• 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!

Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short

you are asking me to provide evidence contrary to what I posted? I said the economy has been steadily improving since 2010. I said these sites confirm it. NOw you want me to refute my own post? I am not going to do that.

What on Earth does that have to do with why Gallup's numbers are more reliable (to you) then the governments?
 
Last edited:
You mean how it GREW by 1.5% this qtr. making it 1.5% HIGHER than it was. 1.5% is not an improvement?
It is so pointless to engage in debate with them, they are so seriously wedded to a "half empty" mindset.
 
What on Earth does that have to do with why Gallup's numbers are more reliable (to you) then the governments?

the state the same thing. they do not refute each other. They support each other. The numbers from the govt and gallup both show economic growth and improvement. Use whichever you'd like the economy is slowly improving.
 
If I thought that continuing debate would help you, I might be tempted to do so...but really I don't have much hope. Romer in her work for the stimulus package used 1.6 as the highest multiplier....AND THAT MEANS EVERY DOLLAR SPENT IS MULTIPLIED BY 1.6 IN CALCULATING IT'S EFFECT THROUGH THE ECONOMY....NOT COSTING THE GOVT MORE.

She did use that multiplier as a projection, but the reality didn't come out that way, it came out to 1. Read Paul Samuelson or William Nordhaus, both bestselling authors of economics textbooks and Keynesian economists who admit there is no proof of a Keynesian multiplier greater than 1.

The rest of your claims are just horribly confused libertarian bs that just is not worth my time.
If your basic knowledge and posting doesn't get better, forget about responses.

I accept your concession. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
the state the same thing. they do not refute each other. They support each other. The numbers from the govt and gallup both show economic growth and improvement. Use whichever you'd like the economy is slowly improving.

I am not talking about whether the economy is improving or not.

I am asking you one thing and one thing only.

Why do you put more stock in the Gallup numbers then the government numbers?


I do not understand why you are not understanding this simple question?
 
Last edited:
It isn't the Federal Government's responsibility to pay for teachers, police, and fire. Where did you get your education?
I believe in revenue sharing, don't you? The Federal Government helped Gov. Perry when he needed it to balance the books.
 
You mean how it GREW by 1.5% this qtr. making it 1.5% HIGHER than it was. 1.5% is not an improvement?

Again you have no concept of numbers, the 1.5% is an anualized rate, not a quarterly rate. Better stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about
 
I believe in revenue sharing, don't you? The Federal Government helped Gov. Perry when he needed it to balance the books.

I believe police, fire, and teachers are local responsibilities as do the states but not the unions.
 
If I thought that continuing debate would help you, I might be tempted to do so...but really I don't have much hope. Romer in her work for the stimulus package used 1.6 as the highest multiplier....AND THAT MEANS EVERY DOLLAR SPENT IS MULTIPLIED BY 1.6 IN CALCULATING IT'S EFFECT THROUGH THE ECONOMY....NOT COSTING THE GOVT MORE.

The rest of your claims are just horribly confused libertarian bs that just is not worth my time.
If your basic knowledge and posting doesn't get better, forget about responses.

Here is a very thorough study which documents that increasing debt reduces GDP growth. Not Romer's stupid multiplier nonsense. Romulus was correct.

Economics: Debt loads above 90% of GDP may impede growth

Here is a graph from the article (figure 2 link in the text)

ReinhartFig2.gif


When debt to GDP increases beyond about 25%, the economy of every extra dollar borrowed goes down. As the US will top 100% under Obama, we have reached the point where we are screwed.
 
Last edited:
I am not talking about whether the economy is improving or not.

I am asking you one thing and one thing only.

Why do you put more stock in the Gallup numbers then the government numbers?


I do not understand why you are not understanding this simple question?

Ok. Again. They are the same. One does not have to put more stock into either one. If they differed then i would have to pick one over the other. But they dont. They are the same. I have not stock in either.
 
Again you have no concept of numbers, the 1.5% is an anualized rate, not a quarterly rate. Better stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about

1.5% is the amount by which the GDP GREW go back and read and i actually even posted the actual numbers in dollars.
 
Ok. Again. They are the same. One does not have to put more stock into either one. If they differed then i would have to pick one over the other. But they dont. They are the same. I have not stock in either.

Then why did you say the following earlier:

'The economy is improving just not at the rates people want it to be. Gallup tracks a few key numbers. Numbers that to me are more important than just the official unemployment rate. They track the % of adults employed full time, and % of people who are underemployed.

Jan 7 2010 we were at 63.3% FT (fulltime) and 19.4% UE (underemployed) 19.4%.
Jan 7 2011 we were at 63.7% FT and 19.2% UE
Jan 7 2012 we were at 65.2% FT and 18.3% UE
Aug 1 2012 we were at 66.6% FT and 17.1% UE

Those numbers show improvement and I think are more of an indication of job market growth and job quality.'



And as I showed you - the government numbers DO 'track the % of adults employed full time, and % of people who are underemployed'.

So, considering that the government numbers do all you require, use a much larger base to get their reading from, include 16-17 year olds AND can be seasonally adjusted (whereas Gallups cannot)...I cannot understand why anyone would suggest that Gallup's numbers are more accurate then the governments.

That is my point.
 
Last edited:
1.5% is the amount by which the GDP GREW go back and read and i actually even posted the actual numbers in dollars.

That is an annualized number not a quarterly number and that is less than last year
 
Again you have no concept of numbers, the 1.5% is an anualized rate, not a quarterly rate. Better stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about

here let me help you a bit more

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the second quarter of 2012,
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.
 
I believe in revenue sharing, don't you? The Federal Government helped Gov. Perry when he needed it to balance the books.

"Revenue" ? What "revenue" ? What kind of moronic concept are you proposing ? The Stimulus was 100% BORROWED money !
 
here let me help you a bit more

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the second quarter of 2012,
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

Do you know what an annualized rate is? Read your own post,
increased at an annual rate of 1.5 percent

What is it about you that cannot allow you to admit when you are in over your head and wrong?
 
That is an annualized number not a quarterly number and that is less than last year

here let me help you a bit more

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the second quarter of 2012,
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

Goodness ! First we have to explain the difference between public debt and private debt.

Now its what "annualized rates" are !

;)
 
1.5% is the amount by which the GDP GREW go back and read and i actually even posted the actual numbers in dollars.

BTW - you do realize that according to the Keynesian poster boy, Paul Krugman, GDP growth needs to be over 2% to have employment growth?

'You also see that growth has to be fairly fast — more than 2 percent — just to keep the unemployment rate from rising.'


Growth and unemployment - NYTimes.com


1.5% growth is not going to get it done.

That is why the unemployment numbers are getting worse - not better.

The economy may be technically growing, but not at a high enough rate to lower unemployment.


BTW, for the record, I think both candidates are useless.

But since Obama has had a shot - and failed miserably (imo); it is time for someone else. So that - unfortunately - leaves Romney.

Though I think Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would be WAAAAAAAY better then either of the front runners.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Again. They are the same. One does not have to put more stock into either one. If they differed then i would have to pick one over the other. But they dont. They are the same. I have not stock in either.

No, they aren't the same. I really feel bad for you
 
Has the GDP increased yes or no?

Yes, of course it has at a lower rate this year than last year and last year vs the previous year. Not nearly enough to put taxpayers back to work as evidenced by the fact that unemployment is up. You want to see economic growth Reagan doubled GDP and Bush increased GDP by 4.5 trillion dollars over 8 years including the 2007-2008 recession. 2003-2007 the growth was exceptional
 
Back
Top Bottom