Nonfarm Payroll employment Increased by 211,000, Unemployment Rate stays at 5%

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

mmi said:
Yer not fooling anyone. You don't know a discouraged worker from a hole in the ground, and yer not interested in understanding what's going on and what has gone on in the past in the US labor market. You do what you do — you post confused gibberish attacking liberalism and ineffectively (to be polite) defending failed right-wing economic policies.

In post #61, you cited an excerpt from a Wikipedia page to lecture pinqy about what a discouraged worker is. It includes a small amount of useful and accurate information as well as a lot of … other stuff.

The excerpt you cited seems to have first appeared online here, in 2003. Not what I would call a credible source. I have no idea how it got published on Wikipedia. The only footnote included in it goes to this article, published in 1992. But it only references a Note that outlines reasons for being discouraged.

I'm not going to chase this down. pinqy know what he's talking about, and I'll wait for any comments he may have.

>>people like you distort and cannot honestly debate any topic

I'm willing to concede that you don't deliberately distort and that yer being honest. The problem is yer clueless and completely biased. You have no credibility because you don't deserve any.

It really isn't that difficult to find the BLS article on the change in reporting that went into effect in 1994 and the redefined definition of Discouraged workers. Doesn't appear that you truly have any interest in accuracy but rather just partisan drum beating for a failed Presidency and ideology

mmi · Dec 10, 2015

Conservative said:
It really isn't that difficult to find the BLS article on the change in reporting that went into effect in 1994

Yer right, it's not. I've been collecting and reviewing BLS data for fifteen years, so I'm not familiar with the changes that took place in 1994. I could plow through a pile of material to attempt to see what relevance this has for the issue at hand — comparing U-6 components outside of the core U-3 element in the Reagan and Obama recoveries. I prefer to cut myself some slack and wait for advice from someone who has a much more informed perspective than I do — pinqy.

Fwiw, I expect Reagan was somewhat better able to get discouraged and other marginal workers back into the labor force for a simple reason — the problems he had with unemployment were caused by factors that weren't as "discouraging" and "marginalizing" as the near-collapse of the financial sector that Obama had to deal with. Reagan encouraged Volker to choke the economy with a second round of unwarranted and destructive interest rate hikes (through the roof) while stimulating it with big tax cuts and large increases in gubmint spending that created big defcits. High levels of unemployment persisted, but the labor force wasn't as disillusioned.

>>Doesn't appear that you truly have any interest in accuracy

I can't say if you have interest in accuracy or not. I do know that it is completely beyond yer reach.

>>just partisan drum beating for a failed Presidency and ideology

Exactly what you do in regard to Reagan and the SSE policies that Bush41 coreectly identified as '"voodoo economics." The historical record is clear on employment and deficits — SSE is very expensive, unstable, and ultimately ineffective. The policies pursued by Clinton and Obama have been successful. It's not a black-and-white story, but you can't even read the language.

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

mmi said:
Yer right, it's not. I've been collecting and reviewing BLS data for fifteen years, so I'm not familiar with the changes that took place in 1994. I could plow through a pile of material to attempt to see what relevance this has for the issue at hand — comparing U-6 components outside of the core U-3 elements in the Reagan and Obama recoveries. I prefer to cut myself some slack and wait for advice from someone who has a much more informed perspective than I do — pinqy.

Fwiw, I expect Reagan was somewhat better able to get discouraged and other marginal workers back into the labor force for a simple reason — the problems he had with unemployment were caused by factors that weren't as "discouraging" and "marginalizing" as the near-collapse of the financial sector that Obama had to deal with. Reagan encouraged Volker to choke the economy with a second round of unwarranted and destructive interest rate hikes (through the roof) while stimulating the it with big tax cuts and large increases in gubmint spending. High levels of unemployment persisted, but the labor force wasn't as disillusioned.

>>Doesn't appear that you truly have any interest in accuracy

I can't say if you have interest in accuracy or not. I do know that it is completely beyond yer reach.

>>just partisan drum beating for a failed Presidency and ideology

Exactly what you do in regard to Reagan and the SSE policies that Bush41 coreectly identified as '"voodoo economics." The historical record is clear on employment and deficits — SSE is very expensive, unstable, and ultimately ineffective. The policies pursued by Clinton and Obama have been successful. It's not a black-and-white story, but you can't even read the language.

LOL, how old were you in the 80's. remember 17.5% interest rates and a misery index over 20. I know how the 81-82 recession affected ALL Americans and how this one didn't but that fact escapes you. You want to tie your wagon to liberalism and Obama have at it, the results and future are a failure but as I have always stated life is about making choices but apparently only in the liberal world is it someone else's responsibility to bail you out when you make a bad one

I am so sorry you don't get it and never will. Personal responsibility, individual wealth creation, and both good and bad consequences for personal choices. yep, I will take conservative principles over anything you have to offer.

Nothing is going to change your mind but one of these days the light bulb will go off and you are going to ask yourself "why was I so foolish and how could I be so wrong?" I assure you it will happen because not long ago I was like you but I outgrew it and learned to think with my brain instead of my heart. When my brain worked my heart was satisfied.

Never did I do better than I did under Reagan and there is a reason he won 49 states in 1984. People actually felt the difference in their pocketbook and in the economy in general. No matter how many times you claim the opposite the results tell a different story as did the incredible tribute to him when he died. All I see from people like you is jealousy, jealousy of what someone else has, what someone else doesn't pay in FIT, how much someone else earns. What a negative lifestyle to have.

I can see why Reaganomics is tough on people like you. I see it as opportunity whereas you always see the negative side. So sorry, but you really are a waste of time

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

mmi said:
Yer right, it's not. I've been collecting and reviewing BLS data for fifteen years, so I'm not familiar with the changes that took place in 1994. I could plow through a pile of material to attempt to see what relevance this has for the issue at hand — comparing U-6 components outside of the core U-3 element in the Reagan and Obama recoveries. I prefer to cut myself some slack and wait for advice from someone who has a much more informed perspective than I do — pinqy.

Fwiw, I expect Reagan was somewhat better able to get discouraged and other marginal workers back into the labor force for a simple reason — the problems he had with unemployment were caused by factors that weren't as "discouraging" and "marginalizing" as the near-collapse of the financial sector that Obama had to deal with. Reagan encouraged Volker to choke the economy with a second round of unwarranted and destructive interest rate hikes (through the roof) while stimulating it with big tax cuts and large increases in gubmint spending that created big defcits. High levels of unemployment persisted, but the labor force wasn't as disillusioned.

>>Doesn't appear that you truly have any interest in accuracy

I can't say if you have interest in accuracy or not. I do know that it is completely beyond yer reach.

>>just partisan drum beating for a failed Presidency and ideology

Exactly what you do in regard to Reagan and the SSE policies that Bush41 coreectly identified as '"voodoo economics." The historical record is clear on employment and deficits — SSE is very expensive, unstable, and ultimately ineffective. The policies pursued by Clinton and Obama have been successful. It's not a black-and-white story, but you can't even read the language.

Have at it and enjoy the read

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

mmi · Dec 10, 2015

Conservative said:
LOL, how old were you in the 80's.

You ask that same stupid question over and over. I was twenty-four when Reagan was elected, studying macroeconomics and public finance in graduate school.

>>remember 17.5% interest rates and a misery index over 20.

Yes, and I remember that Reagan gave Volker the green light to jack interest rates back up when inflation was already under control. And I remember that his economic policies created a terrible recession July 1981 – Nov 1982 that you try to blame on Carter.

>>I know how the 81-82 recession affected ALL Americans and how this one didn't but that fact escapes you.

Sure, you stick to that line. See where it gets you politically. "Great Recession? What Great Recession?"

>>Obama … the results and future are a failure

The results are clear: 11.5 million full-time, private sector jobs added, with part-time employment down and public-sector employment flat. Deficit as a percentage of GDP down 75%. Fifteen million more Americans with health insurance. Inflation at a fifty-year low. No unnecessary, expensive, and destructive foreign misadventures.

>>in the liberal world is it someone else's responsibility to bail you out when you make a bad one

In the real world, it's up to middle- and working-class Americans to bail the country out when failed right-wing policies put the country in the ****ter.

>>I am so sorry you don't get it and never will.

I'm very happy that I'll never be blind and foolish enough to buy into reactionary rhetoric.

>>I will take conservative principles over anything you have to offer.

You don't support conservative policies; you support reactionary bull****.

>>one of these days the light bulb will go off and you are going to ask yourself "why was I so foolish and how could I be so wrong?" I assure you it will happen

I'm confident that will never happen to you. Yer head's in the wrong place.

>>I outgrew it and learned to think with my brain

I'd say yer thoughts are associated with another organ.

>>Never did I do better than I did under Reagan

Who gives a flying eff how you did?

>>there is a reason he won 49 states in 1984.

Just as there is a reason BHO served two terms and the Democrats will continue to hold onto the WH. The difference is that we'll do it while benefiting the country, not undermining it by piling up huge debts and fostering massive income and wealth disparity.

>>People actually felt the difference in their pocketbook and in the economy in general.

Germans did well in much of the 1930s.

>>No matter how many times you claim the opposite the results tell a different story

You say they do, but the facts aren't there to support it.

>>the incredible tribute to him when he died.

The Soviets loved Stalin when he died.

>>All I see from people like you is jealousy, jealousy of what someone else has, what someone else doesn't pay in FIT, how much someone else earns. What a negative lifestyle to have.

You make a complete fool of yerself by repeating this garbage over and over. I don't experience jealousy or envy. You can't find a single thing to back that up. It's a self-serving fantasy you use to cover for yer ignorance and foolishness.

>>I can see why Reaganomics is tough on people like you.

I did fine. Many others have suffered from SSE policies.

>>you really are a waste of time

I agree in the sense that you'll never get anywhere debating me. You don't have anything useful to say.

Conservative said:
Have at it and enjoy the read

No. Why should I? Yer the one who claims to know all about this stuff. Why don't you just explain it?

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

mmi said:
You ask that same stupid question over and over. I was twenty-four when Reagan was elected, studying macroeconomics and public finance in graduate school.

>>remember 17.5% interest rates and a misery index over 20.

Yes, and I remember that Reagan gave Volker the green light to jack interest rates back up when inflation was already under control. And I remember that his economic policies created a terrible recession July 1981 – Nov 1982 that you try to blame on Carter.

>>I know how the 81-82 recession affected ALL Americans and how this one didn't but that fact escapes you.

Sure, you stick to that line. See where it gets you politically. "Great Recession? What Great Recession?"

>>Obama … the results and future are a failure

The results are clear: 11.5 million full-time, private sector jobs added, with part-time employment down and public-sector employment flat. Deficit as a percentage of GDP down 75%. Fifteen million more Americans with health insurance. Inflation at a fifty-year low. No unnecessary, expensive, and destructive foreign misadventures.

>>in the liberal world is it someone else's responsibility to bail you out when you make a bad one

In the real world, it's up to middle- and working-class Americans to bail the country out when failed right-wing policies put the country in the ****ter.

>>I am so sorry you don't get it and never will.

I'm very happy that I'll never be blind and foolish enough to buy into reactionary rhetoric.

>>I will take conservative principles over anything you have to offer.

You don't support conservative policies; you support reactionary bull****.

>>one of these days the light bulb will go off and you are going to ask yourself "why was I so foolish and how could I be so wrong?" I assure you it will happen

I'm confident that will never happen to you. Yer head's in the wrong place.

>>I outgrew it and learned to think with my brain

I'd say yer thoughts are associated with another organ.

>>Never did I do better than I did under Reagan

Who gives a flying eff how you did?

>>there is a reason he won 49 states in 1984.

Just as there is a reason BHO served two terms and the Democrats will continue to hold onto the WH. The difference is that we'll do it while benefiting the country, not undermining it by piling up huge debts and fostering massive income and wealth disparity.

>>People actually felt the difference in their pocketbook and in the economy in general.

Germans did well in much of the 1930s.

>>No matter how many times you claim the opposite the results tell a different story

You say they do, but the facts aren't there to support it.

>>the incredible tribute to him when he died.

The Soviets loved Stalin when he died.

>>All I see from people like you is jealousy, jealousy of what someone else has, what someone else doesn't pay in FIT, how much someone else earns. What a negative lifestyle to have.

You make a complete fool of yerself by repeating this garbage over and over. I don't experience jealousy or envy. You can't find a single thing to back that up. It's a self-serving fantasy you use to cover for yer ignorance and foolishness.

>>I can see why Reaganomics is tough on people like you.

I did fine. Many others have suffered from SSE policies.

>>you really are a waste of time

I agree in the sense that you'll never get anywhere debating me. You don't have anything useful to say.

No. Why should I? Yer the one who claims to know all about this stuff. Why don't you just explain it?

You can get this published by a fiction writer because that is exactly what you posted. I have refuted those claims over and over again using BLS, BEA, and Treasury but you ignored the data. See, this is a waste of time as actual facts are irrelevant to you and by your own words nothing useful.

By the way, still very sad that someone of your superior intelligence cannot figure out how to use the quote function

mmi · Dec 10, 2015

Conservative said:
I have refuted those claims over and over again using BLS, BEA, and Treasury but you ignored the data.

Sayin' ain't doin'.

>>very sad that someone of your superior intelligence cannot figure out how to use the quote function

I learned a long time ago that intelligence is a tool, a means to an end. Common sense is arguably more valuable in many ways. And yer constant drivel about the quote function must bore everyone to distraction.

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

mmi said:
Sayin' ain't doin'.

>>very sad that someone of your superior intelligence cannot figure out how to use the quote function

I learned a long time ago that intelligence is a tool, a means to an end. Common sense is arguably more valuable in many ways. And yer constant drivel about the quote function must bore everyone to distraction.

Please post for us all the BLS data that shows Obama creating over 11 million jobs?? Obama took office with 142 million employed Americans and today that is 149 million. It is up 3 million from when the recession began 8 years ago this month. When Obama took office the debt was 10.6 trillion dollars it is now 18.2 trillion. Guess in that liberal world of yours that is a success because debt doesn't bother you as long as someone else has to pay the debt service on it

Common sense isn't the problem especially with me but reading and responding to your posts without the quote function is. It does seem that you buy what you are told and ignore anything that refutes it.

mmi · Dec 10, 2015

Conservative said:
Please post for us all the BLS data that shows Obama creating over 11 million jobs??

Employment, in millions, from the household survey

Dec 2009 — 138,013
Nov 2015 — 149,364 (up by 11.35 million)

>>Obama took office with 142 million employed

4.1 million jobs were lost in five months, Oct 2008 - Mar 2009. A further 2.7 million were lost by the end of the year. You want to blame Obama for the 4.1 million jobs lost in calendar year 2009. This denotes either a partisan/ideological bias or an ignorance of labor markets.

You pretend that the enactment of the ARRA in Feb 2009 was a magic wand that should have instantly turned things around. It doesn't work that way. You and some others on the Right (the ones with zero credibility) will continue to spew yer crap. So be it. Unemployment is at five percent, and U-6 is approaching the historical average of around nine percent. That's a big reason why we'll hold onto the WH. Enjoy eight years of HRC.

>>up 3 million from when the recession began 8 years ago this month.

Dec 2007 was a bubble high. I've been over this too many times for it to be of any value. Why do you persist?

>>When Obama took office the debt was 10.6 trillion dollars

10.7.

>>it is now 18.2 trillion.

The debt is the result of two rounds of failed SSE policies, clearly indicated by the record of foregone revenues, and horrible GOP foreign policy.

>>reading and responding to your posts without the quote function

I use the quote function. You bore everyone except yer fellow hack reactionaries by pretending that I don't.

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

mmi said:
Employment, in millions, from the household survey

Dec 2009 — 138,013
Nov 2015 — 149,364 (up by 11.35 million)

>>Obama took office with 142 million employed

4.1 million jobs were lost in five months, Oct 2008 - Mar 2009. A further 2.7 million were lost by the end of the year. You want to blame Obama for the 4.1 million jobs lost in calendar year 2009. This denotes either a partisan/ideological bias or an ignorance of labor markets.

You pretend that the enactment of the ARRA in Feb 2009 was a magic wand that should have instantly turned things around. It doesn't work that way. You and some others on the Right (the ones with zero credibility) will continue to spew yer crap. So be it. Unemployment is at five percent, and U-6 is approaching the historical average of around nine percent. That's a big reason why we'll hold onto the WH. Enjoy eight years of HRC.

>>up 3 million from when the recession began 8 years ago this month.

Dec 2007 was a bubble high. I've been over this too many times for it to be of any value. Why do you persist?

>>When Obama took office the debt was 10.6 trillion dollars

10.7.

>>it is now 18.2 trillion.

The debt is the result of two rounds of failed SSE policies, clearly indicated by the record of foregone revenues, and horrible GOP foreign policy.

>>reading and responding to your posts without the quote function

I use the quote function. You bore everyone except yer fellow hack reactionaries by pretending that I don't.

So, January to November 2009 didn't happen? Why did Obama spend 842 billion dollars on a shovel ready stimulus program to create jobs if the number of jobs went down? It really is typical liberalism to pick a point in time that you want and ignore anything prior to that. Keep showing how dishonest liberals are

The revenue reduction was due to the failure of Obama's stimulus to create new taxpayers. Reagan created 17 million of them and that is why revenue grew

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

Cannot help but wonder why with such great unemployment numbers being touted by Obama supporters that Obama has such a poor job approval rating. Americans always vote their pocketbooks which apparently aren't feeling as good as his supporters want to believe and brainwash others into believing

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Isn't it possible that Democrats who had total control of the Congress the last two years of the Bush term saw an opportunity to regain the WH using their propaganda and low information voter base to blame all the problems and Bush and begin the process of fundamentally changing the U.S. Economy into a "prosperous" European Socialist model? Isn't that what we are seeing here?

I see a number of Obama supporters picking and choosing the dates in which they want to give for Obama policies to take hold to show numbers that are over inflated and aren't being felt by the American people. You see Obama was in that Democrat Controlled Congress, Obama had his job stimulus program ready to go when he took office, had TARP money to spend from the Bush Administration and spent the money to create shovel ready jobs meaning jobs created upon arrival of the money. Did that happen, Liberals? Can someone explain why we had 142 million employed in January 2009, 139 million employed in January 2011 and that is a success and Obama creating 11 million jobs?

mmi · Dec 11, 2015

Conservative said:
842 billion dollars … jobs went down?

Three letters: L A G.

Economists have been calling for aggressive action for some time now (with some exceptions, and to the extent those exceptions have delayed policy, they have done real harm to people's lives, people whose jobs could have been saved through earlier, aggressive action that was being called for).

It's not too late to do something, but we're getting there, and there's no room for further delay. More delay means more unemployment and more ruined lives. Congress needs to take this with the same degree of urgency that it showed during the financial crisis. We needed a package to be in place yesterday not two months from now. — "Policy Lags," Economist's View, Dec 12, 2008

You should try a freshman-level class in public sector economics at the local community college.

>>The revenue reduction was due to the failure of Obama's stimulus to create new taxpayers. Reagan created 17 million of them and that is why revenue grew

As always, yer dead wrong.

The CBO revenue projections are based on current tax law as revised by the Tax Act of 1981, signed into law on August 13. The Tax Act will reduce projected fiscal year 1982 revenues by an estimated $38 billion, 1983 revenues by $93 billion, and 1984 revenues by $150 billion. — "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update," CBO, Sept 1981

That's a $281 billion anticipated shortfall over three years. Here's what happened:

1980 — 517
1981 — 599 (+82)
1982 — 618 (+19) projected at 655 (from Table 13 of above)
1983 — 601 (-17) projected at 698
1984 — 666 (+65) projected at 748

A $216 billion dollar shortfall. The deficits 1982-84 totalled $521 billion, so about 42% was arguably attributable to foregone revenues resulting from the tax cuts. The lion's share of the remainder was increased defense spending. Public debt as a percentage of GDP increased 25% in three years, from 32% to 40%.

You find a similar pattern in Round 2.

2000 — 2025
2001 — 1991 (-34)
2002 — 1853 (-138) projected at 2202
2003 — 1782 (-71) projected at 2290
2004 — 1880 +98) projected at 2380

From Table C-1 of "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update," CBO, Jul 2000

That's a $1.357T shortfall. The deficits 2002-04 totalled $949 billion, so all of that and a foregone projected surplus of $408 billion can arguably be attributed to either foregone revenues resulting from the tax cuts or increased defense spending to fund the completely unnecessary, highly irresponsible, and very expensive invasion of Iraq in Mar 2003. Public debt as a percentage of GDP increased another 10% in three years, from 55% to 60%.

Then came the real agony — the near-collapse of the financial sector caused by a completely irresponsible deregulation of the mortgage industry. Public debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 64% in Jul 2008 to 92% in Dec 2010. The deficit in 2009 was 9.8% of GDP, and we added $5.1 trillion to the debt in four years.

The Right blames Obummer, Barney Fag, and the CRA. Niggers, faggots, and socialists. Who pushed through big tax cuts for wealthy households in 1981 and 2001? Which party/ideology favours deregulation and an end to oppressive big gubmint that stifles free enterprise? You've been fooled three times. Had enough?

Conservative said:
Cannot help but wonder why with such great unemployment numbers being touted by Obama supporters that Obama has such a poor job approval rating.

It's a tough job. Since we're talking about the economy, this one seems more relevant.

>>Americans always vote their pocketbooks which apparently aren't feeling as good as his supporters want to believe and brainwash others into believing

332-206. 51% to 47%. Sorry, Charlie.

>>Isn't it possible that Democrats who had total control of the Congress the last two years of the Bush term saw an opportunity to regain the WH using their propaganda and low information voter base to blame all the problems and Bush and begin the process of fundamentally changing the U.S. Economy into a "prosperous" European Socialist model? Isn't that what we are seeing here?

Sounds like the explanation offered by some for the Germans losing the First World War.

>>Can someone explain why we had 142 million employed in January 2009, 139 million employed in January 2011 and that is a success and Obama creating 11 million jobs?

It's been explained repeatedly. You continue to live in yer fantasies.

Conservative · Dec 11, 2015

mmi said:
Three letters: L A G.

Economists have been calling for aggressive action for some time now (with some exceptions, and to the extent those exceptions have delayed policy, they have done real harm to people's lives, people whose jobs could have been saved through earlier, aggressive action that was being called for).

It's not too late to do something, but we're getting there, and there's no room for further delay. More delay means more unemployment and more ruined lives. Congress needs to take this with the same degree of urgency that it showed during the financial crisis. We needed a package to be in place yesterday not two months from now. —

You should try a freshman-level class in public sector economics at the local community college.>>T

he revenue reduction was due to the failure of Obama's stimulus to create new taxpayers. Reagan created 17 million of them and that is why revenue grew

As always, yer dead wrong.

URL="http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps5076/1981/doc27-Entire.pdf"]The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update[/URL][/U]," CBO, Sept 1981

That's a $281 billion anticipated shortfall over three years. Here's what happened:

1980 — 517
1981 — 599 (+82)
1982 — 618 (+19) projected at 655 (from Table 13 of above)
1983 — 601 (-17) projected at 698
1984 — 666 (+65) projected at 748

A $216 billion dollar shortfall. The deficits 1982-84 totalled $521 billion, so about 42% was arguably attributable to foregone revenues resulting from the tax cuts. The lion's share of the remainder was increased defense spending. Public debt as a percentage of GDP increased 25% in three years, from 32% to 40%.

You find a similar pattern in Round 2.

2000 — 2025
2001 — 1991 (-34)
2002 — 1853 (-138) projected at 2202
2003 — 1782 (-71) projected at 2290
2004 — 1880 +98) projected at 2380

That's a $1.357T shortfall. The deficits 2002-04 totalled $949 billion, so all of that and a foregone projected surplus of $408 billion can arguably be attributed to either foregone revenues resulting from the tax cuts or increased defense spending to fund the completely unnecessary, highly irresponsible, and very expensive invasion of Iraq in Mar 2003. Public debt as a percentage of GDP increased another 10% in three years, from 55% to 60%.

Then came the real agony — the near-collapse of the financial sector caused by a completely irresponsible deregulation of the mortgage industry. Public debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 64% in Jul 2008 to 92% in Dec 2010. The deficit in 2009 was 9.8% of GDP, and we added $5.1 trillion to the debt in four years.

The Right blames Obummer, Barney Fag, and the CRA. Niggers, faggots, and socialists. Who pushed through big tax cuts for wealthy households in 1981 and 2001? Which party/ideology favours deregulation and an end to oppressive big gubmint that stifles free enterprise? You've been fooled three times. Had enough?

It's a tough job. Since we're talking about the economy, this one seems more relevant.

>>Americans always vote their pocketbooks which apparently aren't feeling as good as his supporters want to believe and brainwash others into believing

332-206. 51% to 47%. Sorry, Charlie.

>>Isn't it possible that Democrats who had total control of the Congress the last two years of the Bush term saw an opportunity to regain the WH using their propaganda and low information voter base to blame all the problems and Bush and begin the process of fundamentally changing the U.S. Economy into a "prosperous" European Socialist model? Isn't that what we are seeing here?

Sounds like the explanation offered by some for the Germans losing the First World War.

>>Can someone explain why we had 142 million employed in January 2009, 139 million employed in January 2011 and that is a success and Obama creating 11 million jobs?

It's been explained repeatedly. You continue to live in yer fantasies.

Do you know what a shovel ready job is? What you call lag, I call failure as does the 56% of the America people who do not approve of Obama's performance. You do a great job of giving us the leftwing propaganda and I am still waiting for an answer to why you have such passion for liberalism. Your post is full of fiction, leftwing opinions, and false information. Before telling me to go back to community college, you better show any example that you have any education on basic civics.

Because you cannot or won't use the quote function, your posts are almost impossible to respond to as they are essays full of a lot of words that do not tell the entire story

Conservative · Dec 11, 2015

mmi;1065348461]Three letters: L A G.

As always, yer dead wrong.

The CBO revenue projections are based on current tax law as revised by the Tax Act of 1981, signed into law on August 13. The Tax Act will reduce projected fiscal year 1982 revenues by an estimated $38 billion, 1983 revenues by $93 billion, and 1984 revenues by $150 billion. — "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update," CBO, Sept 1981

What I also find interesting and typical liberalism are people like you posting PROJECTIONS that ignore reality and actual results.

CBO Accuracy rates on their projections aren't very good and in this case way off. CBO didn't project the actual 17 million jobs created, the doubling of GDP, a 60% increase in FIT revenue with three years of FIT cuts, and a peace dividend from the destruction of the Soviet Union

Book smart street stupid individuals don't have a lot of credibility in the real world

Conservative · Dec 11, 2015

Would someone from the left please explain to me why the left has no problem posting CBO PROJECTIONS but never follow up by posting actual economic results? Seems to be a pattern with liberals but only when it comes to perceived positive projections supporting the left's point of view. It does seem that many here totally ignore the accuracy of CBO Projections.

mmi · Dec 11, 2015

Conservative said:
56% of the America people who do not approve of Obama's performance.

That's only on foreign policy. A certain number of Americans expect the president to control events overseas. Others hope we can at least avoid disasters like our involvement in Southeast Asia and our misadventure in Iraq. Aren't ya disappointed we haven't started bombing Iran?

>>I am still waiting for an answer to why you have such passion for liberalism.

The same reason people like Locke, Paine, Jefferson, FDR, and the Kennedys did — I'm a humanitarian. Why do you have such a passion for being a reactionary?

>>Your post is full of fiction, leftwing opinions, and false information.

And yet you fail to refute a single word of it. Another loss for the Right.

>>you cannot or won't use the quote function

Once again, you make a complete fool of yerself by repeating this when you butchered the quote tag in #114.

>>your posts are almost impossible to respond to as they are essays full of a lot of words that do not tell the entire story

You have difficulty responding to them because they counter yer vague/inaccurate drivel with facts.

Conservative said:
PROJECTIONS that ignore reality and actual results.

CBO is widely respected.

>>CBO Accuracy rates on their projections aren't very good

You say they aren't, and yet they are … widely respected.

>>in this case way off.

How's that?

>>CBO didn't project the actual 17 million jobs created, the doubling of GDP, a 60% increase in FIT revenue with three years of FIT cuts, and a peace dividend from the destruction of the Soviet Union

How do you know? I figure yer challenged t' spell CBO.

>>Book smart street stupid individuals don't have a lot of credibility in the real world

You have none, and deservedly so.

Conservative said:
Would someone from the left please explain to me why the left has no problem posting CBO PROJECTIONS but never follow up by posting actual economic results?

As an alternative, I suggest you reread #112, in which I posted both the CBO projections and the "actual economic results."

>>It does seem that many here totally ignore the accuracy of CBO Projections.

You sure do.

Here are the figures for Round 3 and the Obummer cleanup:

2007 — 2568
2008 — 2524 (-44) projected at 2672
2009 — 2105 (-419) projected at 2775
2010 — 2163 (+58) projected at 2890
2011 — 2304 (+141) projected at 3156
2012 — 2450 (+146) projected at 3398
2013 — 2775 (+325) projected at 3555
2014 — 3022 (+247) projected at 3733

From Summary Table 1 of "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update," CBO, Aug 2006

That's a $4.836T shortfall. The deficits 2008-14 totalled $6.718T, so 72% of that can arguably be attributed to foregone revenues resulting from the GOP SSE Great Recession, which saw GDP fall by .3% in 2008 and by a whopping 2.78% in 2009. The only comparable decline in modern times is the 1.91% drop in 1982, the result of Round 1.

Here are outlays and the associated CBO projections during those years:

	actual	projected	difference
2008	2983	2945	38
2009	3518	3079	439
2010	3457	3217	240
2011	3603	3382	221
2012	3537	3451	86
2013	3455	3631	-176
2014	3506	3797	-291

Only the 2009 spending level is painfully out of line, and we actually spent less than the projected amounts 2013-14. The total difference 2009-2014 is "only" $519 billion over six years.

The projection for 2015 was 3979, while the amount ended up being 3688, a difference of another $291 billion. So should those of you who think we're spending too much rather than taxing too little consider the fact that we spent close to six hundred billion dollars less the past two years than CBO expected we would back in 2006?

Conservative · Dec 11, 2015

mmi said:
That's only on foreign policy. A certain number of Americans expect the president to control events overseas. Others hope we can at least avoid disasters like our involvement in Southeast Asia and our misadventure in Iraq. Aren't ya disappointed we haven't started bombing Iran?

>>I am still waiting for an answer to why you have such passion for liberalism.

The same reason people like Locke, Paine, Jefferson, FDR, and the Kennedys did — I'm a humanitarian. Why do you have such a passion for being a reactionary?

>>Your post is full of fiction, leftwing opinions, and false information.

And yet you fail to refute a single word of it. Another loss for the Right.

>>you cannot or won't use the quote function

Once again, you make a complete fool of yerself by repeating this when you butchered the quote tag in #114.

>>your posts are almost impossible to respond to as they are essays full of a lot of words that do not tell the entire story

You have difficulty responding to them because they counter yer vague/inaccurate drivel with facts.

CBO is widely respected.

>>CBO Accuracy rates on their projections aren't very good

You say they aren't, and yet they are … widely respected.

>>in this case way off.

How's that?

>>CBO didn't project the actual 17 million jobs created, the doubling of GDP, a 60% increase in FIT revenue with three years of FIT cuts, and a peace dividend from the destruction of the Soviet Union

How do you know? I figure yer challenged t' spell CBO.

>>Book smart street stupid individuals don't have a lot of credibility in the real world

You have none, and deservedly so.

As an alternative, I suggest you reread #112, in which I posted both the CBO projections and the "actual economic results."

>>It does seem that many here totally ignore the accuracy of CBO Projections.

You sure do.

Here are the figures for Round 3 and the Obummer cleanup:

2007 — 2568
2008 — 2524 (-44) projected at 2672
2009 — 2105 (-419) projected at 2775
2010 — 2163 (+58) projected at 2890
2011 — 2304 (+141) projected at 3156
2012 — 2450 (+146) projected at 3398
2013 — 2775 (+325) projected at 3555
2014 — 3022 (+247) projected at 3733

From Summary Table 1 of "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update," CBO, Aug 2006

That's a $4.836T shortfall. The deficits 2008-14 totalled $6.718T, so 72% of that can arguably be attributed to foregone revenues resulting from the GOP SSE Great Recession, which saw GDP fall by .3% in 2008 and by a whopping 2.78% in 2009. The only comparable decline in modern times is the 1.91% drop in 1982, the result of Round 1.

Here are outlays and the associated CBO projections during those years:

Only the 2009 spending level is painfully out of line, and we actually spent less than the projected amounts 2013-14. The total difference 2009-2014 is "only" $519 billion over six years.

The projection for 2015 was 3979, while the amount ended up being 3688, a difference of another $291 billion. So should those of you who think we're spending too much rather than taxing too little consider the fact that we spent close to six hundred billion dollars less the past two years than CBO expected we would back in 2006?

How about responding to my post instead of personal attacks and diversion? CBO is indeed respected but what you don't understand is what CBO does and where they get their information. You posted the projections for the 80's with the tax cuts and then posted actual and projected for 2008 forward. You continue to grasp for straws and continue to dig your hole of ignorance deeper. Congress gives CBO the assumptions and CBO gives them projections and that is what they did with the Reagan tax cut. Even the most respected service given the wrong information will generate the wrong results. Now do you want to try again, doubt it but at least you have a chance. Compare the CBO projections for 81-89 with the actual results!!!

Then there is the issue of shovel ready jobs and job performance. I find it interesting that you posted December 2009 results ignoring the stimulus and ignored the rest of 2010 and 2011 so apparently shovel ready jobs to you has considerable lag time in the liberal world.

You just cannot win, you hitched your wagon to a failed ideology and a community agitator who has zero leadership skills even today. Academia doesn't resonate into street smarts or positive results but still you dig deeper

mmi · Dec 11, 2015

Conservative said:
How about responding to my post instead of personal attacks and diversion?

Pretty funny coming from you.

>>CBO is indeed respected but what you don't understand is what CBO does and where they get their information.

I do, but apparently you don't.

>>You posted the projections for the 80's with the tax cuts and then posted actual and projected for 2008 forward.

I posted actual and projected for both. Maybe try a remedial reading class before the community college Econ 101 course.

>>Compare the CBO projections for 81-89 with the actual results!!!

I did 1981-84. You want more, you do it.

>>I find it interesting that you posted December 2009 results ignoring the stimulus and ignored the rest of 2010 and 2011

Completely false. You have no idea what yer talking about. How was the ARRA spending excluded? How were 2010 and 2011 ignored?

>>You just cannot win

We have the WH and we'll keep it. The GOP can't win because of people like you.

>>a community agitator who has zero leadership skills

Two-term POTUS. Won easily both times. Led the country out of a deep hole you idiots put it in.

>>Academia doesn't resonate into street smarts or positive results

I've posted the results over and over — full-time, private-sector unemployment way up, deficits way down, fifteen million more with health insurance, record-low inflation, no foreign policy disasters. Eight more years of a Democrat in the WH. Got it? ☺

Conservative · Dec 11, 2015

mmi said:
Pretty funny coming from you.

>>CBO is indeed respected but what you don't understand is what CBO does and where they get their information.

I do, but apparently you don't.

>>You posted the projections for the 80's with the tax cuts and then posted actual and projected for 2008 forward.

I posted actual and projected for both. Maybe try a remedial reading class before the community college Econ 101 course.

>>Compare the CBO projections for 81-89 with the actual results!!!

I did 1981-84. You want more, you do it.

>>I find it interesting that you posted December 2009 results ignoring the stimulus and ignored the rest of 2010 and 2011

Completely false. You have no idea what yer talking about. How was the ARRA spending excluded? How were 2010 and 2011 ignored?

>>You just cannot win

We have the WH and we'll keep it. The GOP can't win because of people like you.

>>a community agitator who has zero leadership skills

Two-term POTUS. Won easily both times. Led the country out of a deep hole you idiots put it in.

>>Academia doesn't resonate into street smarts or positive results

I've posted the results over and over — full-time, private-sector unemployment way up, deficits way down, fifteen million more with health insurance, record-low inflation, no foreign policy disasters. Eight more years of a Democrat in the WH. Got it? ☺

Again selective posts and memory on your part Reagan was in office from 1981 to 1989 and you pick the period much of which was in recession and before the Reagan tax cuts were implemented. you also ignore the unemployment numbers in 2010 and 2011 and claim you have no idea what I am talking about? LOL, you really are a liberal elites dream but regardless I do not see the 1981-184 ACTUAL REVENUE but I do see the projections.

You have the WH and the country has gotten the shaft so have a good one

Conservative · Dec 11, 2015

mmi said:
mmi said:

Three letters: L A G.

Economists have been calling for aggressive action for some time now (with some exceptions, and to the extent those exceptions have delayed policy, they have done real harm to people's lives, people whose jobs could have been saved through earlier, aggressive action that was being called for).

It's not too late to do something, but we're getting there, and there's no room for further delay. More delay means more unemployment and more ruined lives. Congress needs to take this with the same degree of urgency that it showed during the financial crisis. We needed a package to be in place yesterday not two months from now. — "Policy Lags," Economist's View, Dec 12, 2008

You should try a freshman-level class in public sector economics at the local community college.

>>The revenue reduction was due to the failure of Obama's stimulus to create new taxpayers. Reagan created 17 million of them and that is why revenue grew

As always, yer dead wrong.

The CBO revenue projections are based on current tax law as revised by the Tax Act of 1981, signed into law on August 13. The Tax Act will reduce projected fiscal year 1982 revenues by an estimated $38 billion, 1983 revenues by $93 billion, and 1984 revenues by $150 billion. — "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update," CBO, Sept 1981

That's a $281 billion anticipated shortfall over three years. Here's what happened:

1980 — 517
1981 — 599 (+82)
1982 — 618 (+19) projected at 655 (from Table 13 of above)
1983 — 601 (-17) projected at 698
1984 — 666 (+65) projected at 748

Click to expand...

Here is what the left wants to ignore, Reagan's FIT tax cuts were passed in August 1981 and the first cuts went into affect in fiscal year 1982. Above are CBO's Projections, here are the actual numbers

* 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Current receipts 799.3 918.7 940.5 1001.7 1114.4 1216.5 1292.3 1406.1 1506.5 1631.4
Current tax receipts 586.2 664.1 660.1 694.6 763 824.4 869.4 966.3 1019.9 1110.8

Again, liberals want to apply basic math and ignore economic activity, not surprising. The CBO was NOT given the 17 million jobs being created, the doubling of GDP but that reality escapes you and the left

By the way notice how CBO projected a reduction in Tax revenue in 1983, did that happen? Now if you want to simply look at FIT Revenue we can do that as well but no you want to continue to spout the leftwing talking points of CBO PROJECTIONS and ignore reality

mmi · Dec 12, 2015

Conservative said:
Reagan was in office from 1981 to 1989 and you pick the period much of which was in recession

I posted data on the years in which the SSE policies led to foregone revenues.

>>and before the Reagan tax cuts were implemented.

You can't get any of this even close to correct. It's really rather pathetic. To Reagan's credit, he realized his policies weren't going to work and took big steps to reverse them.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase. — "The Great Taxer," NYT, Jun 8, 2004

He then negotiated the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which further increased taxes … and revenues.

>>you also ignore the unemployment numbers in 2010 and 2011

In what sense? They are a big part of the problem, reducing revenues and increasing expenditures, thereby adding a lot to the deficits. And where did that unemployment come from? The GOP SSE Great Recession.

You live in a fantasy world, believing that Reagan's policies quickly reduced unemployment and corrected fiscal imbalance. I've made this same point over and over in these rather pointless discussions. You don't care about the truth. You simply repeat yer bogus claims ad nauseum.

Here's unemployment under Reagan through the fall of 1986:

Stuck at or above 7%. Employment in Jan 1981 was 100 million. Twenty-nine months later, in Jun 1983, it was 100.6 million. This was the result of the recession his policies caused.

You will repeat yer nonsense about a "double-dip" recession and try to blame the whole mess on Carter. That's bull****. Reagan didn't sit back when he came into office. He slashed domestic spending and encouraged Volker to choke the economy by pushing interest rates back up over 20% after inflation had already been broken. That's where all that stubborn unemployment came from. But you worship Saint Ronald so it just can't be true.

>>and claim you have no idea what I am talking about?

You really should read more carefully. I said that YOU have no idea what YER talking about. You never do.

>>LOL … I do not see the 1981-184 ACTUAL REVENUE but I do see the projections.

Maybe yer laughing too hard to see what's right in front of you. Here's what I posted:

1980 — 517
1981 — 599 (+82)
1982 — 618 (+19) projected at 655 (from Table 13 of above)
1983 — 601 (-17) projected at 698
1984 — 666 (+65) projected at 748

See that first column of figures? Those are the actual receipts.

>>You have the WH

And we'll continue to hold onto it until the Looney Right loses its grip on the GOP.

mmi · Dec 12, 2015

Conservative said:
Above are CBO's Projections, here are the actual numbers

I posted both the actual numbers and the projections.

>>1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Current receipts 799.3 918.7 940.5 1001.7 1114.4 1216.5 1292.3 1406.1 1506.5 1631.4
Current tax receipts 586.2 664.1 660.1 694.6 763 824.4 869.4 966.3 1019.9 1110.8

As always, you have posted a confused jumble of figures. And you don't cite the source. I'm not going to waste much time trying to figure out what that pile of numbers is supposed to indicate.

OK. What you have there are a couple of BEA series — what they call "current receipts" and "current tax receipts." Here are definitions from Government Transactions:

Current receipts are the sum of current tax receipts, contributions for government social insurance, income receipts on assets, current transfer receipts, and current surplus of government enterprises.

Current tax receipts is the sum of personal current taxes, taxes on production and imports, taxes on corporate income, and taxes from the rest of the world.

The figures I used are what everybody calls "receipts." Since yer the forum expert on BEA, maybe you can explain the relevance to this discussion of the two series you posted.

"Current tax receipts" as of Jan 1, 2014 are listed as $3.492T. Receipts, as we laypeople talk about, were $3.022T for 2014. Ya wanna say Obama's Treasury collected an additional $470 billion last year?

>>liberals want to apply basic math and ignore economic activity, not surprising.

Yes, we apply math. You find that challenging.

"Economic activity"? I suppose this is some clumsy reference to "dynamic scoring." We're talking about what CBO projected for revenues and what was actually collected. Treasury collected a lot less than was projected. Are you saying that the agency should have increased its projections? That would widen the gap. If I guessed wrong, please do explain yer … reasoning.

>>The CBO was NOT given the 17 million jobs being created, the doubling of GDP but that reality escapes you and the left

When FY1985 ended, we had 105.5 million employed, an increase of 5.5 million from the beginning of Reagan's first term. By Jan 1989, we did indeed have 116.7 million. (So not seventeen million added.) Those additional 11.2 million jobs did indeed help our fiscal situation, but they weren't there Jan 1981 - Sept 1985 to do anybody any good.

The reason "the doubling of GDP … escapes … the left" is that it didn't happen. GDP was $2.994T at the end of 1980, and it was $5.413T at the end of 1988. (source) That's an increase of 81%, not 100%. There's some more liberal math for ya.

>>notice how CBO projected a reduction in Tax revenue in 1983, did that happen?

Yes, it did happen. It fell by $17 billion, from 618 to 601, when it was projected to increase from 655 to 698. (We were already behind because of the $37 billion shortfall in 1982.) Does that answer yer question?

>>Now if you want to simply look at FIT Revenue we can do that as well

Be my guest, and good luck.

Here are some figures to get you started, from Table 13 of the 1981 forecast:

The totals came in as:

	individual	corporate
1982	298	49
1983	289	37
1984	298	57

A $134 billion shortfall, 26% of the $521 billion in deficits 1982-84. Another $54 billion (10%) was lost in forgone social insurance tax revenues. Add in other stuff like foregone excise tax revenues and you get to the 42% total.

>>you want to continue to spout the leftwing talking points of CBO PROJECTIONS and ignore reality

CBO projected revenues are a widely respected set of figures. SSE policies took a big bite out of what Treasury was expected to collect 1982-84. That's reality. Ya might try it for a change.

mmi · Dec 12, 2015

I had the feeling something was wrong with my analysis. I'm now thinking that I cut SSE proponents a big break. In post #112, I cited the following:

The CBO revenue projections are based on current tax law as revised by the Tax Act of 1981, signed into law on August 13. The Tax Act will reduce projected fiscal year 1982 revenues by an estimated $38 billion, 1983 revenues by $93 billion, and 1984 revenues by $150 billion. — "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update," CBO, Sept 1981

So the agency was already including a $281 billion reduction in expected receipts into its forecast. As I noted, the actual numbers came in $216 billion below the forecast. That totals $497 billion, 95% of the $521 billion in deficits 1982-84.

CBO projected deficits for those three years totalling $170 billion, using mid-ranges. They were off by $351 billion. At first I thought they didn't anticipate the actions Volker would take in the spring and summer of 1981, but the document I'm using was published in Sept of that year.

mmi · Dec 12, 2015

I'm gonna make one last effort to get these numbers to add up.

Deficits 1982-84 were $521 billion. The anticipated revenue shortfalls resulting from the 1981 ETA were already taken into account when CBO projected a total of about $170 billion in deficits for those years. That leaves $351 billion to account for.

As I noted, receipts were a further $216 below the forecast. I'll assume the recession was longer and deeper than the agency expected (it was a bad one.) These figures support that.

That leaves $135 billion.

I used the mid-ranges of expected deficits. Using the high ends adds another $30 billion, leaving $105 billion.

You can see from the note below that table that they were using the initial committee resolution. If proposed spending was increased as they worked through the process, that would further reduce the gap.

A little reconsideration, an assumption here and there, and a dose of that convenient liberal math can always make things look better.

Chainsaw · Dec 12, 2015

Points of fact for the destruction of the American Dream, but that is the goal of liberals, destroying that pesky middle class.

#1 This week we learned that for the first time ever recorded, middle class Americans make up a minority of the population. But back in 1971, 61 percent of all Americans lived in middle class households.

#2 According to the Pew Research Center, the median income of middle class households declined by 4 percent from 2000 to 2014.

#3 The Pew Research Center has also found that median wealth for middle class households dropped by an astounding 28 percent between 2001 and 2013.

#4 In 1970, the middle class took home approximately 62 percent of all income. Today, that number has plummeted to just 43 percent.

#5 There are still 900,000 fewer middle class jobs in America than there were when the last recession began, but our population has gotten significantly larger since that time.

#6 According to the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

#7 For the poorest 20 percent of all Americans, median household wealth declined from negative 905 dollars in 2000 to negative 6,029 dollars in 2011.

#8 A recent nationwide survey discovered that 48 percent of all U.S. adults under the age of 30 believe that “the American Dream is dead”.

#9 At this point, the U.S. only ranks 19th in the world when it comes to median wealth per adult.

#10 Traditionally, entrepreneurship has been one of the engines that has fueled the growth of the middle class in the United States, but today the level of entrepreneurship in this country is sitting at an all-time low.

#11 If you can believe it, the 20 wealthiest people in this country now have more money than the poorest 152 million Americans combined.

#12 The top 0.1 percent of all American families have about as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of all American families combined.

#13 If you have no debt and you also have ten dollars in your pocket, that gives you a greater net worth than about 25 percent of all Americans.

#14 The number of Americans that are living in concentrated areas of high poverty has doubled since the year 2000.

#15 An astounding 48.8 percent of all 25-year-old Americans still live at home with their parents.

#16 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans now live in a home that receives money from the government each month, and nearly 47 million Americans are living in poverty right now.

#17 In 2007, about one out of every eight children in America was on food stamps. Today, that number is one out of every five.

#18 According to Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer, the authors of a new book entitled “$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America“, there are 1.5 million “ultrapoor” households in the United States that live on less than two dollars a day. That number has doubled since 1996.

#19 46 million Americans use food banks each year, and lines start forming at some U.S. food banks as early as 6:30 in the morning because people want to get something before the food supplies run out.

#20 The number of homeless children in the U.S. has increased by 60 percent over the past six years.

#21 According to Poverty USA, 1.6 million American children slept in a homeless shelter or some other form of emergency housing last year.

#22 The median net worth of families in the United States was $137, 955 in 2007. Today, it is just $82,756.

Nonfarm Payroll employment Increased by 211,000, Unemployment Rate stays at 5%

Well-known member