• 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%

Conservative said:
Projections again? When was the last time your projections were right? How much in tax revenue are we collecting from the millions unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers?
Click to expand...

I made no use of projections. S.S. is sound from an actuarial perspective until 2027, ceteris paribus.

Never said it was beating the market averages because that would be a lie.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension error on your behalf; you said

conservative said:
I see, so your return on your "investment" in SS is generating the kind of return you would generate without it and then having that investment your Money?
Click to expand...

Since i never made any mentioning in any thread about SS returns on investment vs my personal investing, you felt the need to use the strawman fallacy because you are out of ammunition.

Declining labor force growth isn't going to have much effect, is it? Good luck on those projections which have yet to be right
Click to expand...

The labor force will not face static structural imbalances indefinitely.

No question about it, I only hope that I can become half as smart as you think you are. Your financial analysis doesn't put food on the table or people in housing.
Click to expand...

You don't know what an actuary is.

Financial analysis puts food on my table and pays for my house(s).

How is debt financed again and what interest rate? I would have thought someone as smart as you think you are would understand debt financing and interest rates better.
Click to expand...

The stock of debt will not be impacted by a change in interest rates; only new debt will be sensitive to such an environment. Here is the caveat; interest rates will not rise without the requisite economic growth.

Isn't that great, Obama and liberalism has so much invested in poor economic growth and high unemployment. Both keep interest rates and inflation low
Click to expand...

Non-response. I am judging it is because you don't know how to read the graph. :shrug:

Record low interest rates certainly aren't having any affect on the economy, are they?
Click to expand...

We are finally emerging from a liquidity trap. Housing has been booming throughout 2013, which is part of the reason we are beginning to see an uptick on medium to long term interest rates. Low interest rates lower the cost of adding additional capital.

Think the Fed loves seeing interest rates this low? Must be an indication of the booming economy
Click to expand...

This is the aftermath of the worst economic downturn in 80 years.

That is a lie, Debt was 16.2 trillion beginning of fiscal year 2013 and today it is 16.8 trillion dollars. Need help with the math? I would have thought someone as smart as you would understand that the fiscal year of the U.S. runs from October 1 to Sept. 30. Guess not so maybe you learned something today?
Click to expand...

I wasn't referencing the fiscal year; only the accumulated deficits during Obama's tenure as President. Since he has been into office, the federal deficit has fallen every year by double digit percentages.

Because they didn't exist
Click to expand...

Of course they did. The data that validates my point can be found here. Accumulated deficits are the codomain of debt.

Too bad you lack any street sense.
Click to expand...

Your perception of my street sense is of no value. You do not know me. I can however depict from the knowledge and familiarity with regards to your posting history that you have no business discussing such topics. You simply lack the comprehension of the terminology and the ability to analyze even the most basic data.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Tell that to the millions unemployed, under employed/discouraged as well as the hundreds of thousands of contract employees and business owners who have been forced out of business.
Click to expand...

The fault of the private sector. You seem to want to blame democrats for the failure of private industry.

a 30% increase in household net worth from 2009 is a disaster since the numbers in 2009 were terrible.
Click to expand...

Inflation adjusted gains of more 30% in less than 4 years are substantial, no matter how politically inconvenient it is to your "cause".
 
Kushinator;1062105758]I made no use of projections. S.S. is sound from an actuarial perspective until 2027, ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...

From what I have seen your projections and Obama's are about as good as the weather predictions of if you don't like the prediction wait five minutes and it will change.


Reading comprehension error on your behalf; you said



Since i never made any mentioning in any thread about SS returns on investment vs my personal investing, you felt the need to use the strawman fallacy because you are out of ammunition.
Click to expand...

You have the same credibility as most liberal economists



The labor force will not face static structural imbalances indefinitely
Click to expand...
.

With Obama there is no assurance of that statement


You don't know what an actuary is.
Click to expand...

You have no concept of what self insured means

Financial analysis puts food on my table and pays for my house(s).
Click to expand...

Which puts you in a very small minority. Too bad people are nothing more than numbers to you



The stock of debt will not be impacted by a change in interest rates; only new debt will be sensitive to such an environment. Here is the caveat; interest rates will not rise without the requisite economic growth.
Click to expand...

Without economic growth we will always have high unemployment, high debt, and poor economic growth which will make your predictions wrong again


Non-response. I am judging it is because you don't know how to read the graph. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Told you, your graph won't sell to the millions on food stamps, unemployed, under employed, discouraged. Must be lonesome in that world of numbers in which you live.



We are finally emerging from a liquidity trap. Housing has been booming throughout 2013, which is part of the reason we are beginning to see an uptick on medium to long term interest rates. Low interest rates lower the cost of adding additional capital.
Click to expand...

Booming? Interesting how percentage change over the worst numbers on record is a booming economy to a numbers geek. Too bad 50% don't own homes



This is the aftermath of the worst economic downturn in 80 years.
Click to expand...

Your opinion, I found the 81-82 recession worse but then again I lived and worked during that period of time. Guess the textbooks still don't understand human behavior and the effects of a high misery index coupled with negative economic growth.



I wasn't referencing the fiscal year; only the accumulated deficits during Obama's tenure as President. Since he has been into office, the federal deficit has fallen every year by double digit percentages.
Click to expand...

We pay debt service on the fiscal year debt. Love how the federal deficit has fallen each year but still is over a trillion dollars a year. Now that is quite an accomplishment. What would have happened had the deficit increased each year and still over a trillion dollars a year


Of course they did. The data that validates my point can be found here. Accumulated deficits are the codomain of debt.
Click to expand...

seems debt service is part of the budget and the Treasury Dept. disagrees with you. Bush had surpluses a few months as well but it never mattered at the end of the year when the deficits exceeded revenue. Bush however never had a trillion dollar deficit on any of his budgets.

Your perception of my street sense is of no value. You do not know me. I can however depict from the knowledge and familiarity with regards to your posting history that you have no business discussing such topics. You simply lack the comprehension of the terminology and the ability to analyze even the most basic data.
Click to expand...

You are right I don't know you and really have no interest in every knowing you. I know a lot of people like you and none of them has ever been successful long term. Book smart street stupid liberals have found a place in this forum but not in the real world.
 
winston53660 said:
Brainwashed? whatever.

Hmm wadda ya know they do have a below poverty level min wage.

Now how a bout regulation?
Click to expand...


How about that, China does have a minimum wage? Where is that liberal apology? Guess I am not like China at all
 
Kushinator said:
The fault of the private sector. You seem to want to blame democrats for the failure of private industry.



Inflation adjusted gains of more 30% in less than 4 years are substantial, no matter how politically inconvenient it is to your "cause".
Click to expand...

No, cannot blame Democrats for that which they don't understand which is what I do blame Democrats for, they don't understand the private sector at all because they are too busy wanting to keep people dependent.

A 30% increase that still doesn't get us back to pre recession levels is a disaster especially with the dollars spent to generate those numbers. Great quote from Thomas Sowell that applies to you.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

Thomas Sowell
Click to expand...
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Facts? You think political spin from the Whitehouse is "facts"? Seriously? You have to be joking, right?

Alright, back to the main topic. There was no Clinton "surplus". Just spin.

The deficit:
1 Oct 1999-5,652,679,330,611
29 Sep 1999 5,674,178,209,886
total-21,498,879,275

1 Oct 2000-5,674,178,209,886
28 Sep 2001-5,807,463,412,200
total-133,285,202,314

Those facts came from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/np/debt/current

So what to make of them? Simple. The capital gains tax cut and the dot com boom created good business conditions. Then, dot com boom played out and was way past its peak and it showed. Clinton didn't have a clue and was leaving Bush a mess but so what? He got plenty of sex, wasn't convicted of impeachment and his punishment for his felony conviction wasn't going to stop him from making millions. The numbers don't lie and both budgets 1999 and 2000 belong to Clinton. Business conditions were not real good the day Bush took office, in fact a major downward trend was what Bush was faced with along with Clintons $133,285,202,314 deficit his first year.

Lets also not pretend the federal debt started with Bush. Clinton added to it every year (once again use the treasury website for facts instead of whitehouse spin). You and I can both blame Bush for added to the federal debt but no president in American history has added to the debt like Obama has. And with Obama, because of unaffordable Obamacare, our nation is doomed.

real numbers. real facts. real truth. No whitehouse spin. have a good day chump.
Click to expand...

First, its the US Budget. The budget is authored and controlled by Treasury, which is a part of the administration. Second, the numbers you posted are not the deficit, its the debt. They are not the same thing. Though changes in debt are loosely correlated to the deficit, when cash comes into the treasury, it goes into the cash account. You would have to look at the entire federal balance sheet and do a funds flow to directly reconcile changes in debt to deficit.

We are back to the same thing.... Clinton ended his presidency with essentially a balanced budget; Bush turned that balanced budget into $1T+ deficits; Obama has not been about to fully turn around those deficits (though they are back to late Bush presidency levels). Though the debt is up during the Obama administration, the deficit infrastructure, which is driving the debt, was set a decade ago.

No, the federal debt existed when Bush assumed office, but we had no deficits. You keep using debt and deficit interchangeably. You do understand the difference, do you not, plebe?
 
upsideguy said:
First, its the US Budget. The budget is authored and controlled by Treasury, which is a part of the administration. Second, the numbers you posted are not the deficit, its the debt. They are not the same thing. Though changes in debt are loosely correlated to the deficit, when cash comes into the treasury, it goes into the cash account. You would have to look at the entire federal balance sheet and do a funds flow to directly reconcile changes in debt to deficit.

We are back to the same thing.... Clinton ended his presidency with essentially a balanced budget; Bush turned that balanced budget into $1T+ deficits; Obama has not been about to fully turn around those deficits (though they are back to late Bush presidency levels). Though the debt is up during the Obama administration, the deficit infrastructure, which is driving the debt, was set a decade ago.

No, the federal debt existed when Bush assumed office, but we had no deficits. You keep using debt and deficit interchangeably. You do understand the difference, do you not, plebe?
Click to expand...

Aw, yes, so much for "we will never forget" with regard to 9/11 and just like you forget that Clinton left Bush with a recession. We did indeed have deficits, 1.4 trillion of them during the Clinton 8 years.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
 
winston53660 said:
Congrats your google skills are improving.



Why because you actually looked something up for once?



Yeah you are worse.
Click to expand...

Aw, yes, one more time I post data and information that refutes your claims. Since Google is your friend, suggest you Google regulations in China as well and you will find that there are numerous regulations most on private business that is in direct conflict with the govt. controlled business operations
 
Conservative said:
Aw, yes, one more time I post data and information that refutes your claims.
Click to expand...

pffft thats funny. Believe whatever floats your ego

Since Google is your friend, suggest you Google regulations in China as well and you will find that there are numerous regulations most on private business that is in direct conflict with the govt. controlled business operations
Click to expand...

So your position is that even China's regulation is too much?
 
Conservative said:
Fact remains you have no idea what the line items are in the budget and simply cannot admit it. I have no agenda other than to do what I am doing, proving you wrong in every post you make.
Click to expand...
You didn't "prove me wrong" about anything, all you do prove is how you continuously avoid apples to apples comparisons.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You didn't "prove me wrong" about anything, all you do prove is how you continuously avoid apples to apples comparisons.
Click to expand...

LOL, yep, another brilliant liberal who combines expenses to make yourself look good. Please learn what a line item expense is vs. lumping all expenses together. I stand by my statement, debt service(Interest expense) is the fourth largest budget item and benefits the American people how?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, yep, another brilliant liberal who combines expenses to make yourself look good. Please learn what a line item expense is vs. lumping all expenses together. I stand by my statement, debt service(Interest expense) is the fourth largest budget item and benefits the American people how?
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness, this is getting stupid!

When you want to find out how large a thing is in comparison to the whole....YES VIRGINIA, YOU ADD ("LUMP") ALL OF THE ITEMS TOGETHER AND DIVIDE THE "THING" (INTEREST) BY THE "LUMP".

SO FRIGGING SAD
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh my goodness, this is getting stupid!

When you want to find out how large a thing is in comparison to the whole....YES VIRGINIA, YOU ADD ("LUMP") ALL OF THE ITEMS TOGETHER AND DIVIDE THE "THING" (INTEREST) BY THE "LUMP".

SO FRIGGING SAD
Click to expand...

Do you have a point? What was the fourth largest budget expense item in the chart you showed? Remember SS and Medicare aren't budget expense items per se, they are intergovt. holdings and part of the unified budget but are funded separately.
 
Conservative said:
As an Obama supporter you must be so proud.

The Architect of Destruction
Click to expand...

mmm okay Whats the price of tea in China?

One more time:

Quote Originally Posted by Conservative
Since Google is your friend, suggest you Google regulations in China as well and you will find that there are numerous regulations most on private business that is in direct conflict with the govt. controlled business operations
Click to expand...

Quote Originally Posted by winston53660
So your position is that even China's regulation is too much?
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Do you have a point? What was the fourth largest budget expense item in the chart you showed? Remember SS and Medicare aren't budget expense items per se, they are intergovt. holdings and part of the unified budget but are funded separately.
Click to expand...
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


".....SS and Medicare are not "line items"....but I included them anyway....just to show I have absolutely no consistency in any argument I make"

Your arguments are such an absolute waste of everyone's time.

What an embarrassment.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


".....SS and Medicare are not "line items"....but I included them anyway....just to show I have absolutely no consistency in any argument I make"

Your arguments are such an absolute waste of everyone's time.

What an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

You will do anything you can to divert from the Obama record but that isn't going to happen. The current debt service on the debt is approximately 250 billion and going up. That is a huge amount that would be better served actually "helping" people as Obama claims he wants to do. You don't seem to grasp the concept of debt service at all and because you claim it is such a low percentage of the total ignores first the size of the total and then the amount. That is true liberalism, you must be so happy with the Obama economic results.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The US Treasury


PS...no response?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...loyment-remains-7-6-a-176.html#post1062104268
Click to expand...

Ezra Klein? LOL. Bozo the Clown carries as much weight as that leftist does. He's nothing more than spin from the Whitehouse without the title.

Now, if the US Treasury paid the SSTF money an account in the SSTF gets a credit. An account from the US Treasury gets a debit. What's the net? If there was a surplus and something got paid or a debt reduced, a lower negative balance would show up in the bottom line at the US Treasury. Never happened during the Clinton years. The "surplus" was and is a line of horse hockey spun by people that know better to get people that don't know better to buy into their line of spin. What's amazing is people will with a straight face say they believe things that came from Clinton when they know good and well the truth has absolutely no meaning to him. Never did.
 
upsideguy said:
First, its the US Budget. The budget is authored and controlled by Treasury, which is a part of the administration. Second, the numbers you posted are not the deficit, its the debt. They are not the same thing. Though changes in debt are loosely correlated to the deficit, when cash comes into the treasury, it goes into the cash account. You would have to look at the entire federal balance sheet and do a funds flow to directly reconcile changes in debt to deficit.

We are back to the same thing.... Clinton ended his presidency with essentially a balanced budget; Bush turned that balanced budget into $1T+ deficits; Obama has not been about to fully turn around those deficits (though they are back to late Bush presidency levels). Though the debt is up during the Obama administration, the deficit infrastructure, which is driving the debt, was set a decade ago.

No, the federal debt existed when Bush assumed office, but we had no deficits. You keep using debt and deficit interchangeably. You do understand the difference, do you not, plebe?
Click to expand...

Pardon me while I don't take your word for it. The US treasury says otherwise and I'll stick with them. If the debt grows while Clinton is the president, he was running a deficit. A quick look at the US Treasury web site shows he ran a deficit each and every year he was president as the federal debt grew larger each year. Pretending he left things all rosy for Bush is not even close to the truth as I have already shown as well. The deficit was starting to skyrocket again as Clintons luck with the dot com boom ran out and his earlier tax hikes on the working stiffs couldn't be covered up with a once in a lifetime business boom.

You do understand when debt grows larger you are running a deficit, do you not?
 
Boo Radley said:
I didn't say you couldn't find a revisionist view. I asked if you believed I couldn't find a link that said the opposite.
Click to expand...

Look man it's simple. The facts are the facts. You and Kushinator are pretending like Obama is still campaigning. That it's Hope and Change 2008. That premise doesn't pass the laugh test any longer. You're acting like Obama's the only guy who can fix this mess. He's not. Watch his speech. It was pathetic. It's clear Obama has no answers. All ever does is campaign. He doesn't govern. Our horrible economy is a product of that. This is like the 10th time Obama has said he's going to focus on the economy. It's become a cartoon. You risk making yourselves a cartoon by not holding your elected leader accountable for his actions. It may already be too late.

Obama's economic record is a disaster. This recovery measured against every other recovery in history has been the worst since The Great Depression. All the Ezra Klein/Jay Carney spin in the universe cannot put enough lipstick on that pig
 
Bronson said:
Look man it's simple. The facts are the facts. You and Kushinator are pretending like Obama is still campaigning. That it's Hope and Change 2008. That premise doesn't pass the laugh test any longer. You're acting like Obama's the only guy who can fix this mess. He's not. Watch his speech. It was pathetic. It's clear Obama has no answers. All ever does is campaign. He doesn't govern. Our horrible economy is a product of that. This is like the 10th time Obama has said he's going to focus on the economy. It's become a cartoon. You risk making yourselves a cartoon by not holding your elected leader accountable for his actions. It may already be too late.

Obama's economic record is a disaster. This recovery measured against every other recovery in history has been the worst since The Great Depression. All the Ezra Klein/Jay Carney spin in the universe cannot put enough lipstick on that pig
Click to expand...

You're switching to something else yet again.

But, only a government like China can control their economy. No US president has that control. If you believe residents do, you're part of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom