• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is impossible to say that it served us well. We don't know what would have happened if we let the market correct itself. It was a huge investment from a guy who said it was an unpatriotic act. It didn't make his estimate.

Well of course we are always guesstimating what *would* have happened but for what actually happened, aren't we? Otherwise how could you criticize President Obama?
 
Well of course we are always guesstimating what *would* have happened but for what actually happened, aren't we? Otherwise how could you criticize President Obama?

You don't have any problem giving him credit based upon those projections that were false. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
You don't have any problem giving him credit based upon those projections that were false. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

No, I don't have a problem with it. The issue was how the stimulus would perform relative to no stimulus. In that respect they were on target.
 
No, I don't have a problem with it. The issue was how the stimulus would perform relative to no stimulus. In that respect they were on target.

Again, you have no idea what no stimulus would have done but we do have evidence of what a poorly administered and focused stimulus would do.
 
Again, you have no idea what no stimulus would have done but we do have evidence of what a poorly administered and focused stimulus would do.

And of course you have no evidence what would have happened without the stimulus, either. But we do have the majority of economists who think that it boosted employment by about 3 million and increased GDP by close to 2.5%.
 
And of course you have no evidence what would have happened without the stimulus, either. But we do have the majority of economists who think that it boosted employment by about 3 million and increased GDP by close to 2.5%.

So GDP last year of 1.9% obviously was wrong too since the stimulus increased GDP by 2.5%. Please cite those saved jobs and how many of them were state responsibility jobs?
 
So GDP last year of 1.9% obviously was wrong too since the stimulus increased GDP by 2.5%. Please cite those saved jobs and how many of them were state responsibility jobs?


Obviously the stimulus started running out after 2010, which in part explains the backsliding in the early part of last year. And in any case, the stimulus made a (roughly) +2.5% change in GDP, so your observation is irrelevant. In other words, if nominal GDP growth would have been -0.5%, the stimulus would have added 2.5% = 2.0% growth. You continue to stuggle with basic arithmetic.
 
Well of course we are always guesstimating what *would* have happened but for what actually happened, aren't we? Otherwise how could you criticize President Obama?

Actually I criticize Bush and Obama for what they did. There are sound economic arguements against what they did. But putting money into the coffers for election mean to much.
 
Obviously the stimulus started running out after 2010, which in part explains the backsliding in the early part of last year. And in any case, the stimulus made a (roughly) +2.5% change in GDP, so your observation is irrelevant. In other words, if nominal GDP growth would have been -0.5%, the stimulus would have added 2.5% = 2.0% growth. You continue to stuggle with basic arithmetic.

The stimulus was a band-aid and fought against market correction.
 
Kinda looks like we managed to make a few quid by lending money to AIG(much like the auto industry)as well.:2wave:

<The money has been coming back in bits and pieces, with the sale of assets and occasional payments to Treasury. Yesterday, a component of the rescue was formally wound down — at a profit to taxpayers.>


<On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that it sold the last of the holdings of Maiden Lane II — securities with a face value of about $6 billion — to Credit Suisse. Combined with earlier sales, the sales generated enough revenues to pay off the last of the $19.5 billion owed to the Fed, pay $1 billion to AIG and leave $2.8 billion leftover for the Fed as profits — which will be turned over to taxpayers and help reduce the deficit.>


AIG Rescue Component Closes
 
Obviously the stimulus started running out after 2010, which in part explains the backsliding in the early part of last year. And in any case, the stimulus made a (roughly) +2.5% change in GDP, so your observation is irrelevant. In other words, if nominal GDP growth would have been -0.5%, the stimulus would have added 2.5% = 2.0% growth. You continue to stuggle with basic arithmetic.

Obviously, but by definition a stimulus was supposed to be short term and what was supposed to happen is leadership kicks in and keeps the economy going. Obama however lacks leadership and thus this is the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. When are you going to admit that Obama is a failure.
 
Kinda looks like we managed to make a few quid by lending money to AIG(much like the auto industry)as well.:2wave:

<The money has been coming back in bits and pieces, with the sale of assets and occasional payments to Treasury. Yesterday, a component of the rescue was formally wound down — at a profit to taxpayers.>


<On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that it sold the last of the holdings of Maiden Lane II — securities with a face value of about $6 billion — to Credit Suisse. Combined with earlier sales, the sales generated enough revenues to pay off the last of the $19.5 billion owed to the Fed, pay $1 billion to AIG and leave $2.8 billion leftover for the Fed as profits — which will be turned over to taxpayers and help reduce the deficit.>


AIG Rescue Component Closes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-4th-quarter/2012/02/29/gIQApweAiR_story.html
 
Kinda looks like we managed to make a few quid by lending money to AIG(much like the auto industry)as well.:2wave:

<The money has been coming back in bits and pieces, with the sale of assets and occasional payments to Treasury. Yesterday, a component of the rescue was formally wound down — at a profit to taxpayers.>


<On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that it sold the last of the holdings of Maiden Lane II — securities with a face value of about $6 billion — to Credit Suisse. Combined with earlier sales, the sales generated enough revenues to pay off the last of the $19.5 billion owed to the Fed, pay $1 billion to AIG and leave $2.8 billion leftover for the Fed as profits — which will be turned over to taxpayers and help reduce the deficit.>


AIG Rescue Component Closes

Mortgage giant Fannie Mae asks government for almost $4.6 billion after posting 4Q loss - The Washington Post
 
You would have been smart to leave that one alone after I clued you in [with 'seriously?'] to the ignorance of drawing a connection between new jobless claims and discouraged workers.

New jobless claims are people who recently became unemployed and have just begun looking for work, which is a prerequisite to collecting unemployment benefits. Discouraged workers are people who are unemployed less than 12 month who have not looked for work for at least 4 weeks.

The two categories have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You were a fool for thinking otherwise and Conservative is a desperate fool for 'liking' your mistake. But then again, he constantly demonstrates his need to try to better me, even by proxy of others more competent than himself.
Do you think discouraged workers just magically appear without drawing unemployment? You are a partisan, aren't you?

I just have to smile when I think of how smart you believe you are.
 
Now try explaining what a person who hasn't looked for a job for 4 weeks has to do with someone who is looking for a job who just filed their first jobless claim?
My goodness you are a dense one. Consider the effect of time. What do you suppose a likely first step is for one who stops looking for work? Just consider that the first step is the loss of a job.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. They don't. Which is why I was slamming Veritis and Conservative for trying to establish a connection between the two where none exists.

That was the nuance which eluded you for skipping to the end of the thread.
In your world there is no relationship between the person's first claim of unemployment benefits and later in time no longer looking....nothing about you surprises me.
 
In your world there is no relationship between the person's first claim of unemployment benefits and later in time no longer looking....nothing about you surprises me.
In my world, the number of people who are looking for work doesn't affect the number of people who aren't looking for work.
 
Do you think discouraged workers just magically appear without drawing unemployment? You are a partisan, aren't you?

I just have to smile when I think of how smart you believe you are.
It's not my fault you can't understand that by the time someone becomes a "discouraged worker," they haven't been counted as an "initial job claim" for at least 3 weeks.

The number of people filing new claims is not at all impacted by those who gave up looking. I'm sorry, but there's no plainer way to say that.
 
My goodness you are a dense one.
Hisses the person who thinks the weekly number of job seekers who first file for unemployment impacts the number of people who have stopped looking for work for at least 4 weeks.

Consider the effect of time. What do you suppose a likely first step is for one who stops looking for work? Just consider that the first step is the loss of a job.
There is no "effect of time" when looking at any particular date of "initial jobless claims" and "discouraged workers." By the time someone is considered "discouraged", they haven't been considered an "initial jobless claim" for at least 3 weeks or as long as a nearly a year.

I'll say this again, this time in crayon, maybe that will help you understand ...


The number of people filing new claims is not at all impacted by those who gave up looking for4 weeks.
 
Obviously, but by definition a stimulus was supposed to be short term and what was supposed to happen is leadership kicks in and keeps the economy going. Obama however lacks leadership and thus this is the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. When are you going to admit that Obama is a failure.

So you admit that the effect of any stimulus is short term, and yet you ask why it didn't have a long term effect? Typical.
 
So you admit that the effect of any stimulus is short term, and yet you ask why it didn't have a long term effect? Typical.

Stimulus' are always short term, where did you get the idea they were long term. Leadership has to kick in and the stimulus was designed to give the Congress and President time to turn things around, Obama has failed to show any leadership but that isn't surprising since his resume showed no experience in that area and only the Obama supporters who don't understand leadership don't get it.
 
Stimulus' are always short term, where did you get the idea they were long term. Leadership has to kick in and the stimulus was designed to give the Congress and President time to turn things around, Obama has failed to show any leadership but that isn't surprising since his resume showed no experience in that area and only the Obama supporters who don't understand leadership don't get it.

As ever, Obama could walk on water while laying golden eggs and turning blood into wine ... and you'd still manage to turn it into whine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom