• 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!

Jerry Brown: California's deficit is gone

sangha said:
No, its not. BLS puts out annual stats.

You're using a ten yerar period because your claim is BS
Click to expand...

Produce counter stats, or accept that the bubbles began in (tech and building) manufacturing even before they fully appeared on Wall Street. Marking '97 as the beginning of the bubble says nothing of the already present momentum in those sectors that was created, to some extent, by government policy. Fruit (and bubble) does not appear magically, it came from somewhere.
 
Look, sangha, you can continue to pretend that government policy had nothing to do with the bubbles. I can understand how your guy presiding over a bubble of Biblical proportion, and having power for the years running up to that bubble, is not something you're willing to discuss.

The bottom line is, you can't divorce a monumental artifical market (and an expansion of government jobs) from jobs created.

I don't get why sycophants must "win" on every single little detail ever, depite any cost in logic and reason.
 
Sangha, could you expound on your explanation of the 90s economic boom?

I've seen reasonable responses in this thread that:

A) the president doesn't create jobs and in fact has little to do with broader economic conditions (an understood truism among economists)

B) The tech bubble (responsible for the record lows in unemployment) didn't magically appear in 1997, but rather built up throughout the 90s as firms gained understanding of the productivity gains possible due to emerging IT.

I just want to know what you are arguing, because you seem to disagree with these premises.

EDIT: And I completely disagree with ecofarm that government created the IT revolution. Bill Clinton didn't invent the internet. Perhaps gov policy contributed to the housing bubble, but that's another discussion.
 
ecofarm said:
Produce counter stats, or accept that the bubbles began in (tech and building) manufacturing even before they fully appeared on Wall Street. Marking '97 as the beginning of the bubble says nothing of the already present momentum in those sectors that was created, to some extent, by government policy. Fruit (and bubble) does not appear magically, it came from somewhere.
Click to expand...

You're the one who made the claim, so you're the one who has o back it up

The bubble began 1997. Before that, there was no momentum
 
ecofarm said:
Look, sangha, you can continue to pretend that government policy had nothing to do with the bubbles. I can understand how your guy presiding over a bubble of Biblical proportion, and having power for the years running up to that bubble, is not something you're willing to discuss.

The bottom line is, you can't divorce a monumental artifical market (and an expansion of government jobs) from jobs created.

I don't get why sycophants must "win" on every single little detail ever, depite any cost in logic and reason.
Click to expand...

Now you've been reduced to just making stuff up. Your argument is so weak, you have to claim that I said something about govt policys effect on the econony, when all I did was refute the delusion that the 22m jobs created under Clinton were most due to the internet and real estate booms

And the only "bubble of bibilical proportions' in recent times was the one under bush*
 
sangha said:
The article doesn't suggest that because it would be wrong.

And calculating revenue from past income isn't much of a porjection. It's a "calculation"
Click to expand...

Actually it does:

While the tax rate of up to 13.3 percent on top earners is retroactive to January 1, the revenues won't really start coming in until sometime early in 2013 because of delayed withholding.
Click to expand...

And since the article begins:

In November, California hikes taxes on its top earners to the highest rate in the country. A month later, income-tax revenues explode. And the governor announces that the state's famous multi-billion-dollar deficit is pretty much gone.
Click to expand...
It would appear the assertion is the new rates are retroactive back into 2012 as the article was written on 01/14/13 and 'retroactive' for two weeks seems inconsequential. But that does seem ambiguous. As to the ‘calculating revenue from past income’ claim, true it is not a projection but a projection based on an erroneous premise may/may not come to fruition. We’ll see.
 
Sangha, I've provided citations for data that support the fact that most of Clinton's jobs were in bars, tech, housing and government. This data covered most of Clinton's presidency. Clinton's presidency, economically, is defined by the greatest bubble to ever rupture in cosmic history (and the feel-good BS that went along with such). You've provided nothing. Divorcing the artificial market and increased government employment from a claim of 'jobs created' is crap. Good day.
 
Last edited:
StringBean said:
Sangha, could you expound on your explanation of the 90s economic boom?

I've seen reasonable responses in this thread that:

A) the president doesn't create jobs and in fact has little to do with broader economic conditions (an understood truism among economists)

B) The tech bubble (responsible for the record lows in unemployment) didn't magically appear in 1997, but rather built up throughout the 90s as firms gained understanding of the productivity gains possible due to emerging IT.

I just want to know what you are arguing, because you seem to disagree with these premises.

EDIT: And I completely disagree with ecofarm that government created the IT revolution. Bill Clinton didn't invent the internet. Perhaps gov policy contributed to the housing bubble, but that's another discussion.
Click to expand...

A) No,, neither the govt nor the president "create jobs", but their policies can either enhance or detract from the economy's ability to create jobs

B) I've seen no evidence (ex employment #'s, or capital investment for startups) for Silicon Valley that suggest the existence of this "momentum" you speak of

C) I didnt say that the govt "created" the IT revolution, but they certainly provided much needed "venture" a apital

D) Take 10 economists and you'll get 11 different opinions as to why the economy did so well in the 90's. However, most of then will agree that low interest rates, a direct result of govt policy, was a crucial factor.
 
ecofarm said:
Sangha, I've provided citations for data that supports the fact that most of Clinton's jobs were in bars, tech, housing and government. This data covered most of Clinton's presidency. Clinton's presidency, economically, is defined by the greatest bubble to ever rupture in cosmic history (and the feel-good BS that went along with such). Divorcing the artificial market and increased government employment from a claim of 'jobs created' is crap. Good day.
Click to expand...

you've provided irrelevant data that neither matches the time frame your claim refers to, or support your claim (even if the time frames did match)

And if you think the dot com bubble or the real estate bubbles of the 90's were bigger than the bush* real estate bubble, then it seems that rationality has abandoned your posts.
 
As I expected, you provide no citation and instead start talking about Bush.
 
Ray410 said:
Forbes Magazine, America's 20 most
MISERABLE CITIES: America's Most Miserable Cities - Forbes.com

Stockton, CA
Merced, CA
Modesto, CA
Sacramento, CA (Jerry Brown's Home)
Vallejo, CA
Fresno, CA
Salinas, CA
Bakersfield, CA

How 'bout them Liberals, huh?
Click to expand...

Lol....yep.

But California's suddenly rolling in the money and liberal policies are the reason.

I guess we in Texas can count on more Californians to head our way as they try to out run that liberal plague state.

Hell, send the goofy liberals so they can see how a States supposed to be run.

Just so long as they clean their slug trail up on the way out.
 
Ray410 said:
Forbes Magazine, America's 20 most MISERABLE CITIES: America's Most Miserable Cities - Forbes.com

Stockton, CA
Merced, CA
Modesto, CA
Sacramento, CA (Jerry Brown's Home)
Vallejo, CA
Fresno, CA
Salinas, CA
Bakersfield, CA

How 'bout them Liberals, huh?
Click to expand...

Merced = almost even split right/left
Bakersfield= very rightwing
Modesto = republican
Fresno = repub stronghold
 
sangha said:
I've made no claims that require citations.

You have
Click to expand...

Yes you have. You claimed that most of the jobs came before the official bubble start at '97. You've claimed that jobs created before that have nothing to do with the bubble. You've claimed that jobs created after '97 are an insignificant portion of those created.

I provided a legit citation proving that most of the jobs created between 1989 and 1999 were in restaurants/bars, tech, housing and government.

You've provided nothing to support your version of what jobs were created, when nor how those jobs are separate from the bubble. You invented a logically implausible scenario that even a cursory examination of facts dispels.
 
sangha said:
Merced = almost even split right/left

Bakersfield= very rightwing
Modesto = republican
Fresno = repub stronghold
Click to expand...

So those cities dont have to pay state taxes.? Or are not subject to Californias regulations ?
 
ecofarm said:
Yes you have. You claimed that most of the jobs came before the official bubble start at '97.
Click to expand...


The chart (by term of presidential office) shows that most jobs were created in his first term (before the bubble)

You've claimed that jobs created before that have nothing to do with the bubble.
Click to expand...

So you're arguing that the bubble created jobs *before* it started? :lamo

You've claimed that jobs created after '97 are an insignificant portion of those created.
Click to expand...

Never said that.

I provided a legit citation proving that most of the jobs created between 1989 and 1999 were in restaurants/bars, tech, housing and government.
Click to expand...

1989 through 1999 <> "bubble"

You've provided nothing to support your version of what jobs were created, when nor how those jobs are separate from the bubble. You invented a logically implausible scenario that even a cursory examination of facts dispels.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I can support everything I said with facts, when asked.
 
Ok, sangha, how many of the 22m jobs were created after the bubble, were government jobs or might otherwise be linked to the bubbles.
 
ecofarm said:
Ok, sangha, how many of the 22m jobs were created after the bubble, were government jobs or might otherwise me tied to the bubbles.
Click to expand...

you tell us. You're the one making the claims about how the 22m new jobs under Clinton were due to the internet and real estate bubbles (even though most of the jobs were created before those bubbles)
 
sangha said:
you tell us. You're the one making the claims about how the 22m new jobs under Clinton were due to the internet and real estate bubbles (even though most of the jobs were created before those bubbles)
Click to expand...

The data I cited claims that, of the top 20 industries, the first five were luxury, (local) government, tech and housing and accounted for 6m jobs alone. Let's leave those as indisputably tainted. Let's say 30% of the 22m was post '97, that's 7m. There is little overlap between the two, as the data I presented ends at '99. So, about half of those 22m jobs are, at this cursory level of examination, BS. That leaves 10m jobs that may or may not be legit. I'll give you 75% of that, given the pervasive nature of the tech and housing bubbles. So, 7m legit jobs created in 8 years. Gratz?

Wait, how many of those 7m are state and fed government jobs.
 
ecofarm said:
The data I cited claims that, of the top 20 industries, the first five were luxury, (local) government, tech and housing and accounted for 6m jobs alone. Let's leave those as indisputably tainted. Let's say 30% of the 22m was post '97, that's 7m. There is little overlap between the two, as the data I presented ends at '99. So, about half of those 22m jobs are, at this cursory level of examination, BS. That leaves 10m jobs that may or may not be legit. I'll give you 75% of that, given the pervasive nature of the tech and housing bubbles. So, 7m legit jobs created in 8 years. Gratz?

Wait, how many of those 7m are state and fed government jobs.
Click to expand...

The data you cited was irrelevant because it doesn't match the time frame of your claim

And to get to half of 22m, you have to go back to 1996, a full year before the bubble, and then assume that EVERY SINGLE JOB created was due to the bubbles.
 
sangha said:
B) I've seen no evidence (ex employment #'s, or capital investment for startups) for Silicon Valley that suggest the existence of this "momentum" you speak of
Click to expand...

"But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?"

A very famous line from a speech Greenspan gave in 1996, forewarning the market of the bubble that burst in 2001.

sangha said:
D) Take 10 economists and you'll get 11 different opinions as to why the economy did so well in the 90's. However, most of then will agree that low interest rates, a direct result of govt policy, was a crucial factor.
Click to expand...

Interest rates are currently at record lows, but we ain't livin like the 90s.

Government policy had very little to do with the 90s boom. If it did, every president would follow the magic recipe. That won't stop them from taking credit though.
 
sangha said:
The data you cited was irrelevant because it doesn't match the time frame of your claim

And to get to half of 22m, you have to go back to 1996, a full year before the bubble, and then assume that EVERY SINGLE JOB created was due to the bubbles.
Click to expand...

So you agree that he created about 5m legit jobs (removing state and federal jobs from the previous guestimation) in 8 years? That's what, ~700k jobs per year in office.

Or do you have other data?
 
StringBean said:
Interest rates are currently at record lows, but we ain't livin like the 90s.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that interest rates were the only factor. There were differences. For example, Clinton reduced deficits and employment by the fed govt. bush* increased both dramatically. Financial deregulation created incentives for hiring (in the near term). So did NAFTA

Then there were also non-governmental reason why the economy grew, such as technological innovation (and not just in the internet)

Government policy had very little to do with the 90s boom. If it did, every president would follow the magic recipe. That won't stop them from taking credit though.
Click to expand...

That's an opinion, and one I obviously disagree with
 
ecofarm said:
So you agree that he created about 5m legit jobs (removing state and federal jobs from the previous guestimation) in 8 years? That's what, ~700k jobs per year in office.

Or do you have other data?
Click to expand...

No, I dont agree with anything you say unless you can back it up with facts, instead of guesstimations

And a rise in employment in state govt jobs has nothing to do with either bubble or Clinton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom