Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 189

Thread: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

  1. #71
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    01-21-18 @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,666

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post
    ...

    Most conservatives understand that tax cuts stimulate both revenue and growth in our economy.
    And most conservatives are wrong.

    If you are familiar with the Laffer curve, then you are aware that tax cuts only increase tax revenue when the taxes are on the right side of the curve. I challenge you to find a statement made by any economists indicating that they believe any of our taxes are on the right hand side of the curve.

    In fact, every case over the last 60 years, major tax cuts have more than paid for themselves.
    Only if you assume that all economic growth is caused by tax cuts. Of course that would be a faulty assumption. If you look at the tax revenue for any year that taxes were cut, you will see a dip in inflation adjusted tax revenues.

    So if cutting taxes creates more tax revenue, then why don't we just get rid of all taxes? We would have tons of revenue then wouldn't we?
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  2. #72
    User BringIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    08-12-15 @ 10:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    114

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    QE was done by the Federal Reserve. The Fed operates fairly autonomously, and without intervention from the POTUS.
    Much like federal judges, the President nominates and Congress approves members of the Fed for a specific time period. However, the POTUS has HUGE influence over policy shaping.

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    The head of the fed during the time period that QE was going on was selected by Bush, not Obama.
    So let me see if I am hearing you correctly…




    Are you saying this 4+ Trillion dollar pumping of money into our economy since Obama took office was Bush’s fault. Are you saying Obama is so weak that he, unlike every President since 1913, has no clout or leverage in the matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    The Obama appointee tapered QE immediately and then ended it within a few months of taking office.
    Oh Really. Is that because she has -all of a sudden- realized that all of her previous votes in favor of pumping were wrong? Or is it because she knows that QE has reached the danger level and now that the Obama Administration has made it through it’s last election cycle and the ill affects (stagflation) of backing off QE aren’t as big of a threat to his political party now?


    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    To whatever degree that the fed is part of our government, QE hasn't created more government debt, it's done the opposite of that.
    In some perverted way, I can see why a biased defender of this Administration’s economic policies would make such a fringe statement…

    But let’s try and look at it without an agenda. Obviously, QE has a major effect on our economy. That’s the reason behind doing it in the first place. Right? Can we agree on that much?

    While QE doesn’t show on the balance sheet as debt (that’s why my original post referred to as “off the books’) it most certainly impacts the economy in complex ways. Both good and bad. But where’s do you draw the line. When is enough enough.

    Assets flowing from QE onto the Fed's balance sheet are now the equivalent of one-fifth of US GDP. Meaning, the FED is pumping money into the economy by buying bonds and treasuries to falsely prop it up, artificially stimulate it, and buy down inflation. This makes Obama look good. Provides a false sense of positive outlook. The average uninformed voter (aka “Stupid Voters”) have no idea what is going on in the background.

    At some point the negative downside to QE will start to creep in as the Fed tries to ween the fake ‘propped up’ economy off of the endless supply of money that the Fed has been, in effect, electronically printing.

    The longer a QE cycle runs… the steeper the withdrawal symptoms when it stops.

    Example: One clearly visible side effect of QE is Market Growth, not built on fundamentals. When the original QE ended, the market withdrew and it stymied growth in the entire economy. So QE2 was implemented. When it expired the same thing happened. So they came up with QE3 only this time they did not set limits on it. It continued unabatedly pumping 85 billion dollars into the economy every month, until just recently. Now the roll back starts. Let the fun begin!

    Wake Up America!

  3. #73
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    01-21-18 @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,666

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post
    ...But let’s try and look at it without an agenda. Obviously, QE has a major effect on our economy. That’s the reason behind doing it in the first place. Right? Can we agree on that much?
    Sorry, we can't even agree on that.

    QE has been largely unsuccessful. It's fairly inert. Exagerated monetary policy isn't an effective way to stimulate the economy. A little may good, but a whole bunch more is pointless. We have given the responsibility of managing our economy largely to the fed, but the fed only has one tool, and that's monetary policy. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail.

    Fiscal policy (ie tax cuts for the consumer class) is a much more effective tool for managing a weak economy.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  4. #74
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,974
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    So you think we need more government employees? Or that the government should take over private industry and tell them to pay more, instead of allowing the free market to make these decisions based upon supply and demand? I didn't realize that you were a socialist.
    Oh! Look who's putting words in my mouth! I think we're done with this conversation.



    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    the unemployment rate is what it is. The way it is computed today is identical to the way it was computed under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc.
    And I'm saying that the unemployment rate does not show the full problems.



    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    Nope. You are safe. You haven't even scratched the surface of reality. All you have done is to repeat the party line, and that's what those government men want you to do.
    That was called sarcasm!
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  5. #75
    User BringIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    08-12-15 @ 10:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    114

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    If you are familiar with the Laffer curve, then you are aware that tax cuts only increase tax revenue when the taxes are on the right side of the curve.
    Yes, I am familiar with the Laffer curve. In fact, the Laffer curve and supply-side economics inspired Reaganomics and the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981.

    One of the differences between liberals and conservatives is the core concept of who can spend your money better… you or the Government. While the Laffer curve helps to dial in the sweet spot of maximum tax tolerance and the point of diminishing returns, it fails to address the people quotient. In other words, economics can define an economic point of tolerance, but it does not reflect compassion.

    In a recession, or during a recovery from one form of catastrophe or another, natural or man made, many are in need of assistance. A little tolerance, a little latitude during the recovery is a good long term investment. It’s helps to build quality of life from the bottom-up. A better sense of well being inspires a desire to improve further, and help others along the way. It begets growth and further stimulus. It removes the emotional depression for an economic recession.

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    Only if you assume that all economic growth is caused by tax cuts. Of course that would be a faulty assumption.
    Of course all economic growth is not caused by tax cuts, but to a degree, economic growth can be stimulated by the lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services. Regulatory burdens, how ever small, have a negative counter effect.

    During the Great Recession, the Obama Administration has raced head long into punishing regulatory requirements that have negated and thwarted the very stimulus packages the have endorsed. From the EPA to the medical industry, this Administration has shot itself in the foot time and again rushing to agenda in favor of economic recovery for the nation.



    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    If you look at the tax revenue for any year that taxes were cut, you will see a dip in inflation adjusted tax revenues.

    In 1994 President Clinton's own Council of Economic Advisers stated: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."*

    The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year--the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982).* From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)*

    For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%— the right side slippery slope of the Laffer curve, but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%.* (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)

    As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply.

    The economy grew impressively during Reagan’s presidency.* The economic expansion of the Reagan years is particularly impressive when we remember that Reagan inherited a weak and staggering economy.* In January 1981 the unemployment rate was 7.4% and was on its way to climbing to over 10%.* Double-digit inflation had pushed interest rates into the high double-digit range. Real pre-tax income of the average American family had been dropping since 1976, and after-tax income was falling even faster.

    Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

    Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.



    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    So if cutting taxes creates more tax revenue, then why don't we just get rid of all taxes? We would have tons of revenue then wouldn't we?
    What a ridiculous statement.

    Obviously, we need a government to provide for the safety and security of the nation. But once again, conservative vs. liberal, we come down to the question how much is enough?
    Wake Up America!

  6. #76
    User BringIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    08-12-15 @ 10:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    114

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    Sorry, we can't even agree on that.

    QE has been largely unsuccessful. It's fairly inert. Exagerated monetary policy isn't an effective way to stimulate the economy. A little may good, but a whole bunch more is pointless. We have given the responsibility of managing our economy largely to the fed, but the fed only has one tool, and that's monetary policy. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail.

    Fiscal policy (ie tax cuts for the consumer class) is a much more effective tool for managing a weak economy.

    I didn’t say it was successful. I said: “QE has a major effect on our economy. “

    If you bothered to read my post you will see that, IMO, “QE has not only been largely unsuccessful”, QE will be highly detrimental to our nation over time.
    Wake Up America!

  7. #77
    User BringIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    08-12-15 @ 10:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    114

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    the unemployment rate is what it is. The way it is computed today is identical to the way it was computed under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc.
    Wrong Again...


    U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment - USATODAY.com
    12/28/2010
    Wake Up America!

  8. #78
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    25,894
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post
    Seems like there's a lot of changing of measurement systems all over the government. Immigration deportations being another.

    I guess if you don't like the numbers the previous measurements said, change your measurement system. Yeah, like that's honest (*sarcasm*). Don't like the numbers, move the goal posts.
    Friends of Billary Investigations [ the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigations (AKA the federal bureau of matters) ]
    “That’s why I told Washington Republicans to grow a pair of ovaries and get the job done,”, Martha McSally - Yeeesss!!

  9. #79
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    25,894
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post
    Much like federal judges, the President nominates and Congress approves members of the Fed for a specific time period. However, the POTUS has HUGE influence over policy shaping.


    So let me see if I am hearing you correctly…




    Are you saying this 4+ Trillion dollar pumping of money into our economy since Obama took office was Bush’s fault. Are you saying Obama is so weak that he, unlike every President since 1913, has no clout or leverage in the matter.




    Oh Really. Is that because she has -all of a sudden- realized that all of her previous votes in favor of pumping were wrong? Or is it because she knows that QE has reached the danger level and now that the Obama Administration has made it through it’s last election cycle and the ill affects (stagflation) of backing off QE aren’t as big of a threat to his political party now?




    In some perverted way, I can see why a biased defender of this Administration’s economic policies would make such a fringe statement…

    But let’s try and look at it without an agenda. Obviously, QE has a major effect on our economy. That’s the reason behind doing it in the first place. Right? Can we agree on that much?

    While QE doesn’t show on the balance sheet as debt (that’s why my original post referred to as “off the books’) it most certainly impacts the economy in complex ways. Both good and bad. But where’s do you draw the line. When is enough enough.

    Assets flowing from QE onto the Fed's balance sheet are now the equivalent of one-fifth of US GDP. Meaning, the FED is pumping money into the economy by buying bonds and treasuries to falsely prop it up, artificially stimulate it, and buy down inflation. This makes Obama look good. Provides a false sense of positive outlook. The average uninformed voter (aka “Stupid Voters”) have no idea what is going on in the background.

    At some point the negative downside to QE will start to creep in as the Fed tries to ween the fake ‘propped up’ economy off of the endless supply of money that the Fed has been, in effect, electronically printing.

    The longer a QE cycle runs… the steeper the withdrawal symptoms when it stops.

    Example: One clearly visible side effect of QE is Market Growth, not built on fundamentals. When the original QE ended, the market withdrew and it stymied growth in the entire economy. So QE2 was implemented. When it expired the same thing happened. So they came up with QE3 only this time they did not set limits on it. It continued unabatedly pumping 85 billion dollars into the economy every month, until just recently. Now the roll back starts. Let the fun begin!

    "Now the roll back starts. Let the fun begin!"

    Yeah, I'm wondering what's going to happen when the other shoe drops.
    Friends of Billary Investigations [ the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigations (AKA the federal bureau of matters) ]
    “That’s why I told Washington Republicans to grow a pair of ovaries and get the job done,”, Martha McSally - Yeeesss!!

  10. #80
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post


    The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them. Analysts call the move a sign of the times.

Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •