Page 24 of 50 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 499

Thread: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

  1. #231
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 09:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Believe as you wish.
    Hurr duur....I base my spending on political rhetoric....hurr durr.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  2. #232
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 09:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    And the debt has outpaced income. Now run the numbers on the % increase of the debt sense 1965 and do a comparison. And looking at your chart the debt has not only outpaced income it has now exceeded it. And you call that success. I argue NO debt is success. Only a liberal would call running deficits every year for the the last 100 yrs a success. And now the people are holding 18.2 trillion in debt and growing faster than ever. According to you that is success. And with all that deficit spending we have more poor, more on food stamps, more in section 8 housing, more blacks unemployed than ever before, the labor participation rate is at it's lowest point. Etc etc etc.

    You call this success, liberalism at its worst. This is what we got for dumping over 18 trillion of borrowed money into the economy. I call that a total failure. Under Obama the middle class is making less than when he took office. But under Obama the rich have gotten much richer. So much for liberal failed policies.

    In 2012, 46.5 million people were living in poverty in the United States—the largest number in the 54 years the Census has measured poverty. The poverty rate (the percentage of all people in the United States who were poor) also remained at high levels: 15% for all Americans and 21.8% for children under age 18.


    Poverty in the United States: A Snapshot | National Center for Law and Economic Justice
    The increase in poverty and the decline in middle wage wealth has been consistent since the advent of neoliberal supply-side economic policies in the US, it did not just suddenly happen in 2009.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  3. #233
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    02-01-17 @ 09:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,667

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Sure, consumers tightened, not from real massive wealth declines...but from political rhetoric.

    Facking revisionism of the highest order.
    Federal Reserve data point to a massive destruction of wealth that fueled deleveraging and tempered the growth of consumer expenditures in subsequent years:



    http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1206/z1r-5.pdf
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 05-12-15 at 01:01 PM.

  4. #234
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-02-17 @ 05:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,180

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tettsuo View Post
    No, you ARE sheep. You're sheep because you hate Obama for no valid reason. You're sheep because you believe that Republicans are actually fiscally conservative. You're sheep because you believe that Republicans have been good on national security. You're sheep because you believe the nonsense the GOP is feeding you daily and not basing your opinion on facts.

    My point for the thread? Showing the sheep for what they are. We are 7 years into Obama's presidency and on day one, Republicans have said over and over again that Obama owns this economy, that Obama can't point to the failures of Bush and say it was his fault we're in the hole we were in. Now that the tide has turned, you can't man up and give Obama his due.

    I'm still waiting for Obamacare to destroy America.
    Wow. Can your posts be any more insane?

    I asked you what specific policy Barack Obama implemented that resulted in private sector job creation, and you're here screaming about Obamacare destroying the economy and Republicans.

    What a colossal waste of my time reading this.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  5. #235
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-02-17 @ 05:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,180

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    You've taken the obnoxious tone. Is it my fault you didn't bother to read the links you post, even after i point out how they didn't support your strawman? Nope.



    Who is claiming perfection (these strawmen continue to amuse)? You made a mistake, and when it gets pointed out, you double down with a bitchy attitude. There was an obvious interest in the link given you were the one who provided it. That i pointed out the faults of the professors reasoning should come as no surprise.



    You started the partisan nonsense with post #4



    Why is it that economically illiterate conservatives bring up Obama in every thread; is it out of desperateness?



    Your initial contribution and following responses have been a series of strawmen and partisan nonsense. It was you who made attempts to derail the thread into "but, but, but... Obama didn't create these jobs" mudslinging fest.



    Why should i go away? You've contributed absolutely nothing of substance to this discussion. A thread pertaining to labor market dynamics is boring unless it carries a hyper-partisan theme?
    Wow. You make nothing but inane posts. And arrogant ones, too. Ick.

    It isn't a partisan strawman to ask what policies the President implemented that resulted in private sector job creation. In fact, it's the kind of question grown ups ask when someone says "Give the President credit for being good for the economy". The fact that you lean so far left is the reason you're posting these hysterical, dramatic posts because I asked a question.

    Man, your posts are so boring. Keep up the good fight though. Obama can use a good cheerleader like you.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  6. #236
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    for the last 100 yrs we have run deficits. Yet what do we have to show for it. Not a damn thing except 18.2 trillion in debt and growing.
    Beyond the steady increase in real disposable personal income per capita (there's a mouthful), there's a lot of other great stuff in this country that we've acquired and developed by leveraging our assets. I have debt I still owe the bank $56K on my house. What do I have to show for it? A "dog room" where still-damp and still lightly muddy hounds can dry off before they're released into the rest of the house when they come in from outside after it's rained, and a decent-sized, fenced-in back yard where they run around protecting their domain from birds and squirrels and toads and snakes and anything else that violates it, just to mention the two things that are perhaps the most important to me.

    >>With all that deficit spending we have more poor

    There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of Americans living in poverty over the past one hundred years.

    >>more on food stamps

    As you know, the SNAP program hasn't been around for one hundred years (here's a short history), but you might not know that it was developed to help farmers as well as the poor. I'd agree that the agriculture industry has changed a lot over the years. And a lot of SNAP benefits aren't used on fruit and vegetables. Perhaps we should look into changing that maybe try to connect SNAP recipients with local farmers markets. Hmm, looks like someone else already thought of that: "How 'Double Bucks' For Food Stamps Conquered Capitol Hill," npr.org, Nov 10, 2014.

    >>more in section 8 housing

    You've mentioned that before and I've asked for numbers.

    >>more blacks unemployed than ever before

    I'm pretty sure I've pointed out to you, when you claimed that there were "more blacks in poverty than ever before," that black poverty has been cut in half over the past sixty years. If you were to run that out to a hundred years, I'm sure the drop would be even more dramatic.

    Here's the data on unemployment going back to 1972:

    black_unemp_1972_2015.jpg

    >>labor participation rate is at it's lowest point.

    I've seen that graph just recently on this site. I'm thinking you did as well. The LFPR was was much lower in the 1950s than it is now. The fact that that is misleading because it was a lot easier for a one-income household to get by back then is mirrored by the fact that the biggest reason it's down now is because a lot of baby boomers are retiring. All these stats must be understood in context.

    >>Etc etc etc.

    You have more?

    >>We have achieved all this by borrowing and spending, and yet you continue to champion more borrowing an spending to increase more poor, and a worse off middle class, and more blacks unemployed, and more on food stamps etc. etc.

    First, as you've been shown repeatedly, the garbage yer fed by Handjob, Limpblow, and others is a collection of divisive lies. And secondly, without the spending we've seen, the problems would be worse. Now very importantly, I'd say the money has often not been spent wisely. We need to correct that. Perhaps if we can get on the same page about what's really going on, we can begin to make that happen.

    >>the top 10 poorest cities run by democrats and the top 10 most dangerous cities run by democrats

    Very misleading. Could the elected officials in these cities reasonably be expected to turn things around on their own? Don't get me wrong some city governments have done a better job than others, and they should all be held responsible to do the best they can to diminish poverty and violent crime. But I'm hoping you'll see this rhetoric for what is. Big cities, where you have yer big slum areas, are Democratic strongholds. That doesn't mean Democrats have caused those problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    I sincerely think they scared the crap out of employers, entrepreneurs, etc. When promises are made that the tax payers have to pay for, the tax payers tighten their belts, spend less, and boom... Bye bye jobs because sales are down.
    It may be impossible to prove that to be incorrect. But donsutherland1 has pointed to an alternative explanation that makes at least as much sense. What evidence do you have that yer theory is correct. If it's just a gut instinct, well OK, but is the "diminished hh wealth" theory sensible to you?

  7. #237
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    22,624

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    It may be impossible to prove that to be incorrect. But donsutherland1 has pointed to an alternative explanation that makes at least as much sense. What evidence do you have that yer theory is correct. If it's just a gut instinct, well OK, but is the "diminished hh wealth" theory sensible to you?
    I have no evidence. I have watched politics for several decades now. I see it as standard cause an effect. The democrats were promising their constituency to make the rich pay, they won the house and senate, then jobs dried up. It's a repeatable pattern if you look back through history.

    It's not good to scare the employers.

  8. #238
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,145

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    And the debt has outpaced income. Now run the numbers on the % increase of the debt sense 1965 and do a comparison. And looking at your chart the debt has not only outpaced income it has now exceeded it. And you call that success.
    There is a flaw in the graph (i forgot something) that you didn't notice. Given you have taken my data at face value, I cannot in good faith try and press you on your quote.

    I argue NO debt is success. Only a liberal would call running deficits every year for the the last 100 yrs a success. And now the people are holding 18.2 trillion in debt and growing faster than ever. According to you that is success. And with all that deficit spending we have more poor, more on food stamps, more in section 8 housing, more blacks unemployed than ever before, the labor participation rate is at it's lowest point. Etc etc etc.
    Your emotional take on debt aside, i will concede that when we did have a surplus in the late 90's and early 21st century, poverty and welfare were in steep decline. However, that would also be a disingenuous statement based entirely on correlating variables. In reality and not ironically, the causative factor was robust economic growth at a more equitable distribution.

    Capture.JPG

    Under Obama the middle class is making less than when he took office. But under Obama the rich have gotten much richer.
    This is probably the first thing you've said that isn't questionable. However, i have my doubts you will be able to attribute it to a single policy.

    In 2012, 46.5 million people were living in poverty in the United States—the largest number in the 54 years the Census has measured poverty. The poverty rate (the percentage of all people in the United States who were poor) also remained at high levels: 15% for all Americans and 21.8% for children under age 18.
    Close. The 2013 figure fell from 15% to 14.5% while the under age 18 rate came in at 19.9%. This was the first decrease in the poverty rate since 2006.

    My take is a bit more complicated than who is in office. Secular stagnation was first coined in 1938 by economist Alvin Hansen. Essentially, low population growth and a general savings glut has pushed the natural rate of interest for both the short and long end of the curve into negative territory. This suggests that absent any expansionary fiscal and monetary policy (credit easing, expansion and tax reform (Europe)), advanced economies will face permanent deflation, and with it a reduction in economic activity. A current debate persists among what conservatives consider liberal economists (See Krugman and Stiglitz) as to whether inequality is the major contributor. I somewhat agree with Stiglitz, insofar as underconsumption among the high income demographic has led to a misallocation of capital. The private sector is cannibalizing itself to maintain short term profitability. In other words, companies are allocating far too much investment towards preserving stock prices rather than gaining market share. Labor, which once was the major driver in consumption, is losing bargaining power with the progression in automation. If this trend continues, the labor force will no longer be able to afford purchasing goods and services at a level that supports growth in capital expenditure. Secular stagnation began at the height of the equity bubble (2001), had been masked by the housing bubble, and continues to this day.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #239
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,145

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Man, your posts are so boring. Keep up the good fight though. Obama can use a good cheerleader like you.
    You keep repeating this as though it has some kind of meaning. Perhaps my posts are just over your head?

    Just so you are aware: good for the economycreates private sector jobs

    It follows from your logic that no president has been good for the economy, because no president creates private sector jobs. Of course we know this is nonsense, and that your reasoning is inherently flawed. A president can be good for an economy, and many have been good... including Obama.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #240
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,292

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    Democrats (I assume this is what you meant) also control a lot of the safest and most prosperous cities.
    Name some, however you cannot get away from holding the top 10 most poor and most dangerous. And these are cities that have been in control in some cases from the early 1940's
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

Page 24 of 50 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •