• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
Just goes to show the lack of leadership of Obama, he delegated the responsibility for coming up with a stimulus plan when he had total control of the Congress with overwhelming numbers.
Click to expand...

Which is beside the point; just because a person has a D in front of their name does not mean they would vote for anything he proposed. Now let’s consider what happened in Beijing in November of 2008 to gain a relative perspective.

The Chinese implement a stimulus package of about $586 billion (or 11.2% of GDP) for which $222 billion (4% of GDP) was attributed to public works.

The United States implements a stimulus package of $787 billion (5.6% of GDP) for which $111 billion (0.8% of GDP) was attributed to public works, nearly three months after the Chinese stimulus package.

What is so astounding is the success of such policy in China, even though the Chinese have a savings rate (which is critical to estimating the effectiveness) greater than the U.S. by many multiples.

The stimulus amount was enough but the way it was spent wasn't.
Click to expand...

No it was not, and nothing you can or will provide negates this fact. It has been broken down on multiple occasions only to see you reply with personal attacks. See for instance

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/105837-breaking-agreement-has-been-reached-raising-debt-limit-43.html#post1059704456

Saving jobs that weren't federal responsibility did nothing to increase employment and thus govt. tax revenue or GDP growth. His so called tax cuts were targeted and did nothing for the job producers but did provide a rebate check to many that once gone were totally gone.
Click to expand...

??? What are the taxes that job producers pay? Secondly, would you say that worker productivity increased with targeted tax cuts (you know, people taking more home for the job they do)? Businesses expand based on projections of consumer confidence, consumer credit, business credit, and the cost of capital (or credit). There is nothing to suggest that cutting taxes would lead to job creation. Reason being, corporate profits are at all time highs and firms are flush with cash and short term liquid assets.

With the economy declining and instead of focusing on growing that economy he came up with a job killer in the form of healthcare.
Click to expand...

Private sector job growth (albiet meager) has continued since March 21, 2010. Maybe uncle sam should subsidize every single businesses health care costs as a means of stimulating the economy

Not sure what makes you an expert on what to do. Have you ever created a job, created anything of value, promoted community growth? Why is it the role of the Federal Govt. to handle local social issues and personal responsibility?
Click to expand...

Ahh, the personal attacks begin when you run on empty.
 
j-mac said:
Then it should be a breeze to destroy. Instead what I seem to see is a lot of personal attack, and little fact coming from liberals, and quasi intellectuals aimed at Conservative. I am quite sure the he would move on if there were even a chance that the numbers he posts in many threads now, were debunked. Now can you do that? Or just continue to use pejorative and name call, thus losing the argument?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Search my post history involving discussions with conservative. Discussions tend to go nowhere when the only response you get has been copy pasted dozens of times. :shrug:
 
j-mac said:
So the stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough? Good luck with that one.

j-mac
Click to expand...

This has been my sentiment since January 2009. The rationale has been laid out on multiple occasions. Do you need help referencing the specific posts that outline why the stimulus was far too small?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Which is beside the point; just because a person has a D in front of their name does not mean they would vote for anything he proposed. Now let’s consider what happened in Beijing in November of 2008 to gain a relative perspective.

The Chinese implement a stimulus package of about $586 billion (or 11.2% of GDP) for which $222 billion (4% of GDP) was attributed to public works.

The United States implements a stimulus package of $787 billion (5.6% of GDP) for which $111 billion (0.8% of GDP) was attributed to public works, nearly three months after the Chinese stimulus package.

What is so astounding is the success of such policy in China, even though the Chinese have a savings rate (which is critical to estimating the effectiveness) greater than the U.S. by many multiples.



No it was not, and nothing you can or will provide negates this fact. It has been broken down on multiple occasions only to see you reply with personal attacks. See for instance

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/105837-breaking-agreement-has-been-reached-raising-debt-limit-43.html#post1059704456



??? What are the taxes that job producers pay? Secondly, would you say that worker productivity increased with targeted tax cuts (you know, people taking more home for the job they do)? Businesses expand based on projections of consumer confidence, consumer credit, business credit, and the cost of capital (or credit). There is nothing to suggest that cutting taxes would lead to job creation. Reason being, corporate profits are at all time highs and firms are flush with cash and short term liquid assets.



Private sector job growth (albiet meager) has continued since March 21, 2010. Maybe uncle sam should subsidize every single businesses health care costs as a means of stimulating the economy



Ahh, the personal attacks begin when you run on empty.
Click to expand...

Got to love it, do you really want to compare this country's economy to China? How about this country's wages to China? Typical textbook rhetoric out of touch with reality. I asked a very logical question, have you ever created a job, created anything of value, promoted community growth? You call that a personal attack? Seeking clarification as to your qualifications as an expert on the economy.

How do you know the amount spent on the stimulus wasn't enough? Do you believe it was spent wisely? What did it do to promote the private sector? It really is a shame when China sets the standard for fiscal responsibility.

As for people taking home more take home pay, you are confusing the Obama tax cuts with the Bush tax cuts. Rebate checks aren't more take home pay. How is that consumer confidence today?
 
Conservative said:
Then put the data into context and tell me how a rebate check benefits the economy long term, or how universal healthcare provides incentive for small business to hire.
Click to expand...

Strawman! You may rephrase the question without the use of a fallacy.

Tell me how bailing out unions benefit the economy long term and costs to the consumer?
Click to expand...

Strawman part II.

What I see from you are personal attacks that never address the results or the economic policy implemented.
Click to expand...

It is not a personal attack to note that you lack the ability to produce relevant econometric analysis. I am simply judging by the context of your replies, to which your analysis is sub-par given the complexity of the subject.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Strawman! You may rephrase the question without the use of a fallacy.



Strawman part II.



It is not a personal attack to note that you lack the ability to produce relevant econometric analysis. I am simply judging by the context of your replies, to which your analysis is sub-par given the complexity of the subject.
Click to expand...

LOL, still no context for what you claim, maybe a little less textbook rhetoric and more logic, common sense, and review of the facts.

Why is it that so many always want more spending instead of actually reviewing how the current revenue is being spent? Love the fact that you claim the stimulus was too small but ignore that State jobs were reported as being saved. Interesting that saving state jobs is now touted as an Obama positive when it is Obama that is trying to take over more state power, i.e. healthcare
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Got to love it, do you really want to compare this country's economy to China? How about this country's wages to China? Typical textbook rhetoric out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

Another strawman. When did i compare this country's economy to China? When did i compare this country's wages with that of China?

I asked a very logical question, have you ever created a job, created anything of value, promoted community growth? You call that a personal attack? Seeking clarification as to your qualifications as an expert on the economy.
Click to expand...

It is besides the point. If you want to destroy my credibility, you must do so in the context of our discussion; more specifically, by the content of my posts.

How do you know the amount spent on the stimulus wasn't enough? Do you believe it was spent wisely? What did it do to promote the private sector?
Click to expand...

Okun's law, fiscal multipliers, the growth rate relative to the rate of stimulus spending, and the output gap.

It really is a shame when China sets the standard for fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...

WTF are you even talking about. Not sure what the Chinese current account has to do with the topic at hand.

As for people taking home more take home pay, you are confusing the Obama tax cuts with the Bush tax cuts. Rebate checks aren't more take home pay. How is that consumer confidence today?
Click to expand...

Consumer confidence will continue to closely mirror the credit conditions of consumers, and the solvency of global financial systems. When put into the proper context, how is the credit condition of consumers and the solvency of the global financial system?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, still no context for what you claim, maybe a little less textbook rhetoric and more logic, common sense, and review of the facts.
Click to expand...

My posts are filled with logic, common sense, and review of facts. Until you are comfortable with the theory that underpins our economic system, it will continue to be painfully troublesome for you to actually understand my arguments, much less provide a valid response.

Why is it that so many always want more spending instead of actually reviewing how the current revenue is being spent?
Click to expand...

WE are in a liquidity trap. Fiscal policy combined with reformed immigration legislation is really the only way to circumvent such a reality.

Love the fact that you claim the stimulus was too small but ignore that State jobs were reported as being saved.
Click to expand...

It was small in a both a relative sense and economic sense. But you actually have to have a strong understanding of the macroeconomy in order to put it together.

Interesting that saving state jobs is now touted as an Obama positive when it is Obama that is trying to take over more state power, i.e. healthcare
Click to expand...

Holy strawman. WTF does saving state jobs have to do with the post which you replied to? If you want to talk about state jobs and what not, start a thread. It is bad form to consistently interject random issues on a whim.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
This above is what creates business uncertainty; lack of credit to consumers creates a heap of trouble. Small businesses that operate based on a "variable-cost" business model will find little rational to expand given a credit strapped consumer. It could take years for the largest banks in this country to cleanse their balance sheets to the point where they are willing to lend to consumers in a fashion that creates business certainty; a certainty that begins with a return of investment.

With this in mind, how does anyone propose we take on a liquidity trap?
Click to expand...

I'll take a stab at it...

A government infusion of capital accessible directly by the free market - to consumers and small businesses alike. For consumers that would mean reducing their tax liability. For small businesses, it would mean offerring low interest loans either directly from banks or via the SBA.

Am I an track or not even close? Not worried about being wrong; it's a learning process for me. So, critique away.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Bush signs his tax cuts on June 7, 2001

cpwill said:
no. Bush launched a series of tax credits in 2001 - the tax rate cuts came in 2003.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
WTF??

Lay of the revisionist history and take a dose of reality ...

2000:15%28%31%36%39.6%
2001:15%27.5%30.5%35.5%39.1%

There were tax rate cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

And since Bush cut taxes in 2001, there were 5 million jobs added, not 8 million; and not nearly enough jobs to keep up with the workforce as unemployment skyrocketed from 4.5% to 7.8% during that period. And also during that period, unemployment increased by 6 million jobs and underemployment increased by 10 million.
 
Objective Voice said:
I'll take a stab at it...

A government infusion of capital accessible directly by the free market - to consumers and small businesses alike. For consumers that would mean reducing their tax liability. For small businesses, it would mean offerring low interest loans either directly from banks or via the SBA.

Am I an track or not even close? Not worried about being wrong; it's a learning process for me. So, critique away.
Click to expand...

I am all for payroll tax cuts, but they make little economic sense given the indebted state of the consumer. As referenced by Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics, various tax cuts cost the government (or in this case, future taxpayers) more money than they generate economically. For example, assume a payroll tax is cut; in an indebted society (in terms of the average), consumers have a rational desire to pay down debt which has essentially the same effect of saving that tax cut money. While it is mostly correct that these savings will be lent out in some future time and thereby increase economic activity, we have no idea "when" this will take effect. What we do know is that in the short term, such tax cuts will not generate more economic activity than they cost future tax payers.

Mark Zandi said:
In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, provided estimates of the one-year multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options. The multipliers showed that any form of increased government spending would have more of a multiplier effect than any form of tax cuts. The most effective policy, a temporary increase in food stamps, had an estimated multiplier of 1.73. The lowest multiplier for a spending increase was general aid to state governments, 1.36. Among tax cuts, multipliers ranged from 1.29 for a payroll tax holiday down to 0.27 for accelerated depreciation. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent had the second-lowest multiplier, 0.29. Refundable lump-sum tax rebates, the policy used in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, had the second-largest multiplier for a tax cut, 1.26.
Click to expand...

Source

Now i do like your idea of an infrastructure bank!
 
Conservative said:
I was talking about the total results of the Bush Administration, not just the job creation since you only mentioned Wolffe not his jobs' chart, but I do thank the Democrat Congress for their help in 2007-2008. They were awesome in their efforts especially Frank, Dodd, Obama, and of course Geithner.
Click to expand...
Frank, Dodd, and Obama were all members of the minority party when the housing bubble was expanding to untenable levels. It was the Republicans who failed to install oversight during those critical years. You're blaming the bus driver for getting into an accident because his brakes fail and not the mechanic who failed to fix the brakes.
 
washunut said:
Is there really a point to looking backwards at someone who most acknowledge was a lousy President. Is your goal to prove that our lousy president is better than your lousy president.
Click to expand...
Yes, there really is a point. That point is that Bush played a major role of why were are where we are today. Those who don't look back are doom to repeating the failures in history.
 
Conservative said:
I have looked above and nothing you have posted changes the results this President has generated which are contrary to what he promised.
Click to expand...
How do you know? You don't even know what he promised.
 
j-mac said:
Then it should be a breeze to destroy. Instead what I seem to see is a lot of personal attack, and little fact coming from liberals, and quasi intellectuals aimed at Conservative. I am quite sure the he would move on if there were even a chance that the numbers he posts in many threads now, were debunked. Now can you do that? Or just continue to use pejorative and name call, thus losing the argument?


j-mac
Click to expand...
Umm, perhaps you have missed it, but many of his numbers have been debunked. That doesn't even slow him down from repeating them as though they haven't been. He's even posted that he doesn't necessarily believe the numbers he posts, so why should others?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Posting raw data without the proper context (or analysis) is of a knuckle-dragger's mentality. It is impossible to have a debate with someone who believes raw data, it and of itself, is a fact.
Click to expand...
... or even worse, someone who selectively picks raw data between nominal and real figures, depending on which better suits his argument.
 
Conservative said:
Done giving you citations because you ignore them. You are too frustrating to deal with but start here and use Google, it can be your true friend however in your case ones own words make you look foolish.

Barney Frank What Housing Bubble

There are a lot of videos posted on that link showing Barney Frank speeches. you can find the same for ACORN and Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick, and Tim Geithner
Click to expand...

Given that the housing bubble had sustained the economy for 4 to 5 years, I'm hard pressed to see that it was wrong. While GDP was being exported and the resulting current account from Asia fed low interest rates ... the financial capital was invested. Moving from 20x to 30x financial sector leverage created more risk but would not have stopped the bubble.

Without job growth from housing starts unemployment would have increased from 2003 levels ... creating a recession. So banks increase risk to increase profits ... irrelevant to the condition of the economy as housing based on credit was not sustainable.

Why is there no job creation? Exported GDP that supported small business. 1 manufacturing job leaves and so does the 2 to 3 jobs that it created. So exported GDP supports increased corporate profits and cheap goods. Exported GDP will not support the consumption needed for small business growth. 70% of the economy is driven by consumption.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
... or even worse, someone who selectively picks raw data between nominal and real figures, depending on which better suits his argument.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with data ... it's the source and avoiding partisanship. Without data we would be in the dark and could grow like mushrooms.
 
Conservative said:
Done giving you citations because you ignore them. You are too frustrating to deal with but start here and use Google, it can be your true friend however in your case ones own words make you look foolish.

Barney Frank What Housing Bubble

There are a lot of videos posted on that link showing Barney Frank speeches. you can find the same for ACORN and Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick, and Tim Geithner
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring your citations, I'm laughing at them. You are under the delusion that Barney Frank single-handedly shut down the Republican-led majority House and prevented Republicans from passing oversight.

Did Frank prevent H.R.1461 from passing in the House in 2005 (the same year as the video you posted)? Yes or no?
 
Michael H said:
Given that the housing bubble had sustained the economy for 4 to 5 years, I'm hard pressed to see that it was wrong. While GDP was being exported and the resulting current account from Asia fed low interest rates ... the financial capital was invested. Moving from 20x to 30x financial sector leverage created more risk but would not have stopped the bubble.
Click to expand...

High savings rates of Asian nations create a specific demand for dollar denominated debt; especially if this debt is unlikely to be defaulted on. Having a negative current account does not necessarily equate to a sub-optimal level of output. Given that capital and labor is essentially fixed in the short term, i see little benefit of having the U.S. embark on producing labor intensive products at the expense of more advanced technologies.

Exported GDP that supported small business
Click to expand...

How much more productive would small businesses be if they had to pay higher costs for American made goods? How much more productive would small businesses be if they produced labor intensive low grade consumable goods such as plastic cups instead of alloy casts for the production of jet engines?

manufacturing job leaves and so does the 2 to 3 jobs that it created. So exported GDP supports increased corporate profits and cheap goods. Exported GDP will not support the consumption needed for small business growth. 70% of the economy is driven by consumption.
Click to expand...

Understand how economic specialization ended the mercantilism nonsense you've posted above and why we as a nation have a higher stander of living because of it. For starters, i suggest David Ricardo.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
... or even worse, someone who selectively picks raw data between nominal and real figures, depending on which better suits his argument.

Michael H said:
Nothing wrong with data ... it's the source and avoiding partisanship. Without data we would be in the dark and could grow like mushrooms.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You're new here; stick around long enough and you'll see what I mean.
 
For those who are debating job creation between Bush and Obama. Irrelevant, one ... Bush had an economy Fed by credit based housing starts. The other Obama had no housing start economy or the manufacturing base which was exported.

Bush ... manufacturing being exported ... many housing starts.

Obama ... manufacturing exported ... few housing starts.

The was no financial genius in either of these men's policy.

The whole morass was created by Clinton, who gets a shiny star for jobs created and a fair budget plan, yet no credit for exporting GDP ... NAFTA 94, WTO 95, China PNTR 2000
 
Goldenboy219 said:
High savings rates of Asian nations create a specific demand for dollar denominated debt; especially if this debt is unlikely to be defaulted on. Having a negative current account does not necessarily equate to a sub-optimal level of output. Given that capital and labor is essentially fixed in the short term, i see little benefit of having the U.S. embark on producing labor intensive products at the expense of more advanced technologies.




How much more productive would small businesses be if they had to pay higher costs for American made goods? How much more productive would small businesses be if they produced labor intensive low grade consumable goods such as plastic cups instead of alloy casts for the production of jet engines?



Understand how economic specialization ended the mercantilism nonsense you've posted above and why we as a nation have a higher stander of living because of it. For starters, i suggest David Ricardo.
Click to expand...

Comparative advantage? Why would I read something that doesn't work with globalism ... I suggest you refer to global labor arbitrage.
 
Michael H said:
Comparative advantage? Why would I read something that doesn't work with globalism ... I suggest you refer to global labor arbitrage.
Click to expand...

Mercantilist nonsense is of no interest to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom