• 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!

US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

Really? Under Bush the middle class got a tax break. Under Obama we will get hit with higher health insurance premiums.
LOL! You got PEANUTS in tax breaks, and health and health insurance costs have been completely out of control and increasing at rates two to three times the CPI for years. That's one big reason why health care reform was such a big deal. Republican contributions included ignorant whining about "death panels" and "government takeovers". When they were finally forced to send their feeble alternative off to CBO, it came back MORE expensive than the Democratic plan while leaving THE SAME percentage of Americans uninsured, even after ten years. What a bunch of losers!

The only thing that happened under Bush was at the very end, and it was due to laws signed by Clinton.
No, actually things went in the dumper right away, then made a brief and rather half-hearted recovery, then collapsed entirely. That middle period of course was paid for by swapping out US labor content in favor of Chinese labor content and then sucking equity out of people's homes. In economic terms -- as in most others -- Bush was a total failure.

Bush_GDP.jpg

GLB and CFMA (each a brainchild of the right wing) did lead almost immediately to a wave of rigged IPO's that bilked ordinary American investors out of billions, leading also therefore the need for passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. But neither they nor the dreaded CRA had any direct bearing on the eventual credit crisis and Great Bush Recession. All that grew up in 2002-06, born of wanton cowboy capitalism and the horrible fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy errors of the Bush administration.
 
What tax cut? You mean the 'Bush' Tax cuts that got extended?
FYI, the stimulus bill provided the largest two-year tax cut in US history. Might not have been widely reported in the disinformation media though.
 
Denial of reality. A right-wing staple. The LFPR has seen recent declines in large part because of the trainwreck that Republicans (again) made of the economy. Still haven't apologized for it either. The clowns. Then there are the longer term parts about increasing retirements and the how the lifetime wage premium paid for education has been rising while the value of real pay and benefits has been declining. Translation: more people have been going to school and staying there longer.
Are you saying that the majority of the drop in LFPR is not due to people simply leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job?

Yes or no, please?


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Manufactured right-wing rot no matter how many times it is bot-copied and pasted. A trip through the actual history would reveal that this Depression began in January 1920, while Harding (like W, consistently ranked as one of the worst Presidents in US history) arrived in office in March 1921. This was long after the post-WWI spending cuts of the FY 1921 and FY 1922 budgets had been set by the Wilson administration. Harding did indeed cut tax RATES during his brief term, but like Reagan in 1986, he also expanded the tax base, creating a net tax INCREASE. You didn't mention that part. Nor did you mention the massive gold inflows from war-ravaged Europe that actually did play a signficant role in speeding up our conversion from war-time to peace-time production, thereby resolving the central issue of the depression. Just more facts that tend to get left in the wake of the mighty ship of phony historical revisionism as it steams through.
None of which you proved AND none of which - even if you did - factually disproves anything I typed.

Harding continued and accelerated the spending cuts under Wilson (who by the time the Depression fully started, was almost a complete invalid from a massive stroke).

The result?

Both the DOW and unemployment rate were at near per-Depression levels within 3 1/2 years.

All this with a huge decline in spending.

Of course, Keynesians HATE this fact and throw out every spin move they can possibly think of to discredit it.

LOL!!! How many times do you want to be beat up for this same old crock of crap?
what crap is that?

That both Hoover and FDR posted massive deficits and increased spending giganticly from per 1929-crash levels?

That the result was that between mid 1933 and mid 1942, the unemployment rate averaged over 17% AND the DOW actually declined AND the national debt skyrocketed?

All those are true.

So what did all that spending get during that period?

High unemployment, a decline in the DOW and tons more debt.

I'd call that a failure.


And what did the spending cuts ubpnder Wilson and Harding of the 1920/21 depression bring?

Both the unemployment rate and the DOW were back to near per-depression levels in 3 1/2 years...and I believe the national debt actually went down (or at least, barely rose).

All facts.


Prove they are not.

Guess what...you cannot.



Have a nice day.

Btw - I am neither dem or lib.
 
Last edited:
Your link says 10,000 per day reach 65 - not retire.
Even if it were just 6,000 per day, it would wipe out half of your supposed "headline" number, which the right-wing so much as mentions only because of its direction. In real life, the labor force is prone to moving either up or down from one month to the next, but we hear a peep about it from one bunch only in those months in which it happens to go down. And then we have to listen to the prattle and fluff of wild-eyed speculations about it. It's all pointless grade-school nonsense from start to finish.

A large number of Americans do not retire at 65. The average retirement age is now 67 - and rising.
Correct. Many people retire long before the age of 65 which is why the actual average age at retirement is a lot closer to 60 than to 67. And it hasn't changed much lately at all.

In fact, many Americans cannot afford to retire due to loss of equity in their homes from the housing crash and record low interest rates (which hurts the amount they make off of their savings).
By rational measures, most Americans could not have afforded to retire even before the Great Bush Recession came along. The people who could have afforded it back then still can because they had no plans to live off the equity in their homes and didn't have money they knew they would need in the near-term tied up in anything so risky as equities. Instead, they watched as those declining interest rates of yours drove up the price of their fixed-income assets. You can sell a $100K note at 4% for better than $265K if rates drop to 1.5%, you know. Good opportunity there for some profit-taking followed by a little bargain-hunting in depressed real estate and equity markets.

Actually, the most optimistic liberal think tank that I recall seeing puts the number that retired of that 368,000 figure at just under 50%...and even that does not stipulate how many of those retired because they gave up looking for work.
We are supposed to think that you have done an actual survey of the literature??? LOLOLOLOL!!!
 
In economic terms -- as in most others -- Bush was a total failure.
For once, we agree.

Though where we disagree again is on Obama.

I think he is almost as total of a failure.

He (and the Fed) have spent trillions of dollars to throw at the economy and the result?

Stagnation.

So much so that even more Fed money 'printing' is coming in the form of QE3.

And then I think there will be QE4 and QE5 and so on....

The economy is a mess.

And! Imo, GWB and Obama and ESPECIALLY the Fed are primarily to blame (along with the macro economic ignoramuses in both parties who support their respective POTUS's).

I await your normal condescending, bile filled rant in reply.


Have a nice day.
 
Unfortunately, the debt caused by all of this means higher taxes. The average tax payer has to now pay an additional 30k in taxes to pay back the 700bn cost of the rest of the stimulus that we had to borrow, the 4 trillion in extra spending, and the deficit caused by the payroll tax cut, as they didnt reduce benefits which the payroll tax pays for directly.
Get a grip, dude. The taxpayer picks up the tab for the net interest on the debt. Nothing else. Principal due each month as notes mature is simply rolled over, typically to the same investor, but if he is actually interested in liquidating his position, then to a different investor instead. Ten-year Treasuries closed yesterday at a yield of 1.77%. People are lined up around the block watiing to lend us money.

We will in any case never pay off the debt. As in not ever. No one has so much as a fleeting thought of a plan for actually paying off even a part of it at any point in the foreseeable future. I know -- if a household tried to do that, why.....
 
The problem is more of tax cuts being tied to political ideology rather than efficient funding. Taxes should be broad and minimal, to bring in the desired amount of revenue with the least burden to taxpayers.
And the least burden is that which would be felt by the rich.
 
Even if it were just 6,000 per day, it would wipe out half of your supposed "headline" number, which the right-wing so much as mentions only because of its direction.

Prove it.

With links to factual information from unbiased sources.


Have a nice day,
 
FYI, the stimulus bill provided the largest two-year tax cut in US history. Might not have been widely reported in the disinformation media though.
The media didn't report it as such because most are grownups that use relative terms when talking about these sorts of things.
 
We will in any case never pay off the debt. As in not ever. No one has so much as a fleeting thought of a plan for actually paying off even a part of it at any point in the foreseeable future. I know -- if a household tried to do that, why.....

Though I agree the likelihood is probably very low.

Only the most ignorant and childish of economist would ever say the debt will 'never' be paid off.

No one knows the future and all it's possible permutations.

To claim otherwise is both unscientific and irrational.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
You are correct - I mistyped. I meant that the jobless claims have for the last half year have always been revised higher (meaning the truth ALWAYS turns out to be worse then the initial report).
No, late reporting from states is added in. There can be corrections to prior week reporting by states as well that could cause an advance number to be revised downward. Either way, there is EXACTLY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to support insipid theories of a conspiracy to deceive the public at BLS. Those are the domain of pure tin-foil hat crazies.

And speaking of being wrong - are you going to finally admit that you got it wrong when you typed 'There is nothing about new jobs in the ARRA.'?
Sheesh!!! You're like the Bayonne Bleeder trying to make it through that 15th Round against Ali. As has been repeatedly explained, there is no distinction between jobs saved and jobs created in the CBO and other analyses of ARRA's overall peformance. Those reports are all consistent with some 3+ million jobs being present in the economy that would not have been without ARRA, but there was no attempt made to determine which of those were saved jobs and which were created jobs. Is that REALLY such a difficult thing to understand???
 
No, late reporting from states is added in. There can be corrections to prior week reporting by states as well that could cause an advance number to be revised downward.
Every single week for roughly the past 1/2 year the numbers have been revised in the same direction.

I will let others decide what they make of that.

Sheesh!!! You're like the Bayonne Bleeder trying to make it through that 15th Round against Ali. As has been repeatedly explained, there is no distinction between jobs saved and jobs created in the CBO and other analyses of ARRA's overall peformance. Those reports are all consistent with some 3+ million jobs being present in the economy that would not have been without ARRA, but there was no attempt made to determine which of those were saved jobs and which were created jobs. Is that REALLY such a difficult thing to understand???
And still folks, he cannot admit he erred.

Though the proof is staring him in the face.

http://narcissisticpersonalitydisorder.org/


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Things such as growth and change are relative concepts to start out with. Bigger THAN something. Different FROM something. See how that works? This is why the grownups often use relative terms when talking about these sorts of things.

So youre saying Im a child?
 
Correction.
Unconditional surrender is what would long ago have been called for. Try reading this over and over and over again until what is patently evident on the surface of it finally starts to sink in...

ARRA did what it was designed and projected to do. Everyone credible -- including of course CBO -- agrees that it did. The measure used from the outset was jobs existing in the economy that would not have been there without the effects of ARRA. There is nothing about new jobs.
 
Get a grip, dude. The taxpayer picks up the tab for the net interest on the debt. Nothing else. Principal due each month as notes mature is simply rolled over, typically to the same investor, but if he is actually interested in liquidating his position, then to a different investor instead. Ten-year Treasuries closed yesterday at a yield of 1.77%. People are lined up around the block watiing to lend us money.

We will in any case never pay off the debt. As in not ever. No one has so much as a fleeting thought of a plan for actually paying off even a part of it at any point in the foreseeable future. I know -- if a household tried to do that, why.....

Im not your dude, buddy. Try making a single post without an insulting tone.
 
Are you saying that the majority of the drop in LFPR is not due to people simply leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job? Yes or no, please?
No. Let me rephrase in case that was unclear to some. No.
 
Unconditional surrender is what would long ago have been called for. Try reading this over and over and over again until what is patently evident on the surface of it finally starts to sink in...

ARRA did what it was designed and projected to do. Everyone credible -- including of course CBO -- agrees that it did. The measure used from the outset was jobs existing in the economy that would not have been there without the effects of ARRA. There is nothing about new jobs.
And still he cannot admit his error.

'An inability to admit wrongdoing - even sometimes when presented with objective evidence of their errors or behavior.'

Narcissistic Personality Disorder


Now I suggest you (and I) get back on the topic before the mods come by and do it for us.


Have a nice day.
 
No. Let me rephrase in case that was unclear to some. No.

So then, what was the point of stating all those other 'reasons' if you admit they do not even collectively comprise the majority of the reason for the LFPR drop?

Another useless rant meant to try and deflect responsibility for the inept handling of the economy from 'your boy' Obama?

Just as other blinder-equipped partisans try to deflect responsibility from GWB's inept handling of the economy during his term, no doubt.
 
None of which you proved AND none of which - even if you did - factually disproves anything I typed.
Um, your thesis is that the sage laisez-faire tactics of the fiscally conservative Harding worked miracles in the 1920-21 Depression while the dreadful liberal interventionism of FDR in the 1930's actually made matters worse at that time. This is not actually YOUR thesis of course, you simply copy and paste it out of the dung pile over at the Mises Institute. Those are the abject and unrepentant losers who are responsible for it, just as they were responsible for the idiotic meme that CRA was the cause of the credit crisis. They are all paid to lie over there, so lying is what they do.

In any case, the thesis is shot to pieces by such facts as that the alleged spending cuts by Harding were not actually by Harding but by the liberal Wilson, that the alleged tax cuts by Harding were not actually tax cuts after all, and that the actual proximate causes for the end of the downturn were easy money policies and expansion of the money supply via sustained gold inflows from abroad.

what crap is that?
The crap that Hoover was a big spender whose profligate hand can be seen in the final numbers for the FY 1933 and FY 1934 budgets. I don't propose to repeat an entire different thread here, but when your claims are crushed into dust an scattered to the winds in one thread, turning around and making the same bogus claims again in a different one is a sign of desperate infantilism.

That the result was that between mid 1933 and mid 1942, the unemployment rate averaged over 17% AND the DOW actually declined AND the national debt skyrocketed?
Why do you have to resort to AVERAGE unemployment rates? Is it because an actual time series would fail to support your claims? Why are you trying to use a stock market index as a proxy for the health of the economy when the actual GNP data are available? Is it because those data would simply blow your thesis to pieces? Why are you cherry-picking a date from the middle of WWII to take a stock market price from? Are you not aware of the fact that in 1942, people tended to invest the savings that they had in War Bonds, not in the stock market? I'm afraid that the answers to all of these questions will again reflect very poorly on both your arguments and your integrity.
 
Last edited:
Um, your thesis is that the sage laisez-faire tactics of the fiscally conservative Harding worked miracles in the 1920-21 Depression while the dreadful liberal interventionism of FDR in the 1930's actually made matters worse at that time. This is not actually YOUR thesis of course, you simply copy and paste it out of the dung pile over at the Mises Institute. Those are the abject and unrepentant losers who are responsible for it, just as they were responsible for the idiotic meme that CRA was the cause of the credit crisis. They are all paid to lie over there, so lying is what they do.

In any case, the thesis is shot to pieces by such facts as that the alleged spending cuts by Harding were not actually by Harding but by the liberal Wilson, that the alleged tax cuts by Harding were not actually tax cuts after all, and that the actual proximate causes for the end of the downturn were easy money policies and expansion of the money supply via sustained gold inflows from abroad.
True or false?

The DOW and unemployment rate returned to near pre-1920/21 depression levels within 3 1/2 years despite the fact that government spending under Wilson and Harding was drastically cut?

True or false, please?

The crap that Hoover was a big spender whose profligate hand can be seen in the final numbers for the FY 1933 and FY 1934 budgets. I don't propose to repeat an entire different thread here, but when your claims are crushed into dust an scattered to the winds in one thread, turning around and making the same bogus claims again in a different one is a sign of desperate infantilism.
1) Did the national debt under Hoover go up or down?

Which is it, please?


2) In fact, name ANY FY budget (other then possibly 1930 - I am not sure if Hoover or Coolidge presented this FY budget to Congress. I assume the latter did) that Hoover presented to Congress that did not result in a budget deficit?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php


Why do you have to resort to AVERAGE unemployment rates? Is it because an actual time series would fail to support your claims? Why are you trying to use a stock market index as a proxy for the health of the economy when the actual GNP data are available? Is it because those data would simply blow your thesis to pieces? Why are you cherry-picking a date from the middle of WWII to take a stock market price from? Are you not aware of the fact that in 1942, people tended to invest the savings that they had in War Bonds, not in the stock market? I'm afraid that the answers to all of these questions will again reflect very poorly on both your arguments and your integrity.

I use those times because they are 3 months after FDR took over (and the initial, temporary DOW rebound from his Emergency Banking Act) until 6 months after Pearl Harbor (when the U.S. war economy was gearing up).

And those numbers I posted are facts btw.

From mid' 33 until mid' 42, the umployment rate averaged 17+% and the DOW actually went down...despite huge increases in government debt.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
For once, we agree. Though where we disagree again is on Obama. I think he is almost as total of a failure. He (and the Fed) have spent trillions of dollars to throw at the economy and the result? Stagnation.
This is not a picture of stagnation. It is a picture of a recovery, albeit one that Republicans since taking control of the House in 2011 have been working to stifle and impede.

gdp_2005-12_bar.jpg

So much so that even more Fed money 'printing' is coming in the form of QE3.
As the Fed has complained of since the 2010 elections, it no longer has a willing partner in Congress and hence faces the need to bear all of the recovery-boosting burdens on its own back. It's the Republicans, pure and simple.

And! Imo, GWB and Obama and ESPECIALLY the Fed are primarily to blame (along with the macro economic ignoramuses in both parties who support their respective POTUS's). I await your normal condescending, bile filled rant in reply.
People who believe that three separate and distinct entities can each be "primarily to blame" for anything don't deserve a lot of mollycoddling. As for macro skills, well, I can't recommend that you go there. The credit crisis was brought about between 2002 and 2006 by the greed of unbridled cowboy capitalism aided and abetted by the god-awful fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies of the laissez-faire cheerleaders within the Bush administration. All of those have a heavy cross to bear. Others. not so much.
 
This is not a picture of stagnation. It is a picture of a recovery, albeit one that Republicans since taking control of the House in 2011 have been working to stifle and impede.
So where are your links to unbiased facts that proves that the recovery happened primarily due to efforts by Obama and/or the Fed?


And where are your links to unbiased facts that proves that the recovery was not simply the result of the Great Recession bottoming out and slowly rebounding 'on it's own'?


People who believe that three separate and distinct entities can each be "primarily to blame" for anything don't deserve a lot of mollycoddling. As for macro skills, well, I can't recommend that you go there. The credit crisis was brought about between 2002 and 2006 by the greed of unbridled cowboy capitalism aided and abetted by the god-awful fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies of the laissez-faire cheerleaders within the Bush administration. All of those have a heavy cross to bear. Others. not so much.

The Fed lowering interest rates way too low and for too long, Bush pushing through his incredibly naive low income housing program and Congress's willingness to go along are what (imo) primarily started the housing bubble.

And I would hardly call those 'free market'.

That is macroeconomic government meddling if I ever saw it.
 
Last edited:
Talk to some qualified labor economists instead of a bunch of media airheads. The number you refer to is and has been declining for a good while. I'm sure you think that Freedom & Liberty® demand that laws be enacted to keep Americans from retiring when they want to, to keep Americans from going to or staying in school when they want to, and to keep Americans from staying home to raise their small children when they want to. But those laws thankfully don't exist, and I don't think even your unqualified Bumbler-Boy Willard intends to pass any, so your just plain stuck with the 130K number being an obviously lame and out-of-date overstatement.

If you don't believe me, find better numbers and show me. I used the 1995-2002 numbers that ABC released which included births and deaths, when you do the math, you need over 130,000 jobs to keep up with population growth. Prove me wrong and I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong.


LOL!!! Overall, America was at one of its historic economic high points in January 2001, and in just eight short years, all of that was destroyed by the ignorance of greedy Republican laissez-faire free-market cowboy capitalism, leaving us to deal with the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Against all odds, we have been in an overall recovery since mid-2009 with the lagging variable of employment not surprisingly lagging. The recovery has of course been attacked and undermined by Republicans at every step along the way. Republicans openly admit that they see partisan interests as superior to national interests and are more than willing to see millions of (non-rich) Americans suffer in the hope that such a situation might buy them a few extra votes.

Again, prove me wrong and I'll gladly admit I am, you haven't provided any evidence otherwise.

"Subpar" is being a little generous. George W Bush had the worst jobs performance of any President since WWII. Eight years of miserable disgrace and failure across the board. That's all that Bush provided by any proper sort of math.

According to that chart he didn't. Average 2002-2008 and 2009-2012, Bush created about 43,000 jobs, while President Obama lost 10,000. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
Back
Top Bottom