Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 227

Thread: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

  1. #211
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    What would you have expected, now that you know that the differences result from incorporation of late reporting?
    I don't know anything of the kind.

    All I know is you said it.

    Would you take the word of someone with the ego of a mountain and the apparent emotional stability of a child?

    Neither would I.

    You may be correct. You may not. I do not know.

    But I sure am not taking the word of someone whom I hold in such low regard as you on it.

    The error is all yours as usual. There was no distinction made between jobs saved and jobs created in the CBO and various other public and private sector analyses of ARRA's progress.
    Riiiiight.

    You study that link I previously gave you about your 'condition' and let's move on as this is not the topic of this thread.


    Have a nice day.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-13-12 at 08:40 PM.

  2. #212
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    So then, what was the point of stating all those other 'reasons' if you admit they do not even collectively comprise the majority of the reason for the LFPR drop?
    I attested to no such thing. I point out only what should be obvious to anyone, namely that deciding to retire at the end of a long and successful career is NOT leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job. Choosing to stay at home to raise one's young children is similarly NOT leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job. And of course, choosing to invest in furthering one's education is also NOT leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Another useless rant meant to try and deflect responsibility for the inept handling of the economy from 'your boy' Obama?
    The right-wing does love its race card, eh? Otherwise, those whom Obaba brought along with him did a notable and praiseworthy thing in dealing with the out-of-control economic disaster left behind by Bush on both national and international levels. That was impressive by any standards. You are simply too cowed by Rush Limbaugh to admit it. He and his team also went beyond expectations in getting us out of the Bush-bungled debacle of Iraq. They became the first team to succeed at enacting national health care reform. They have consistently supported everyday Americans most impacted by the economic crisis. They even found time and a way to kill Osama bin Laden along the way. There is in fact an extensive list of milestones and achievements that this administration has brought about that all Americans should be able to applaud. Some just can't bring themselves to do it, though.

    Does everything that Obama has done since 2009 belong on that list? No, not at all. He should never for instance have let it be known that he had returned the bust of Winston Churchill that the British Embassy had lent to Bush, replacing it in the Oval Office with one of Dr. King. He should have known that the right-wing crazies would try to spin some idiot issue out of that. Could have just done it on the QT.
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 09-13-12 at 08:52 PM.

  3. #213
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    I attested to no such thing.
    Ummm...yes you did.

    My question was:

    'Are you saying that the majority of the drop in LFPR is not due to people simply leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job? Yes or no, please?'

    And your reply was 'no'.

    Which means that you agree that most people that left the work force did so out of frustration at not being able to find a job.

    You DID attest to just such a thing.




    The right-wing does love its race card, eh?
    Race card?

    Have you gone right off the deep end?


    Your Boy
    1. A good friend
    2. Your favourite person/role model

    Urban Dictionary: Your Boy

    I demand an apology from you on this.

    And when I do not get one - because I think I know you - I will report this to the mods.

    I doubt they will do much...but it will add to your file.

    And btw - I am NOT a right winger.


    Otherwise, those whom Obaba brought along with him did a notable and praiseworthy thing in dealing with the out-of-control economic disaster left behind by Bush on both national and international levels. That was impressive by any standards. You are simply too cowed by Rush Limbaugh to admit it. He and his team also went beyond expectations in getting us out of the Bush-bungled debacle of Iraq. They became the first team to succeed at enacting national health care reform. They have consistently supported everyday Americans most impacted by the economic crisis. They even found time and a way to klill Osama bin Laden along the way. There is in fact an extensive list of milestones and achievements that this administration has brought about that all Americans should be able to applaud. Some just can't bring themselves to do it, though.

    Does everything that Obama has done since 2009 belong on that list? No, not at all. He should never for instance have let it be known that he had returned the bust of Winston Churchill that the British Embassy had lent to Bush, replacing it in the Oval Office with one of Dr. King. He should have known that the right-wing crazies would try to spin some issue out of that. Could have just dne it on the QT.
    List of Obama's Lies | Barack Obama Lies

    let's see what he has done:

    - he ramped up the deficit by about $6 trillion.

    - food stamp usage has skyrocketed by about 40%

    - average new home prices are WAY below what they were

    - the unemployment rate is worse

    - the participation rate is the worst since 1981

    - he ramped up the war in Afghanistan with disastrous consequences.

    - Gitmo is still open (despite some people's delusional thoughts that it is closed)

    - he has NEVER posted a deficit of less then a trillion dollars

    And these are just off of the top of my head.


    The guy may be a very interesting fellow. And as I have stated before, I would love to have a beer with the man.

    But as a POTUS? Your boy is a first class failure.

    The following was what he should have told America before the last election:

    'My promise to America is - by 2012 - to increase the federal debt by $6 trillion dollars, raise the unemployment rate, lower the average resale value of your houses and make sure 40% more people are on food stamps.'
    Last edited by DA60; 09-13-12 at 09:25 PM.

  4. #214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    True or false? The DOW and unemployment rate returned to near pre-1920/21 depression levels within 3 1/2 years despite the fact that government spending under Wilson and Harding was drastically cut? True or false, please?
    False. Through simply being false and through deliberately duplicitous non-specificity and irrelevance. To deal with the plain untruth first, the unemployment rate in both 1918 and 1919 was 1.4 percent, a level that was not seen again until 1944. You have further of course persisted in refusal to explain why you are citing volatile stock market indexes (though the reasons are to facilitate cherry-picking and to avoid the implications of GNP data), and you have not defined what "near pre-1920/21 depression levels" is meant to comprise, whether "within 3 1/2 years" refers only to the end of such an interval or to any point at all within it, and what the threshhold for "drastically cut" might have been. These sorts of weasel-wording are dishonest Madison Avenue-speak wormholes, being little different from touting "up to 50% off", a claim that excludes only discounts that are above 50%. 0% lies squarely within that range.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    1) Did the national debt under Hoover go up or down? Which is it, please?
    LOL! Public debt declined in every year from 1920 through 1930. It then increased in every year from 1931 through 1946. There were bigger fish to fry than what you seem able to reel in.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    I use those times because they are 3 months after FDR took over (and the initial, temporary DOW rebound from his Emergency Banking Act) until 6 months after Pearl Harbor (when the U.S. war economy was gearing up).
    Really. FDR was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. By June 4, the DOW had increased from 53.84 to 90.02. Six months after Pearl Harbor (June 6, 1942 -- the market was closed on the 7th), it stood at 104.52. Where is your decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    And those numbers I posted are facts btw.
    No, they are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    From mid' 33 until mid' 42, the umployment rate averaged 17+% and the DOW actually went down...despite huge increases in government debt.
    The second claim has been shown to be false, but why again an average unemployment rate? Is that because even an annual time series would show the horrific unemployment of the Great Depression sharply and steadily declining under FDR until the point when he foolishly began listening to his "balance the budget" advisors? Would there have been an immediate spike in the unemployment rate at that point in time, followed again by sharp declines as FDR returned to Keynesian measures? Well, yes, that's exactly what it would show, but you want to cover that up by referring only to an average rate. That's simply an intellectual fraud. One of many.

  5. #215
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    False.
    The depression started in January 1920. Unemployment was indeed 1.4% in 1919. And the DOW was around 108.

    By 1921, unemployment was at 11.7% and the DOW as low as 63.80 (in latter 1920).

    Yet, within 3.5 years of the depression beginning, the unemployment rate was 2.4% and the DOW was up to 105+.

    All while the government MASSIVELY cut spending.

    Depression of 1920

    Dow Jones Industrial Average (1920 - 1940 Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com


    And Cardinal Fang does not consider that close.



    Noted.

    Really. FDR was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. By June 4, the DOW had increased from 53.84 to 90.02. Six months after Pearl Harbor (June 6, 1942 -- the market was closed on the 7th), it stood at 104.52. Where is your decline?
    I said from 'mid '33 until 'mid '42. I did not specify dates.

    mid
    adjective
    1.
    being at or near the middle point of: in mid autumn.

    Mid | Define Mid at Dictionary.com


    In mid '33, the DOW peaked at near 108.

    By mid '42, it dropped to a low of 92.92.

    Dow Jones Industrial Average (1920 - 1940 Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

    So technically, we are both right about the DOW performance...though well spotted on your part.


    But the facts remain the same - between roughly six months after FDR took office and roughly 6 months after Pearl harbor, the DOW went down and the unemployment rate averaged over 17%. It was still 17.2% in 1939 (FIVE times what it was before the crash).
    This despite the fact that FDR (and Hoover) skyrocketed the national debt.

    I'd call that a failure.

    The Great Depression Statistics

    Yet, during 1920/21, massive government cutbacks helped result in the unemployment rate and the DOW going back to near pre-depression levels (1.4/2.4 & 108/105, respectively) all with a DECLINE in the national debt of over 10% between 1920 and 1923.

    I'd call that a success.


    Let's put that another way.

    What took Wilson/Harding 3.5 years to do (get the unemployment rate/DOW back to near pre-depression levels) - all while LOWERING the national debt by 10% using Austrian-style economics.

    It took Hoover/FDR over 12 years to accomplish (and even then, the DOW at it's peak during those 12 years was still barely half what it was at it's 1929 peak) - all by TRIPLING the national debt by 1941 alone using Keynesian-style economics.


    Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1900 - 1949


    Anyone that calls the former a failure and the latter a success is a macroeconomic ignoramus of the FIRST magnitude.



    Have a VERY nice day.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-13-12 at 11:52 PM.

  6. #216
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    I'm saying that your claim that Percentages are a way to spin real numbers, by making everything relative was incorrect for a very elementary reason. A state of chronological childhood was plainly not implied, but then there have been disturbing patterns of problems with English comprehension around here.
    So youre saying Im an idiot who doesnt understand english?

  7. #217
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    And should I suppose that you were aware that the word "largest" has meaning only relative to some other set of things?
    ...which is why your "FYI, the stimulus bill provided the largest two-year tax cut in US history" claim is meaningless unless you specify what that "other set of things" is... of course you don't want to do that because you don't like being laughed at.

  8. #218
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Clearly, you have hit on the one and only way to increase oil production. It is surprising no one thought of it sooner!
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #219
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Clearly, you have hit on the one and only way to increase oil production. It is surprising no one thought of it sooner!
    Yea, and I am working hard on it too. DanaRhea Elliott - Musician and wildcatter. LOL.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #220
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    So where are your links to unbiased facts that proves that the recovery happened primarily due to efforts by Obama and/or the Fed?
    Hmmm. The traditional "I don't really have anything relevant to say" post, plus this is hardly the complete list. For one thing, out of an inherited attitude of global anger and resentment toward the US born of Bush's eight years of arrogant unilateralism concluded in the export of a Made-in-America financial crisis and looming global depression, Geithner and Obama were able use the Spring 2009 G-20 meetings to craft a consensus approach to the problem that saw virtually every significant economy (down to the likes of Thailand and Vietnam) run a stimulus program to restore liquidity and shore up demand in both national and international markets. In an increasingly global world, the success of those efforts was extremely important in paving the way to recovery. The disinformation media may not have reported on it much of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    And where are your links to unbiased facts that proves that the recovery was not simply the result of the Great Recession bottoming out and slowly rebounding 'on it's own'?
    Fix itself? LOL!!! Do you know what a self-reinforcing downward spiral is? Bush didn't. He was as clueless as ever. The fundamentals of the economy are strong. What a bunch of hapless dupes and liars.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    The Fed lowering interest rates way too low and for too long, Bush pushing through his incredibly naive low income housing program and Congress's willingness to go along are what (imo) primarily started the housing bubble.
    So we agree that Bush, Greenspan, and the Republican Congress were all heavily culpable. Of course, programs to increase access to home ownership have been on the agenda of every modern President, so I don't know why you mention those. Maybe there was something about Bush's programs in particualr that was flawed? And you kind of left out the signficant roles played by rapacious unregulated private brokers, crooked property appraisers, the profit-mad private-label securitization shops suddenly built out by Wall Street, and the no-account bond-rating agencies. No tip of the hat either to Bush's Tax Cuts for the Rich. If those hadn't failed so spectacularly, there would have been no need for a Fed promise to keep interest rates at near-zero levels until economic activity picked up. Those are all pretty big pieces of the pie to be leaving out, but you didn't get around to any of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    And I would hardly call those 'free market'.
    Markets are wise enough to regulate themselves. That would be well to the right of Adam Smith. Even he knew better than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    That is macroeconomic government meddling if I ever saw it.
    So refusing to meddle is just another form of meddling. Deregulation is just a style of regulation. Lifting limits is a means of imposing them. The contortions you have to put yourself through are laughable.
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 09-14-12 at 01:50 PM.

Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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