• 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!

Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

FaceofBachmann said:
Increase rates on the top bracket. Tax problem solved, and job problem solved, as locked up capital gets back into the economy.
Click to expand...



How does giving the Government more of the " Rich " peoples money solve the job problem ?

Or the " Tax problem " ??
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Increase rates on the top bracket. Tax problem solved, and job problem solved, as locked up capital gets back into the economy.
Click to expand...
'locked up ' capital. LAFF
It never ceases to amaze me how some people think rich people hoard money in matresses or something.
 
Fenton said:
How does giving the Government more of the " Rich " peoples money solve the job problem ?

Or the " Tax problem " ??
Click to expand...

If your position is that job growth is low due to the federal deficit, then yes, it would help solve the job problem.

If we increased the taxes of the rich to offset tax cuts for the middle class, then yes again, it may be a deficit trade off but shifting money into the hands of those who have the highest propensity to spend the marginal dollar would increase demand and thus increase business expansion.

If we increased taxation on the rich to expand infrastructure spending, then yes, more jobs would be created directly due to the infrastructure spending and indirection because businesses need infrastructure to expand.

If we increased taxation on the rich to provide more economic benefits to everyone, then it would also result in an increase in demand, and thus business expansion.
 
KLATTU said:
'locked up ' capital. LAFF
It never ceases to amaze me how some people think rich people hoard money in matresses or something.
Click to expand...

When cash is invested in non-productive investments, then it might as well be in a matress as it is essentially removed from our main street economy, resulting in little if any additional demand. Businesses don't expand unless there is adequate demand to justify them doing so.
 
Kushinator said:
The economy did not reach pre-recession levels of private investment until last year. There were 2.33 million jobs created from Sept 2013 to Sept 2014.
Click to expand...

Yup...but of those 2.33 million...

1,114,000 were over 55

And the top earning age group - 45-54 - only gained 73,000.
So the most important age group (financially) accounted for only (by my calculations) 3.1% of the total employment gains despite being 22.2% of the total number of employed.

And the 16-24 age group only gained 54,000...hardly bodes well for the future.
 
Kushinator said:
So prove it!

Find the multiplicative factor for both labor force and the total population, and use it to smooth population dynamics so that you can accurately compare population trends from 1995 with 2013. A less accurate, but easier approach would be to use averages for both population and employment. Then compare the differences for the over 55 cohort.

Or..... you can just use that data provided in the White House's research. They take an even more methodical approach, using lifecycle data among multiple cohort groups to weed out consistencies in participation as a function of age. If that isn't enough, the authors include two additional methods of modeling: Time Series and Structural Micro-Data modeling.

The authors were detailed enough to analyze other factors influencing labor force participation; cyclical and residual, employing both Time Series and Multivariate linear analysis.

Their results have been provided multiple times in this thread.

View attachment 67174009
Click to expand...

I just found this on the BLS website:

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

Unless I am reading this wrong, it says that the Labor Force Participation Rate for those over 65 went from 13.2% to 18.5% between 2002 and 2012.

What do you say now?
 
imagep said:
If your position is that job growth is low due to the federal deficit, then yes, it would help solve the job problem.

If we increased the taxes of the rich to offset tax cuts for the middle class, then yes again, it may be a deficit trade off but shifting money into the hands of those who have the highest propensity to spend the marginal dollar would increase demand and thus increase business expansion.

If we increased taxation on the rich to expand infrastructure spending, then yes, more jobs would be created directly due to the infrastructure spending and indirection because businesses need infrastructure to expand.

If we increased taxation on the rich to provide more economic benefits to everyone, then it would also result in an increase in demand, and thus business expansion.
Click to expand...

First, all of your examples are trade offs. Your advocating the redistribution of other peoples property via the Government. Your pulling wealth out of the economy so you can put it back in with the Federal government being the final arbiter of where that money needs to go.

Bad idea. REAL bad idea.

Anyway , increase spending on infrastructure is just a liberal false narrative. Not much to back up the claim that it actually works.

Plus, Obama is suffering from a little bit of a credibility issue after his " shovel ready " lie.

Increasing the taxes on the rich to provide better " economic benefits " ?

Who would " provide " those benefits ? The Government ? Thats just crazy.

You guys need to wake up and realize the rich will always have other options than to bow down and participate on some left wing redistribution agenda.

Capital is more easy to move around than ever, and now we have the emerging markets that excess capital can disappear into.
 
DA60 said:
I just found this on the BLS website:

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

Unless I am reading this wrong, it says that the Labor Force Participation Rate for those over 65 went from 13.2% to 18.5% between 2002 and 2012.

What do you say now?
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone has denied that, but that fact is no indicator that the percentage of retired people who are not in the workforce and who are over 65, is increasing and will continue to increase.
 
DA60 said:
I just found this on the BLS website:

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

Unless I am reading this wrong, it says that the Labor Force Participation Rate for those over 65 went from 13.2% to 18.5% between 2002 and 2012.

What do you say now?
Click to expand...

Wait, that CAN'T be right !

Janet Yellen did a study and everything that said there was a acute mass retiring happening right before our eyes.

And we know she's objective.....

Good find DA !
 
Kushinator said:
It's more complicated than that. The top single tax bracket tops out @ $400,001. Should a person earning $400,001 pay the same rate as a person earning $40 million?
Click to expand...

Of course. I was speaking in shorthand.

The problem of income inequality has many causes and will require multivalent policies to address (over a long period). But a sharply progressive income tax is a good place to start. And besides, it shakes up the Rightwing mentality to hear somebody defend tax increases on the rich on purely economic grounds.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Of course. I was speaking in shorthand.

The problem of income inequality has many causes and will require multivalent policies to address (over a long period). But a sharply progressive income tax is a good place to start. And besides, it shakes up the Rightwing mentality to hear somebody defend tax increases on the rich on purely economic grounds.
Click to expand...
And the end of your proposed 'multivalent policies' what will income distribution look like?
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Of course. I was speaking in shorthand.

The problem of income inequality has many causes and will require multivalent policies to address (over a long period). But a sharply progressive income tax is a good place to start. And besides, it shakes up the Rightwing mentality to hear somebody defend tax increases on the rich on purely economic grounds.
Click to expand...


How does a sharp increase in marginal rates adress " income inequality " ?

How exactly does that work ?
 
imagep said:
I don't think that anyone has denied that, but that fact is no indicator that the percentage of retired people who are not in the workforce and who are over 65, is increasing and will continue to increase.
Click to expand...

Umm..I think LOTS of people have (both on and off this board)...

'Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
You could, but as I've already shown, I don't see the point. I believe it was Kush who, either in this thread or another, posted the link to the information which showed nearly half of the drop in participation rate can be attributed to retirees and I know I've seen the graph which shows how the participation rate has dropped since around 2000 multiple times.'

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rolls-jump-post1063835410.html#post1063835410

Read the chart on the link I provided above please...the ONLY areas that have dropped in LFPR between 1992 and 2012 are UNDER 55.

It is mathematically impossible for a total percentage to be affected downwards by an additional positive percentage figure if the latter is higher then the total percentage figure.

I.e. It is mathematically impossible for the over 65 LFPR that is growing to force the total LFPR downwards.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
It is mathematically impossible for a total percentage to be affected downwards by an additional positive percentage figure.

I.e. It is mathematically impossible for the over 65 LFPR that is growing to force the total LFPR downwards.
Click to expand...
It is not mathematically impossible, unless you are incapable of understanding basic mathematics. I've already proven to you how it is possible, but of course, you chose to ignore it, like you always do when your argument is destroyed.

The flaw in your premise is to assume an equal proportion of age demographics from one set of numbers to the next. The problem is, as has been pointed out, the Baby Boomer generation skews those proportions and thus your comment is false.

I'll tell you what. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just didn't consider how changing demographics would affect your statement. But now that it has been brought to your attention, I will expect a "oh, I didn't consider that, let me do more research".
 
Fletch said:
And the end of your proposed 'multivalent policies' what will income distribution look like?
Click to expand...

A generally prosperous society, without the extremes of poverty we see now, and a robust middle class.

Anathema for conservatives, I know.
 
Our workforce shrank, there are still tens of millions out there without a job.

For example no one is going to hire a 52 year old accountant that has been out of work for 3 years or was bookkeeping on and off for small businesses over that time period....

There as so many that have absolutely ZERO job prospects due to the fact they've been out of the game for so long....... And meanwhile these assholes seriously attempt to claim the economy is growing???? well that is just ****ing impossible when tens of millions are still out of work (15-20 million)..... Sure I'm sure it's growing but growing from what exactly? You know when you're at rock bottom the only way to go is up right?

I swear this mimics the the years prior to the collapse of the USSR..... You have one group that has jobs and another group that doesn't..
 
Mr.Nick said:
Our workforce shrank, there are still tens of millions out there without a job.

For example no one is going to hire a 52 year old accountant that has been out of work for 3 years or was bookkeeping on and off for small businesses over that time period....

There as so many that have absolutely ZERO job prospects due to the fact they've been out of the game for so long....... And meanwhile these assholes seriously attempt to claim the economy is growing???? well that is just ****ing impossible when tens of millions are still out of work (15-20 million)..... Sure I'm sure it's growing but growing from what exactly? You know when you're at rock bottom the only way to go is up right?

I swear this mimics the the years prior to the collapse of the USSR..... You have one group that has jobs and another group that doesn't..
Click to expand...

And the rightwing answer to this: more tax cuts for the rich, more deregulation, more anti-union legislation -- all the things the resulted in the collapse.

There's a word for that.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
And the rightwing answer to this: more tax cuts for the rich, more deregulation, more anti-union legislation -- all the things the resulted in the collapse.

There's a word for that.
Click to expand...

The rich don't get "tax cuts" and if it matters the rich pay for 80 percent of the revenue generated by the government....

Of course we need more deregulation - regulation is nothing more than bureaucracy and in some situations used as a political tool, not to mention at times could be considered extortion.

Besides regulation does NOTHING but KILL JOBS..... Open your eyes do you really think this government is benevolent? If you want my opinion it seems democrats enjoy punishing businesses both big and small because they HATE capitalism and create all these ABC agencies to clamp down on free market principals, while people like you sit back and clap your hands....

If you don't know - regulations didn't build this nation from NOTHING free market ideas did.

BTW, since you're an alleged socialist you should see the failures in your socialism considering these socialist "super powers" either collapsed or were forced into a free market economic model....

Understand that the economic model you stand for failed every time it was tried?
 
Last edited:
FaceofBachmann said:
And the rightwing answer to this: more tax cuts for the rich, more deregulation, more anti-union legislation -- all the things the resulted in the collapse.

There's a word for that.
Click to expand...


Lie, thats the " word "
 
DA60 said:
Umm..I think LOTS of people have (both on and off this board)...

'Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
You could, but as I've already shown, I don't see the point. I believe it was Kush who, either in this thread or another, posted the link to the information which showed nearly half of the drop in participation rate can be attributed to retirees and I know I've seen the graph which shows how the participation rate has dropped since around 2000 multiple times.'

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rolls-jump-post1063835410.html#post1063835410

Read the chart on the link I provided above please...the ONLY areas that have dropped in LFPR between 1992 and 2012 are UNDER 55.

It is mathematically impossible for a total percentage to be affected downwards by an additional positive percentage figure if the latter is higher then the total percentage figure.

I.e. It is mathematically impossible for the over 65 LFPR that is growing to force the total LFPR downwards.
Click to expand...

Okay, I see the flaw in what I said.

What I said was true, but considering the over 65 LFPR is lower, that would drop the total LFPR.

My apologies.
 
DA60 said:
Okay, I see the flaw in what I said.

What I said was true, but considering the over 65 LFPR is lower, that would drop the total LFPR.

My apologies.
Click to expand...
So would you then say pointing out a higher participation rate amongst older people has, in actuality, very little to do with refuting the claim roughly half of the drop in the labor force participation rate is due to retirement?
 
FaceofBachmann said:
A generally prosperous society, without the extremes of poverty we see now, and a robust middle class.

Anathema for conservatives, I know.
Click to expand...
Why is that anathema for conservatives? Cant you post a response that doesn't include some nonsensical smear of your political opponents. Jesus. But your answer isn't very clear. I assume you believe poverty will still exist after all your wealth transfer schemes have been enacted. So how poor will the poorest person be and how rich will the richest person be and just how different will the middle class looks than it looks today?
 
Mr.Nick said:
The rich don't get "tax cuts" and if it matters the rich pay for 80 percent of the revenue generated by the government....

Of course we need more deregulation - regulation is nothing more than bureaucracy and in some situations used as a political tool, not to mention at times could be considered extortion.

Besides regulation does NOTHING but KILL JOBS..... Open your eyes do you really think this government is benevolent? If you want my opinion it seems democrats enjoy punishing businesses both big and small because they HATE capitalism and create all these ABC agencies to clamp down on free market principals, while people like you sit back and clap your hands....

If you don't know - regulations didn't build this nation from NOTHING free market ideas did.

BTW, since you're an alleged socialist you should see the failures in your socialism considering these socialist "super powers" either collapsed or were forced into a free market economic model....

Understand that the economic model you stand for failed every time it was tried?
Click to expand...

So like I say you want more tax cuts and more deregulation -- exactly what Bush did when he drove us into the recession.

There's a word for doing something over and over again and expecting a different result.
 
Fletch said:
Why is that anathema for conservatives? Cant you post a response that doesn't include some nonsensical smear of your political opponents. Jesus. But your answer isn't very clear. I assume you believe poverty will still exist after all your wealth transfer schemes have been enacted. So how poor will the poorest person be and how rich will the richest person be and just how different will the middle class looks than it looks today?
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. You really don't want a robust middle class or to end extreme poverty. You just used the counterfactual distraction that tax increases on the rich are a "scheme" and won't work, when of course, redistribution of income works on its face. It's why you're against it, isn't it? Not because it wouldn't work, but because it does.

We tried tax cuts for the rich under Bush, remember. What happened? The biggest Recession in decades. As predicted by liberals.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
So like I say you want more tax cuts and more deregulation -- exactly what Bush did when he drove us into the recession.

There's a word for doing something over and over again and expecting a different result.
Click to expand...

Bush didn't drive anyone into a recession - idiot consumers did - our congress did - and our banks did.

Bush did a lot of messed up things but he had absolutely noting to do with the financial collapse. This whole "too big to fail" nonsense did, and Clinton's community reinvestment act didn't help either....

I suppose it's easy to blame Bush now isn't it? but it is harder to understand Congress, backroom dealings and basically votes on the bidding block...

I could write a 2000 page book on this financial collapse..

What the hell do you think happens when bigger banks start buying smaller banks and then use those assets to invest in garbage? what do you think when the government forces these big banks to lend to people who are unqualified for a mortgage?

Yeah take a look at Detroit or Gary Indiana.

But this is what you get when you have greedy idiots making false promises to inept politicians in an attempt to legitimize their "banks" - Rockwell tried this **** 60 years prior and it lead to the Great Depression.

But here we are believing that these politicians are the best minds in the world when in reality they're probably dumber than your typical US citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom