through 2017. Much of that increase results from [the Bush tax cuts] which are scheduled to expire by December 31, 2010." (also PDF page 13).
    Funny, THIS is what that paragraph says:

    Revenues are projected to rise from 18.6 percent of
    GDP this year to almost 20 percent of GDP in 2012
    and then remain near that historically high level
    through 2017. Much of that increase results from two
    aspects of current law that have been subject to recent
    policy changes: the growing impact of the alternative
    minimum tax (AMT) and, even more significantly,
    various provisions originally enacted in the Economic
    Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
    (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation
    Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) and modified by
    subsequent legislation, which are scheduled to expire
    by December 31, 2010.
    Which is a damn sight different than you present it.

    That's twice. Once is an oversight or an accident. Twice is deliberate. You simply lied about what it said.


    Clearly, both of your claims are contradicted by the source you present as proof of your claims. Around here we call that Epic Fail
    I'm afraid not. The deficit was disappearing (as shown in the previous post) and projected to be eliminated by FY2011, which would be reached BEFORE the calendar expiration of the tax cuts (even if you had presented that portion honestly).

    "Epic fail." Riiiight.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #394
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    What's the source of this chart please? Anybody can just draw a chart.
    Why it comes from the ‘favored’ source here on DP:

    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    From the note:

    Graph showing projected monthly U.S. Unemployment Rate with and without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the "Stimulus Package") versus the actual U.S. Unemployment Rate. The projected unemployment rate with and without ARRA 2009 is from President Barrack Obama's administration presented in January 2009 to justify the legislation: Romer, Christina; Bernstein, Jared (January 10, 2009), The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (http://www.ampo.org/assets/library/184_obama.pdf). The actual unemployment rate is from the U.S. Labor Department.

  5. #395
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    so how do you reckon they were moved out of the workforce?
    simple enough. they are no longer part of the "working population". functionally it works the same as when discouraged workers drop off the numbers.

  6. #396
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Off budget is mostly the Social Security Trust Fund receipts. That surplus will probably be drying up over the next decade (at which time a new round of borrowing will likely begin in order to redeem those bonds).

    ?

    dude. SS started running a deficit last year.

  7. #397
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Rather frustrating dealing with liberals these days. Nothing changes their mind including actual facts.
    Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  8. #398
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    Glad to hear the smart kids don't buy into that whole 'myth' of the Clinton surplus. White House data breaks the data into two tables, on-budget and off-budget. Off-budget runs a surplus every year.
    ON-budget ALSO runs a surplus though. Just FYI.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  9. #399
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    Karl was looking at treasury receipts of total debt outstanding to determine yoy deficits.
    Oh.

    That's sounds like the convoluted way that Clinton surplus deniers do it.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  10. #400
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Wiki is a horrible source.

    As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become increasingly concerned about the online, reader-produced encyclopedia.

    While plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries, and some have discouraged or tried to bar students from using it, the history department at Middlebury College is trying to take a stronger, collective stand. It voted this month to bar students from citing the Web site as a source in papers or other academic work. All faculty members will be telling students about the policy and explaining why material on Wikipedia -- while convenient -- may not be trustworthy.

    "As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation," said Don Wyatt, chair of the department. "Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation," he said.

    Read more: A Stand Against Wikipedia | Inside Higher Ed
    Inside Higher Ed

    Wiki is a source that anyone can go in and change...Sorry, just not reliable...

    Today's world is capable of sharing vast amounts of information at a rapid pace via the Internet. However, the accuracy of this information can be a serious question. Websites posing as genuine sources of knowledge or news are often serving their own hidden agenda under the guise of legitimacy. Nowhere is this more problematic than with the questionable process and ethics of Wikipedia.

    At first glance, Wikipedia appears above board. Its clever name is a play on the word encyclopedia, implying an unimpeachable and unbiased compilation of information. But like other salacious websites, Wikipedia is a haphazard collection of opinions subjectively presented as fact. It uses mostly unidentified people to submit ideas on any topic of their choosing, and rather than utilize professional fact checking, Wikipedia posts information and relies on corroboration from other random Internet posters.

    In fact, in its quest to make a profit and gain notoriety, Wikipedia appeases special interest influences by selectively presenting information that corresponds with their motivations. Wikipedia 'editors' spin these ideas to create a skewed version of reality that drastically varies on a day to day basis. To maintain this monopoly on misinformation, Wikipedia unilaterally determines when it has 'enough' content and "locks" it so that no other additional information - even powerful alternatives that prove inaccuracy - is considered to contest the fallacious version.

    Wikipedia is Wrong

    clearly an unreliable source.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Posting Permissions

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