• 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!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Gimmesometruth said:
Um, the economy is a heart attack victim still in need of anti-clotting IV drip, not an addict looking for a line.

I see you are succumbing to poor analogies instead of addressing my point.....how in the world would withdrawing QE improve the job market? Do you honestly believe that tightening the credit market will create more investment?
Click to expand...

do you honestly believe the problem is still liquidity? please.

we're almost fully transitioned from a national economy to a global one, and we're in the first stages of a post-labor economy. unlike the collapse of the ag labor economy, there is no industry which can pick up the slack for all of the displaced workers. given that our GDP is mostly consumer spending (which is helped by discretionary income,) it's not a surprise that we have been stagnant for years other than bubbles mostly generate by those who have money.

so yeah, i'd say it's a pretty damned bad idea to just sit around printing money. we need a devalued currency like we need a cancerous mole. QE was never meant to last forever, nor was the zero percent interest rate. it's like when the SS "discount" was finally rescinded and everyone feigned outrage over the tax "increase." it was never meant to be permanent; it was a short-term stimulus.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, the bond vigilantes have been threatening the dreaded interest rate monsters for how many years now.......and yet what happens to those sold US bonds as these (practically non-existent) interest rate increases happen? Why the values decrease.....funny that.



Amazing how you move goal posts within a sentence!
Click to expand...

Right, in a thread on unemployment there is no place for reporting unemployment numbers
 
Helix said:
do you honestly believe the problem is still liquidity? please.
Click to expand...
Yes, dearest Helix, we are still bumping against a zero bound, that is evident in the lack of real interest rate increases in spite of massive increases in the money supply.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Ah well, if tightening the credit supply won't help spur more growth/employment, then I guess the rest of your comment becomes moot.
Click to expand...

The rest of my post is the problem which you want to ignore. How does Obamacare, more regulations, higher taxes spur job creation and economic growth? Keep ignoring that Obama is the problem not the solution
 
Conservative said:
The rest of my post is the problem which you want to ignore. How does Obamacare, more regulations, higher taxes spur job creation and economic growth? Keep ignoring that Obama is the problem not the solution
Click to expand...
I ignore your laundry list since their contributions to limiting job growth is minimal to non-existent....and is off the topic.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I ignore your laundry list since their contributions to limiting job growth is minimal to non-existent....and is off the topic.
Click to expand...

LOL, how can anyone take you seriously with a comment like that? You don't believe increasing business costs affects hiring? Wow!
 
Conservative said:
LOL, how can anyone take you seriously with a comment like that? You don't believe increasing business costs affects hiring? Wow!
Click to expand...
Not even remotely close to how depressed demand restricts hiring.

Your priorities are way out of whack.

Not to mention that the topic still is the effect of lowered QE on employment.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Not even remotely close to how depressed demand restricts hiring.

Your priorities are way out of whack.

Not to mention that the topic still is the effect of lowered QE on employment.
Click to expand...

The topic of this thread is unemployment. Helix laid out a great case which you ignored. QE was to be short term not permanent. Govt. stimulus in a private sector economy generates the results you see today, stagnant economic growth and job creation, higher debt, and greater dependence on the govt which gets its money from the actual taxpayers.

You operate in a private sector economy yet promote massive govt. which shows really how little you understand about our economy. Higher taxes, forced healthcare, more regulations affect the economy long term and prevent job creation.
 
Conservative said:
The topic of this thread is unemployment. Helix laid out a great case which you ignored. QE was to be short term not permanent. Govt. stimulus in a private sector economy generates the results you see today, stagnant economic growth and job creation, higher debt, and greater dependence on the govt which gets its money from the actual taxpayers.

You operate in a private sector economy yet promote massive govt. which shows really how little you understand about our economy. Higher taxes, forced healthcare, more regulations affect the economy long term and prevent job creation.
Click to expand...
Helix posted a quote and a link I doubt either one of you read since the bottom line in the article is that nearly all observers are saying the same thing, now is not the time for pulling back on QE if you are concerned about INCREASING employment.

When you predicate your argument on the straw man that I or anyone else suggested QE should be or will be "permanent", you just prove what I said previously, you just can't help but to engage in dishonest debate.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Helix posted a quote and a link I doubt either one of you read since the bottom line in the article is that nearly all observers are saying the same thing, now is not the time for pulling back on QE if you are concerned about INCREASING employment.

When you predicate your argument on the straw man that I or anyone else suggested QE should be or will be "permanent", you just prove what I said previously, you just can't help but to engage in dishonest debate.
Click to expand...

Unlike you I understand what QE does and doesn't do. It doesn't offset the effects of higher taxes, Obamacare, more regulations. QE is short term stimulus whereas tax policies, regulations, and Obamacare affect long term business planning and job creation, something that intellectually dishonest liberals who are pro big govt. individuals don't understand. When people like you predicate your argument based upon more govt. spending that just shows how little you understand about personal investment and risk taking
 
Conservative said:
Unlike you I understand what QE does and doesn't do. It doesn't offset the effects of higher taxes, Obamacare, more regulations. QE is short term stimulus whereas tax policies, regulations, and Obamacare affect long term business planning and job creation, something that intellectually dishonest liberals who are pro big govt. individuals don't understand. When people like you predicate your argument based upon more govt. spending that just shows how little you understand about personal investment and risk taking
Click to expand...
Duh, and the current issue is using all available tools IN THE SHORT TERM to revive employment/demand, not just monetary policy.

You were correct earlier, partisanship blocking the use of fiscal policy in conjunction with monetary policy is limiting our recovery from the aftermath of the Bush Recession.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Duh, and the current issue is using all available tools IN THE SHORT TERM to revive employment/demand, not just monetary policy.

You were correct earlier, partisanship blocking the use of fiscal policy in conjunction with monetary policy is limiting our recovery from the aftermath of the Bush Recession.
Click to expand...

And what fiscal policy would that be, driving small businesses out of business with higher taxes, Obamacare, and regulations? The aftermath of the Bush recession? we are over four years since the end of the recession, four years. What part of that do you not understand?

Keep ignoring the truth, QE will not offset the costs to small businesses of Obamacare, higher taxes, and more regulations? All the easy money in the world will not pay the monthly expenses of a small business.
 
Conservative said:
Keep ignoring the truth, QE will not offset the costs to small businesses of Obamacare, higher taxes, and more regulations?
Click to expand...
This is funny, you are questioning your own "truth"!!

I would ask you to support your contention, but since it is not only off topic AND an attempt to prove a negative, I won't force you to do so here....but feel free to prove it in your own thread on this topic you insist upon.


All the easy money in the world will not pay the monthly expenses of a small business.
Click to expand...
And we are observing a poster who claims to know all about QE.....believing that the purpose of QE is to pay for these things!

You help me with every post.
 
DA60 said:
That old excuse?

What the heck do yesterday's numbers have to do with 5 years ago? Or even two years ago.

The numbers describe the present employment situation in America.

Do you not have the emotional capacity to look at the numbers and make a judgement based only on recent figures?

If you don't, please let us know now so I can just assume that you are not capable of a frank discussion on the present employment situation in America.


Now...in your opinion, is this a good jobs reports?

Yes or no?
Click to expand...


There is such a thing called context and perspective. Figures don't exist in a vacuum. Are the employment figures where they should be? No. Are they a hell of a lot better than they were 5 years ago? Absolutely.
Is this a good jobs report? Yes and No. It could be a lot better, but it is better than a jobs report showing us hemorraghing hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are things about Obama that I like and things about him that I dislike. Overall on the economy....considering where we were and where we were headed....I would give him a B-. Better than most but certainly there is room for improvement.

The previous clown in the whitehouse did as good with the economy as he did capturing Bin Laden. It didn't concern him that much.
 
Conservative said:
In an economy that is predominantly private sector comparing govt. spending and debt to the private sector GDP is an exercise that excites liberals but means nothing.
Click to expand...

Much better. I am glad to see you are willing to confront the point. Though, obviously you have given up on denying the fact that debt to GDP consistently rises during the Republican administrations and falls during the Democratic administrations....


Total Increase in debt to GDP overall.jpg


.... and settled for the "deny the quality of the fact" (the "so-what?" retort).

Sorry, the aggregate value of the debt means nothing unless compared to something... some benchmark. Almost all bankers will tell you that total debt means nothing unless compared to ability to pay. General Electric has almost 1/2 trillion of debt. Is that more troublesome than an unemployed middle manager with a $100,000 mortgage? Though the GE debt is 5Billion times that of the middle manager, which banker do you think loses more sleep?

Aggregate debt has no significance without a comparison to debt service capacity. What is the source of the debt service capacity of the United States? The ability to tax. What does the government tax? Economic activity a/k/a GDP. The higher the GDP, the higher the tax receipts. US government debt service is derived from GDP (private sector activity).... on the flip side, government expenditures, though less correlated, are also a function of GDP. The fact the US taxes are amongst the lowest in the world and it has one of the largest GDPs lets us realize that there is a lot more debt service capacity that can be tapped into, if required.

Now I appreciate the fact the Republicans have a remarkably poor record in managing the debt when they hold the executive office (see chart above), but you will just have to accept their P-poor performance here if you want to complain about the debt (accept the fact that your party is a big part of the problem, then you have the credibility to complain about the problem (AA 101))

There has been an interesting line of reasoning that the Cons deliberately run up the debt while in power and then turn around and complain about it when out of power, forcing the Dems to do the nasty work. That is an interesting allegation and completely consistent with the chart above.

So, if you want to tell us debt to GDP is meaningless, then help us with a generally accepted measure of debt service capacity to help us understand why the debt now is a bigger problem then it was in 1945, 1965 or 1985. I doubt you will have a metric better than debt to GDP.

.... I stand ready to put on my obfuscation mask...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This is funny, you are questioning your own "truth"!!

I would ask you to support your contention, but since it is not only off topic AND an attempt to prove a negative, I won't force you to do so here....but feel free to prove it in your own thread on this topic you insist upon.


And we are observing a poster who claims to know all about QE.....believing that the purpose of QE is to pay for these things!

You help me with every post.
Click to expand...

You can never admit you are wrong on any topic thus you divert. You tell me how QE pays the monthly expenses of a business? I actually ran a business, have you? I employed people, have you? You don't seem to have any concept of monthly operating expenses for a small business or the requirements to actually establish a small business. I know enough about QE to know that printing money keeps interest rates low and makes money available for expansion but expansion with higher operating expenses benefits whom? You think businesses are charities that are required to hire people? You think higher operating expenses for employees is conducive to hiring more employees? Amazing how 195,000 jobs created is great but 1 million discouraged workers is ignored. That is true loyalty to the empty suit in the WH right now.
 
Conservative said:
You can never admit you are wrong on any topic thus you divert. You tell me how QE pays the monthly expenses of a business?
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you think I need to answer YOUR claim!

FFS con, YOU think that QE is supposed to pay for "monthly business expenses"...not me!

And then you have the gall to claim I am "diverting"!!!!

Seriously, step away from the keyboard Con, the damage you are inflicting on yourself is greater than you are realizing.
 
upsideguy said:
Much better. I am glad to see you are willing to confront the point. Though, obviously you have given up on denying the fact that debt to GDP consistently rises during the Republican administrations and falls during the Democratic administrations....


View attachment 67149973


.... and settled for the "deny the quality of the fact" (the "so-what?" retort).

Sorry, the aggregate value of the debt means nothing unless compared to something... some benchmark. Almost all bankers will tell you that total debt means nothing unless compared to ability to pay. General Electric has almost 1/2 trillion of debt. Is that more troublesome than an unemployed middle manager with a $100,000 mortgage? Though the GE debt is 5Billion times that of the middle manager, which banker do you think loses more sleep?

Aggregate debt has no significance without a comparison to debt service capacity. What is the source of the debt service capacity of the United States? The ability to tax. What does the government tax? Economic activity a/k/a GDP. The higher the GDP, the higher the tax receipts. US government debt service is derived from GDP (private sector activity).... on the flip side, government expenditures, though less correlated, are also a function of GDP. The fact the US taxes are amongst the lowest in the world and it has one of the largest GDPs lets us realize that there is a lot more debt service capacity that can be tapped into, if required.

Now I appreciate the fact the Republicans have a remarkably poor record in managing the debt when they hold the executive office (see chart above), but you will just have to accept their P-poor performance here if you want to complain about the debt (accept the fact that your party is a big part of the problem, then you have the credibility to complain about the problem (AA 101))

There has been an interesting line of reasoning that the Cons deliberately run up the debt while in power and then turn around and complain about it when out of power, forcing the Dems to do the nasty work. That is an interesting allegation and completely consistent with the chart above.

So, if you want to tell us debt to GDP is meaningless, then help us with a generally accepted measure of debt service capacity to help us understand why the debt now is a bigger problem then it was in 1945, 1965 or 1985. I doubt you will have a metric better than debt to GDP.

.... I stand ready to put on my obfuscation mask...
Click to expand...

Wow, that is really awesome, debt to GDP ratio? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you know what percentage of GDP is govt spending yet you compare govt. spending and debt to GDP? What you do is show that you haven't a clue how our economy works and continues to buy the leftwing rhetoric that ignores actual private business costs. Just throw more money at the problem, right?

Running up debt isn't unique to Republicans and what is amazing to me is how you ignore that Obama has run up more debt than any other President in history to generate 177000 jobs more than what he inherited over four years later. Those are good economic results to a liberal.

Debt to GDP ratio is indeed meaningless but the debt service on that debt is meaningful. Debt service is the fourth largest budget item and benefits whom? 144 million working Americans today vs. 146 million in December 2007. 10.6 trillion in debt at the end of the Bush term to 16.8 trillion in debt today? 10 million people added to the labor force during the Bush term vs 1.5 million in the 4 plus years of Obama? 1 million in discouraged workers four years after the end of the recession vs. ZERO months of a million discouraged workers during the Bush term.

Yes, keep buying the Obama rhetoric
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I have no idea why you think I need to answer YOUR claim!

FFS con, YOU think that QE is supposed to pay for "monthly business expenses"...not me!

And then you have the gall to claim I am "diverting"!!!!

Seriously, step away from the keyboard Con, the damage you are inflicting on yourself is greater than you are realizing.
Click to expand...

You are the one claiming that QE is necessary to create jobs when the reality is a pro business growth economic policy is what will create jobs. You don't have a clue what you are talking about and is exactly the problem we face today, people who don't understand how business works. All the printed money in the world isn't going to create a climate that offsets the costs of Obamacare, higher taxes, and more regulations.

Seriously you have a problem and cannot admit that you are wrong. My expertise is in running a business, yours is in buying leftwing big govt. rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You are the one claiming that QE is necessary to create jobs when the reality his a pro business growth economic policy is what will create jobs. You don't have a clue what you are talking about and is exactly the problem we face today, people who don't understand how business works. All the printed money in the world isn't going to create a climate that offsets the costs of Obamacare, higher taxes, and more regulations.

Seriously you have a problem and cannot admit that you are wrong. My expertise is in running a business, yours is in buying leftwing big govt. rhetoric.
Click to expand...
You are clueless on what QE does, and you were a manager, not a business owner.

What kills macroeconomic growth is GOP extreme partisanship, putting political gain over the recovery of the economy. You recognized that earlier, all you have been doing since is spectacularly showing you know little about QE and avoiding facing up to your admissions.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are clueless on what QE does, and you were a manager, not a business owner.

What kills macroeconomic growth is GOP extreme partisanship, putting political gain over the recovery of the economy. You recognized that earlier, all you have been doing since is spectacularly showing you know little about QE and avoiding facing up to your admissions.
Click to expand...

Then you tell me what QE does since you claim I don't know. It is four years after the recession ended and yet you have such low expectations that you accept whatever bull**** Obama tells you. I am waiting and willing to learn especially from an Obama supporter. Be the first to teach me anything.
 
Conservative said:
144 million working Americans today vs. 146 million in December 2007.
Click to expand...
LOL....you continue to ignore the job losses through the end of the Bush's term!

10 million people added to the labor force during the Bush term
Click to expand...
Bush had the lowest job gains of any President since WWII, you are off by a factor of ten.

Why are neocons so bad at math and with telling time?
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...it doesn't pay for "daily business expenses" as you seem to believe.

Here, go look it up yourself:

https://www.google.com/search?q=qua...08,d.cGE&fp=2d51c5bfc01f1cdf&biw=1132&bih=555
Click to expand...

LOL, having problems understanding that QE is nothing more than the govt. buying assets with no guarantee that the banks will lend that money and even if they did there is no guarantee that business will have the cash necessary to repay the loans. You simply have no concept of a business financial statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom