Page 35 of 50 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 499

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

  1. #341
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    66,798

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

    imagep;1064626384]Reagan ran up three times more debt than every president before him COMBINED. So yea, if deficit spending is stimulative, then Obama has done a piss poor job compared to Reagan.
    Show me the spending in the Reagan stimulus? This has to be a game, you ought to know better

    Why should it? How many "unemployed/under employed/discouraged plus marginally attached" were their when Obama took office? Again, just raw numbers don't mean anything, unless we have something to compare them to. If someone told me that there were 17 thousand of those people, that might would sound like a lot, unless I knew that it's typically tens of millions.
    How many times do I have to post the numbers. You don't pay any attention to them. Where was Obama in 2006-2008?

    Try this one, under Obama, the foodstamp roll grew by 14.2 million people. Sounds outragous, almost unbelievable, until we find out that it grew by 14.7 under Bush.
    so let's ignore the unemployed, under employed, discouraged to focus on 500,000 increase in food stamps most of which are handled by the state and local governments.

  2. #342
    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 clownboy View Post
    There was no balanced budget
    Yer correct, in the sense that it was never exactly balanced. Here are the numbers of SURPLUS, in billions of dollars:

    FY nominal inflation-adjusted
    1998 69.2 100.6
    1999 125.6 178.4
    2000 236.4 325.2
    2001 127.3 170.2

    Here's a chart going back to 1970. The numbers are from OMB and published by the Fed.

    fed_def_surp_1970_2014.jpg

    >>any gains were PROJECTED gains

    Well, there were projected gains, yes. Large ones. Chaingang and friends took care of that.

  3. #343
    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 Conservative View Post
    Of course there weren't any retirees during the Bush term
    Rhetorical nonsense. The point is that baby boomers have been retiring in much larger numbers under Obama.

    >>retirees are not included in discouraged workers

    Of course I never said they are. You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    explain to me why there hasn't been a similar growth in the labor force
    That was what I quoted and that's what I responded to. Keep it up and I'll have to put you on the list with Fenton.

    >>parents staying home to raise their kids never happened prior to Obama.

    It's happening more now. This is getting very tedious.

    >>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who always make excuses for poor performance?

    What is it about modern so-called conservatism that creates people like you who can't analyze their way out of a paper bag?

    >>It would be much more mature just to admit that you are wrong and made a mistake in supporting Obama. The electorate got it finally in 2014. When will you?

    It would be much more mature just to admit that Obama has done a good job cleaning up the mess created by eight years of failed policies. The electorate got it in 2012 and re-elected him by a wide margin. I don't see any hope for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Clinton never had a balanced budget and added 1.4 trillion to the debt so one would think with a balanced budget that debt wouldn't have increased.
    That depends, as you know, on how debt is defined.

    >>How many times do I have to post the Treasury links to prove that?

    You will (completely arbitrarily) decide not to use the unified budget. Whatever it takes, no mater how biased and partisan.

    >>It is amazing to me how a recession ended in June 2009 before Obama's economic policies went into effect and yet he is given credit for it.

    Here again you are using definitions that fit yer argument as opposed to common sense. Luckily, the American people know better. The effects of the Great Recession went on for at least a year or two after GDP growth once again became positive. Federal revenues went down and federal expenditures went up. Obama is given credit because his policies brought the labor market back and cut the deficit substantially.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    How do you explain the FACT that I grew up a Democrat, voted for Democrats for national office for about 20 years, and now realize that the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama don't represent the Democrat Party that I knew and supported?
    Senility?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Keep patting yourselves on the back for the Obama performance and enjoy the GOP takeover of Congress.
    We're not patting ourselves on the back. We're happy that the economy has recovered, that 12.3 million private-sector jobs have been added to payrolls over the past sixty-two months, that the deficit has been cut by two-thirds, and that seventeen million more Americans now have health insurance. Hence, two terms. Hope yer enjoying that.

    >>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, who want badly to believe what you are told but actually ignore data.

    What is it about modern-day so-called conservatism that creates people like you, who want badly to believe what you are told but actually manipulate data?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Show me the spending in the Reagan stimulus?
    $1.4 trillion in deficits. That's more than three trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars.

    >>This has to be a game

    You lose. Again.

    "Chart: How The Clinton Surpluses Turned Into More Than $6 Trillion Worth Of Deficits," Business Insider, Jan 8, 2013

    causesofdeficits.jpg

    Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

    A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. — "The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton," PolitiFact, Feb 11, 2008

    US-national-debt-GDP-graph.jpg
    Last edited by mmi; 05-15-15 at 09:46 PM.

  4. #344
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    10-18-17 @ 01:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,325
    Blog Entries
    10

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tettsuo View Post
    There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.

    U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008 - Bloomberg Business

    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?
    No. The number employed today is only slightly higher than it was in 2007. There ought to be 10 million more employed by now.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  5. #345
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    No. The number employed today is only slightly higher than it was in 2007. There ought to be 10 million more employed by now.
    And there probably would have been, if it weren't for the Great Bush Recession in between then and now. Maybe you didn't notice.
    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.

  6. #346
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    66,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Yer correct, in the sense that it was never exactly balanced. Here are the numbers of SURPLUS, in billions of dollars:

    FY nominal inflation-adjusted
    1998 69.2 100.6
    1999 125.6 178.4
    2000 236.4 325.2
    2001 127.3 170.2

    Here's a chart going back to 1970. The numbers are from OMB and published by the Fed.

    fed_def_surp_1970_2014.jpg

    >>any gains were PROJECTED gains

    Well, there were projected gains, yes. Large ones. Chaingang and friends took care of that.
    Wow, you people are amazing, we pay debt service on the actual budget, not projected surpluses. It is absolutely stunning how you railed against the lies and performance of Bush while ignoring the lies and performance of Obama. Obama said his stimulus would create shovel ready jobs but rather than doing that it created large numbers of people dropping out of the labor force while adding 8.2 trillion to the debt. When will you people stop proving Gruber right?

  7. #347
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    66,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Rhetorical nonsense. The point is that baby boomers have been retiring in much larger numbers under Obama.

    >>retirees are not included in discouraged workers

    Of course I never said they are. You said:



    That was what I quoted and that's what I responded to. Keep it up and I'll have to put you on the list with Fenton.

    >>parents staying home to raise their kids never happened prior to Obama.

    It's happening more now. This is getting very tedious.

    >>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who always make excuses for poor performance?

    What is it about modern so-called conservatism that creates people like you who can't analyze their way out of a paper bag?

    >>It would be much more mature just to admit that you are wrong and made a mistake in supporting Obama. The electorate got it finally in 2014. When will you?

    It would be much more mature just to admit that Obama has done a good job cleaning up the mess created by eight years of failed policies. The electorate got it in 2012 and re-elected him by a wide margin. I don't see any hope for you.



    That depends, as you know, on how debt is defined.

    >>How many times do I have to post the Treasury links to prove that?

    You will (completely arbitrarily) decide not to use the unified budget. Whatever it takes, no mater how biased and partisan.

    >>It is amazing to me how a recession ended in June 2009 before Obama's economic policies went into effect and yet he is given credit for it.

    Here again you are using definitions that fit yer argument as opposed to common sense. Luckily, the American people know better. The effects of the Great Recession went on for at least a year or two after GDP growth once again became positive. Federal revenues went down and federal expenditures went up. Obama is given credit because his policies brought the labor market back and cut the deficit substantially.



    Senility?



    We're not patting ourselves on the back. We're happy that the economy has recovered, that 12.3 million private-sector jobs have been added to payrolls over the past sixty-two months, that the deficit has been cut by two-thirds, and that seventeen million more Americans now have health insurance. Hence, two terms. Hope yer enjoying that.

    >>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, who want badly to believe what you are told but actually ignore data.

    What is it about modern-day so-called conservatism that creates people like you, who want badly to believe what you are told but actually manipulate data?



    $1.4 trillion in deficits. That's more than three trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars.

    >>This has to be a game

    You lose. Again.

    "Chart: How The Clinton Surpluses Turned Into More Than $6 Trillion Worth Of Deficits," Business Insider, Jan 8, 2013

    causesofdeficits.jpg

    Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

    A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. — "The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton," PolitiFact, Feb 11, 2008

    US-national-debt-GDP-graph.jpg
    You wasted a lot of time posting this garbage again focusing on projected numbers. Don't recall 9/11 being projected and that cost 1 trillion dollars according to the GAO.

    I posted the Treasury site that doesn't show a Clinton surplus but that is being ignored. Do you always ignore information from your bank because what you are dong is ignoring the information from the Bank of the U.S.?

    Also, did you take an accounting course that taught you that keeping more of what you earn(tax cuts) is an expense to the govt? What accounting teacher taught you that? I keep hearing liberals claiming that the Bush tax cut cost the govt. Prove it with Treasury data?

    You sound like a young kid focusing on some leftwing professors rhetoric. Inflation adjusted numbers mean absolutely nothing to the taxpayers nor the deficit or debt.

  8. #348
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    66,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    And there probably would have been, if it weren't for the Great Bush Recession in between then and now. Maybe you didn't notice.
    Reagan took a worse recession and turned it into 17 million more jobs created than what he inherited. Obama hasn't even come close. For someone who supported Reagan you should have understood and known that.

  9. #349
    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 Conservative View Post
    we pay debt service on the actual budget, not projected surpluses.
    Why would we pay "debt service" on any surpluses?

    You should be more careful about the way you word things if you want to carry on this deception. You should say that "we pay debt service on the actual debt." And yes, when, e.g., the Treasury borrows money from the Social Security Trust Fund to cover budgeted spending, interest is paid on that borrowing. The Treasury pays interest to the Social Security Trust Fund currently 3.8%, I believe. One part of the federal government pays interest to another part of the federal government. Sadly for you, even correctly worded deceptions don't carry any weight.

    >>It is absolutely stunning how you railed against the lies and performance of Bush

    So you agree that Bush43's administration lied and performed poorly.

    >>Obama said his stimulus would create shovel ready jobs

    12.3 million private-sector added in the last sixty-two months. And counting.

    >>it created large numbers of people dropping out of the labor force

    Demographic trends.

    >>adding 8.2 trillion to the debt

    The price of Bush43's failures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You wasted a lot of time posting this
    Didn't take long, and I don't consider it a waste. It would have been if I'd posted it in an effort to help you understand these issues. You either have no interest in that, or are incapable of it, or both. I posted it to refute the BS you spewed about economic policy and its effects over the past thirty-five years.

    >>focusing on projected numbers

    Where did I use any projected numbers?

    >>Don't recall 9/11 being projected and that cost 1 trillion dollars according to the GAO.

    If you add up the actual costs of the Chaingang Group's reaction to 9/11, the figure is much, much higher. And you might want to think about all the people who were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq as a consequence of that miserably inappropriate reaction. Hard to place a dollar figure on all that. And then there's the fact that those foreign policy wizards IGNORED EXPLICIT WARNINGS OF AN IMMINENT ATTACK. So in reality, it was very clearly "projected."

    >>I posted the Treasury site that doesn't show a Clinton surplus but that is being ignored.

    I explained why it should be dismissed. Surpluses and deficits relate to current budgets, not accumulating debt where the interest is paid TO the federal government.

    >>Do you always ignore information from your bank because what you are dong is ignoring the information from the Bank of the U.S.?

    No I'm not. Yer playing yer usual game of obfuscation. I ignore marketing assholes who tell me to invest my retirement savings in highly volatile commodities.

    >>did you take an accounting course that taught you that keeping more of what you earn(tax cuts) is an expense to the govt?

    Fwiw, I did study accounting in graduate school. But I knew going in that revenues are revenues. I knew that in the first grade. You might learn it someday.

    >>Prove it with Treasury data?

    Now that would be a waste of time. Only a complete idiot would think otherwise. No sense trying to inform people who suffer from that limitation.

    >>You sound like a young kid focusing on some leftwing professors rhetoric.

    You sound like what you are.

    >>Inflation adjusted numbers mean absolutely nothing to the taxpayers nor the deficit or debt.

    A concept that is over yer head, is it? I can sympathize. But if you don't adjust for inflation, you cannot meaningfully compare deficits from more than a few years apart. Stay with it. You may be able to handle this fairly simple concept at some point.

  10. #350
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    66,798

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

    mmi;1064627171]Why would we pay "debt service" on any surpluses?
    No one pays debt service on a surplus but debt service is in the debt and every year Clinton had a deficit and added 1.4 trillion to the debt. You are the one claiming Clinton had a surplus and Treasury does not show any surplus. You really ought to call them and ask to correct the issue. Deficits are made up of two parts, Public Debt and Intergovt. holdings. You want to buy the liberal rhetoric that public debt had a surplus when the reality is SS funds were taken from intergovt. holdings to come close to a surplus but still leaving a deficit in those holdings knowing that people like you would ignore it.


    You should be more careful about the way you word things if you want to carry on this deception. You should say that "we pay debt service on the actual debt." And yes, when, e.g., the Treasury borrows money from the Social Security Trust Fund to cover budgeted spending, interest is paid on that borrowing. The Treasury pays interest to the Social Security Trust Fund — currently 3.8%, I believe. One part of the federal government pays interest to another part of the federal government. Sadly for you, even correctly worded deceptions don't carry any weight.
    Where do you think the money comes from to pay for the interest on the SS funds being borrowed? You don't seem to have a clue as to what you are talking about so you claim I offer deceptions. All you have to do is post Treasury data supporting your claim and include intergovt. holdings.

    It is absolutely stunning how you railed against the lies and performance of Bush
    It has been almost 7 years left office, don't you think it is time to stop diverting from the Obama record?


    So you agree that Bush43's administration lied and performed poorly.
    Said no such thing, just quoted other liberals like you. There isn't a performance number from Bush that Obama has beaten.


    >>Obama said his stimulus would create shovel ready jobs

    12.3 million private-sector added in the last sixty-two months. And counting.
    Prove it using BLS data? You can't so I expect an apology. You buy the leftwing lies. Obama inherited 143 million working Americans that is now 147 million so where are those 12.3 million jobs??

Page 35 of 50 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... 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
  •