• 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 288,000 jobs in June

The poll is based upon what the people being polled tell them. Nothing more, nothing less. If they tell the pollster that they aren't looking, then they aren't unemployed by the standard definition of unemployed.
Unless it's a temporary layoff and they expect to be recalled. Then a job search is not required. It used to be (until 1994) that if you had been hired and were just waiting to start a new job then you didn't have to be looking. Many other countries still use that rule.


If they tell the poster that they would like to have a job, but aren't looking, then they are counted as a discouraged worker.
Nope. They'd be "Not in the Labor Force, Wants a Job Now." If they had searched in the last year (but not last for weeks) and could have started work if offered on the previous week, then they'd be "Marginally Attached to the Labor Force." If their specific reason for stopping their search was the belief that they wouldn't find work, then they'd be Discouraged.

Personally, I could care less about discouraged workers. maybe that's the hard conservative side of me, but if someone doesn't even bother to look for work, or to gain job skills to become employable, well, screw them, that's their problem, why should I care?
Because they tell us some about who might be likely to start looking for work and let's us know perception of the labor market.

I'm much more concerned that people who want to work and are actively searching for work have jobs, than people who would like to work, but not like to work enough to keep looking for a job. That's just a lazy sorry arse worthless piece of shiet to me.
Most of the marginally attached other than the discouraged stopped looking due to family obligations, illness, injury, lack of child care, lack of transportation, school or other training. to be Marginally attached they must now be available, but just haven't started looking yet. Not lazy or worthless, necessarily.
 
Employers aren't going to hire MORE employees because of the uncertainty as to future costs.
Employers respond to the need for employees, not to costs. No employer is going to hire more employees than they need to fill demand just because wages drop.

What is happening now those employers that are hiring are getting more applicants because unemployment benefits have run out.

So what does that have to do with employers hiring more people? As an employer, I don't hire more people just because I have more applicants.
This really has to be an act on your part because no one in business for themselves could be so poorly informed and lacking basic logic, common sense, as well understanding of personal behavior.

No, this really has to be an act on your party. Surely you are not so stupid as to think that any employer is going to hire more people just because they have more applicants. And if I am an employer who doesn't need any more workers, I could care less whether I had one applicant or a million applicants, I don't need any more workers.
 
Yep...swimming pools opened for the summer and all the life guards went back to work. Plus, several hundred new fast food joints opened up and lots of counter, drive-thru people and microwave warmers were added to the ranks of the employed. Took care of that 0.6% drop from May.

Congrats to you, Obama.:lamo

OH YEAH...I forgot all those crack employees of SERCO processing all those obamacare apps.

Well......total nonfarm payroll employment actually went up 582,000. But accounting for the usual increase in employment in June, that was seasonally adjusted down to 288,000.
 
imagep;1063485661]Employers respond to the need for employees, not to costs. No employer is going to hire more employees than they need to fill demand just because wages drop.
.

Costs have to be covered or an employee will never be hired and if you truly own your own business you would understand the cost of hiring, training, and yes firing employees. It isn't wages that matter as much as regulations, benefit costs, and the ability to cover both.


So what does that have to do with employers hiring more people? As an employer, I don't hire more people just because I have more applicants.

Jobs have always been available there just hasn't been any incentive for some people to even apply for those jobs. You trying to bait me?

No, this really has to be an act on your party. Surely you are not so stupid as to think that any employer is going to hire more people just because they have more applicants. And if I am an employer who doesn't need any more workers, I could care less whether I had one applicant or a million applicants, I don't need any more workers.

It doesn't appear that you have the ability to understand what this discussion is all about. You are totally out of touch with reality and apparently don't read the daily paper especially to see who is hiring and what jobs are available. Jobs have existed for a long long time, people however haven't been willing to apply for those jobs, some because they don't qualify and others because they preferred not working and getting paid for not working
 
It doesn't increase the labor pool it forces people to actually look for jobs and become employed. There is no labor shortage only an incentive to get a job shortage and that is eliminated when unemployment benefits run out.

So under Obama there are plenty of available jobs for anyone that wants one huh? :lol:
 
Well......total nonfarm payroll employment actually went up 582,000. But accounting for the usual increase in employment in June, that was seasonally adjusted down to 288,000.

Apparently that is why we still have fewer people officially employed today than when the recession began. The booming Obama economy have generated a strong JAR leading to his classification as the worst President since WWII which is making Jimmy Carter happy. Obama supporters have such low expectations.
 
So under Obama there are plenty of available jobs for anyone that wants one huh? :lol:

There are plenty of jobs being advertised, you tell me why they aren't being filled?
 
That was true until Clinton in 1993 changed the formula for calculating the OFFICIAL unemployment rate by removing Discouraged workers from the number. They are now still counted but not in the official reported rate. Prior to 1993 discouraged workers were included in the official reported rate.
That's untrue. It's a lie John Williams of Shadowstats likes to tell. Let's look at the past definitions of Unemployment:
Before 1967, it was
Unemployed Persons comprise all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way
Source: Employment and Earnings, January 1966 (page 92)
Note that this definition does include some of what we would now call Discouraged, but it was limited to depressed regions and specifically excludes those who say they gave up due to perception of discrimination which is now part of the defintion of Discouraged.

From 1967 to 1993 the definition was
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days
Source: Employment and Earnings February 1967 (page 141, with details on the changes of page 3)
Note that nothing remotely resembling Discouraged is in the definition.

And finally, the current definition since 1994 is
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf
Notice the only change between 1967 and current?

What Williams is actually talking about, is that a definition of discouraged was developed in the 1970's and used in an alternate measure of underutilization. It had no time limit. In 1994 that changed so that to be marginally attached (including discouraged) you had to have looked for a job in the last 12 months. The reason that changed was that studies apparently showed that those who had stopped looking for work more than 6 months ago were no more likely to start again than those who said they didn't want a job.
 
There are plenty of jobs being advertised, you tell me why they aren't being filled?

Yep, under Obama there are too many jobs. :lol:

Depends on the job and the location. If its a skilled job in which there are a shortage of qualified applicants then there's your answer. If its a low wage service job its probably a place that goes through people like water so they are always hiring a stream of soon to be quitting 2 weekers.
 
There are plenty of jobs being advertised, you tell me why they aren't being filled?

because the applicants with the skill set to do them at the wages offered are not available to the work force
or do you have another, less obvious, explanation
 
That's untrue. It's a lie John Williams of Shadowstats likes to tell. Let's look at the past definitions of Unemployment:
Before 1967, it was Note that this definition does include some of what we would now call Discouraged, but it was limited to depressed regions and specifically excludes those who say they gave up due to perception of discrimination which is now part of the defintion of Discouraged.

From 1967 to 1993 the definition was
Note that nothing remotely resembling Discouraged is in the definition.

And finally, the current definition since 1994 is
Notice the only change between 1967 and current?

What Williams is actually talking about, is that a definition of discouraged was developed in the 1970's and used in an alternate measure of underutilization. It had no time limit. In 1994 that changed so that to be marginally attached (including discouraged) you had to have looked for a job in the last 12 months. The reason that changed was that studies apparently showed that those who had stopped looking for work more than 6 months ago were no more likely to start again than those who said they didn't want a job.

So what you are telling me is that the official unemployment rate still includes discouraged workers and the 1994 change really didn't happen?

Interesting

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
 
because the applicants with the skill set to do them at the wages offered are not available to the work force
or do you have another, less obvious, explanation

Yep, the explanation is that some people would rather collect unemployment vs getting A job even though it isn't THE job. When unemployment benefits ran out they began searching for A job even though it wasn't THE job
 
Yep, the explanation is that some people would rather collect unemployment vs getting A job even though it isn't THE job. When unemployment benefits ran out they began searching for A job even though it wasn't THE job

And in 2008, millions of Americans suddenly decided to become slackers, to stop accepting job offers, and magically started preferring to draw unemployment.
 
And in 2008, millions of Americans suddenly decided to become slackers, to stop accepting job offers, and magically started preferring to draw unemployment.

Suddenly? No. But over time, and with UE benefits constantly being extended, along with the roles of disability increasing, many took the easier path of just getting a check...

The fact is that the labor participation rate is the lowest it has been in many peoples lifetimes...Do you think that is a good thing?

Meanwhile, now this administration is opening up the borders to people looking to escape their own morass in their own countries...We have nothing to give them, and IMHO, this is to collapse the system...by design.
 
So what you are telling me is that the official unemployment rate still includes discouraged workers and the 1994 change really didn't happen?

Interesting

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

No, I'm saying discouraged were not included before 1994 either. Can you not read? Where the hell in pre-1994 definition do you see discouraged included?

How exactly do you think that MLR article supports your false claim that discouraged were removed from the official definition?
 
Suddenly? No. But over time, and with UE benefits constantly being extended, along with the roles of disability increasing, many took the easier path of just getting a check...

The fact is that the labor participation rate is the lowest it has been in many peoples lifetimes...Do you think that is a good thing?

It's largely a demographic thing. However, it is not the lowest it has been for anyone who was born before 1978. As our society continues to age, the workforce participation rate will continue to decline, because we put no upper age limit on those who are expected to be in the workforce. Under the way that we currently measure workforce participation, my 99 year old granny who is cripple and blind is included in the group who are expected to have a job (as she is not in an institution).

Also, as technology continues to replace the need for human labor, we will continue to see the workforce participation rate fall. When machines do our work, we don't have less of a need for workers.

The decline in workforce participation rate didn't just start under Obama, or even the Great Bush Recession. It started even slightly before Bush took office.
 
Let's face it, you and all the other liberals have such low standards and ignore the details behind the numbers. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and such low economic standards.

June Full-Time Jobs Plunge By Over Half A Million, Part-Time Jobs Surge By 800K, Most Since 1993 | Zero Hedge

What wonderful results, a surge of 800,000 part time jobs and a plunge in the number of full time jobs.

Suggest you people pay closer attention to the results and stop reading the headlines. Here is what you are ignoring


The Obama Presidency Unravels « Commentary Magazine

Conservatives tried to tell you in 2008 you were electing an incompetent, made the same claims in 2012 where 4 million more got the message and yet there are still people here who continue to buy the Obama rhetoric. Wonder why his JAR is so low now? Hmmmm, what is it going to take to get you Obama supporters to wake up?

Let's face it, if Mitt Romney had won the last election you would be touting these figures not only as positive, but a vindication of conservative policies. In addition, Wall Street, who hire smart people to look at the details behind the numbers, rallied 1/2% on the day after this news broke.

Now, you try to tell us that John McCain would have had better success than Obama did, but what would McCain have done? He either would have proposed economic stimulus, the same as Obama did, or prescribe austerity -- a policy that proved to be a failure when done in Europe. What about Romney? Romney is an entitled, insulated, plutocrat who said that 47% of Americans are moochers. His policies would have been to raise taxes on that 47%, cut social spending and lower taxes on rich plutocrats like himself. None of those policies are a prescription for economic expansion. They are ideologically based voodoo economics.

While the current job gains a good, they are not great. Why are they not great? Because in the six years plus since the Great Recession began the solution is still very simple -- ECO 101 simple but only mildly tried. As Dean Baker says, the story of this slump is remarkably simple:

The economy was being driven by a housing bubble and the bubble burst. The combination of the loss of housing construction, due to the enormous overbuilding of the bubble years, and the loss of the consumption that had been driven by bubble generated housing wealth, created a gap in annual demand of more than $1 trillion. That's all simple and easy.
...
Of course the government could do it with more spending and/or tax cuts, but since we have a religious cult in Washington that says it is better to keep millions out of work than to run deficits, this was a political impossibility. (Of course we could have a lower valued dollar to reduce the trade deficit, but economists try to ignore the $500 billion trade deficit. That's another part of the cult.)
...
While Obama got a mix of fiscal expansion (about half the size economists suggested) and the Fed instituted unconventional monetary policy, nobody proposed debt relief. This wasn’t hard or unconventional economics; it was not much beyond Econ 101. But where was the GOP on all of this? They grew a new fixation with deficits and proposed the same old policy they always propose, upper-income tax-cuts. So to pretend that the GOP has some kind of prescription for lifting the economy quickly, they only prescribe the same old medicine that proved ineffective. What did you say, 'Reagan did it?' Reagan increased the deficit, increased the number of public sector workers and increased spending -- all things that the GOP kept silent for Reagan but are up-in-arms when the Democratic President tried to do it.

2009 wasn't so far ago that we don't remember conservative claims that expansionary monetary policy would cause inflation; budget deficits will drive up interest rates and we need to reduce deficits to encourage confidence -- all while Keynesians pointed to the standard economic models, which said that money wouldn’t be inflationary in a liquidity trap, deficits wouldn’t drive up interest rates, and contractionary policy would be contractionary.

Not only does the GOP and conservatives not have a prescription for lifting the economy quickly, their stated solutions would have made things worse.
 
Last edited:
Full-times jobs have not increased by over 11 million, but more like 8 million. Of course, one has to consider that about 7 million people joined the working-age population in the same time period. When you include part-time jobs the overall increase has been about 11 million, but again, around 7 million people joined the working-age population. Not to mention, people who are retirement age are increasingly continuing in employment due to economic conditions. None of that is growth positive.
That's plainly incorrect. Full-time employment bottomed out at 108 million and change at the tail end of the recession, and has since rebounded to over 119 million.

Historical data can be found here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab9.htm
 
No, I'm saying discouraged were not included before 1994 either. Can you not read? Where the hell in pre-1994 definition do you see discouraged included?

How exactly do you think that MLR article supports your false claim that discouraged were removed from the official definition?

Yes, I can read, can you? Show the chart of discouraged workers prior to 1993. Discouraged workers were included in the U4 report not the U-3 which are now the official numbers released to the public. The official numbers are the U-3 and do not include discouraged workers.
 
Let's face it, if Mitt Romney had won the last election you would be touting these figures not only as positive, but a vindication of conservative policies. In addition, Wall Street, who hire smart people to look at the details behind the numbers, rallied 1/2% on the day after this news broke.

Now, you try to tell us that John McCain would have had better success than Obama did, but what would McCain have done? He either would have proposed economic stimulus, the same as Obama did, or prescribe austerity -- a policy that proved to be a failure when done in Europe. What about Romney? Romney is an entitled, insulated, plutocrat who said that 47% of Americans are moochers. His policies would have been to raise taxes on that 47%, cut social spending and lower taxes on rich plutocrats like himself. None of those policies are a prescription for economic expansion. They are ideologically based voodoo economics.

While the current job gains a good, they are not great. Why are they not great? Because in the six years plus since the Great Recession began the solution is still very simple -- ECO 101 simple but only mildly tried. As Dean Baker says, the story of this slump is remarkably simple:

While Obama got a mix of fiscal expansion (about half the size economists suggested) and the Fed instituted unconventional monetary policy, nobody proposed debt relief. This wasn’t hard or unconventional economics; it was not much beyond Econ 101. But where was the GOP on all of this? They grew a new fixation with deficits and proposed the same old policy they always propose, upper-income tax-cuts. So to pretend that the GOP has some kind of prescription for lifting the economy quickly, they only prescribe the same old medicine that proved ineffective. What did you say, 'Reagan did it?' Reagan increased the deficit, increased the number of public sector workers and increased spending -- all things that the GOP kept silent for Reagan but are up-in-arms when the Democratic President tried to do it.

2009 wasn't so far ago that we don't remember conservative claims that expansionary monetary policy would cause inflation; budget deficits will drive up interest rates and we need to reduce deficits to encourage confidence -- all while Keynesians pointed to the standard economic models, which said that money wouldn’t be inflationary in a liquidity trap, deficits wouldn’t drive up interest rates, and contractionary policy would be contractionary.

Not only does the GOP and conservatives not have a prescription for lifting the economy quickly, their stated solutions would have made things worse.

Amazing how you know what I would be saying or doing and exactly what Mitt Romney would have done yet have no clue as to what Obama has done and totally ignore his record. Absolutely unbelievable how so many liberals simply cannot accept that they were wrong and apparently it is liberal arrogance that creates people who believe they know what is best for everyone else. There is nothing that Conservatives have done that has made things worse and it is liberals like you who are in denial of your failed ideology. this country was built on individual responsibility, individual wealth creation, and individual freedoms none of which focuses on micromanaging by the liberal bureaucrats.

2009 wasn't that long ago when we had a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress that said they had the answers but have failed. You don't seem to grasp the reality what the high number of unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers have on the economy and monetary policy. The federal govt. pumping billions into the market each month has been offset with 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged not spending on the things they want but rather focused on what they need. That is what has kept inflation down. Keep praying for more and more unemployment and discouraged workers.
 
Last edited:
That's untrue. It's a lie John Williams of Shadowstats likes to tell. Let's look at the past definitions of Unemployment:
Before 1967, it was Note that this definition does include some of what we would now call Discouraged, but it was limited to depressed regions and specifically excludes those who say they gave up due to perception of discrimination which is now part of the defintion of Discouraged.

From 1967 to 1993 the definition was
Note that nothing remotely resembling Discouraged is in the definition.

And finally, the current definition since 1994 is
Notice the only change between 1967 and current?

What Williams is actually talking about, is that a definition of discouraged was developed in the 1970's and used in an alternate measure of underutilization. It had no time limit. In 1994 that changed so that to be marginally attached (including discouraged) you had to have looked for a job in the last 12 months. The reason that changed was that studies apparently showed that those who had stopped looking for work more than 6 months ago were no more likely to start again than those who said they didn't want a job.

I know I said I wouldn't, but I just cannot resist...

so John Williams lied about this?

'lie
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.'


Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com


A lie requires intent. And since you CANNOT know what John Williams intent was when he made said statements (unless he stated them each time), then you cannot know his intent.

So where is your proof of his intent or do you just commit defamations of character as a hobby?


Plus, you say he 'likes to tell' this supposed lie.

Are you personally familiar with him? Has he told you that he derives pleasure from uttering said statement? Because unless he has - and you can prove it - then it appears that you are just going around putting words in his mouth.

And if you cannot prove it and you admit that you made the statement knowing you could not prove it...then it appears that it is you that is guilty of telling a lie.
 
Last edited:
Amazing how you know what I would be saying or doing and exactly what Mitt Romney would have done yet have no clue as to what Obama has done and totally ignore his record. Absolutely unbelievable how so many liberals simply cannot accept that they were wrong and apparently it is liberal arrogance that creates people who believe they know what is best for everyone else. There is nothing that Conservatives have done that has made things worse and it is liberals like you who are in denial of your failed ideology. this country was built on individual responsibility, individual wealth creation, and individual freedoms none of which focuses on micromanaging by the liberal bureaucrats.

2009 wasn't that long ago when we had a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress that said they had the answers but have failed. You don't seem to grasp the reality what the high number of unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers have on the economy and monetary policy. The federal govt. pumping billions into the market each month has been offset with 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged not spending on the things they want but rather focused on what they need. That is what has kept inflation down. Keep praying for more and more unemployment and discouraged workers.

We know what Mitt Romney would have done because we listened to what he said we would do. His policies were the standard GOP lines: lower taxes on the rich; relax regulations; and slash spending on those undeserving poor people.

The narrative that only the rich work hard is notoriously false. Those "lazy" 47% are typically hard working. They just earn little money. The country was not built by ignoring the common man. It was just the opposite. As Joseph Stiglitz wrote in the Times:
C.E.O.s enjoy incomes that are on average 295 times that of the typical worker, a much higher ratio than in the past, without any evidence of a proportionate increase in productivity.

If it is not the inexorable laws of economics that have led to America’s great divide, what is it? The straightforward answer: our policies and our politics.
...
Mr. Piketty’s argument rests on the ability of wealth-holders to keep their after-tax rate of return high relative to economic growth. How do they do this? By designing the rules of the game to ensure this outcome; that is, through politics.

While conservatives believe that liberals are head-over-heels in love with Obama, he was never our ideal. However, given the choice between Obama and the GOP alternative, liberals, and the rest of the country, rightly chose Obama.

Regarding Obama's record, it is ironic that conservatives like you knock Obama's record while also supporting GOP obstruction, like shutting down the government and threatening default on U.S. bonds. It is undeniably that the GOP has been on a mission to stymie Obama's initiatives. Basically, they throw stumbling blocks in his way and then complain he can't make faster headway. However, in spite of GOP obstruction, the economic disaster that Obama inherited is undeniably reversed.

Is the economy booming? No. But that is largely due to the political inability to do what needs to be done. Right now, the House is trying to disband the Export Import Bank, something that helps U.S. exports and jobs. They also now want to tie up federal highway funds at a time when U.S. public construction is taking a nose-dive. Try to get more public spending out of the House, forget it.

070314krugman1-blog480.png
 
We know what Mitt Romney would have done because we listened to what he said we would do. His policies were the standard GOP lines: lower taxes on the rich; relax regulations; and slash spending on those undeserving poor people.

The narrative that only the rich work hard is notoriously false. Those "lazy" 47% are typically hard working. They just earn little money. The country was not built by ignoring the common man. It was just the opposite. As Joseph Stiglitz wrote in the Times:

While conservatives believe that liberals are head-over-heels in love with Obama, he was never our ideal. However, given the choice between Obama and the GOP alternative, liberals, and the rest of the country, rightly chose Obama.

Regarding Obama's record, it is ironic that conservatives like you knock Obama's record while also supporting GOP obstruction, like shutting down the government and threatening default on U.S. bonds. It is undeniably that the GOP has been on a mission to stymie Obama's initiatives. Basically, they throw stumbling blocks in his way and then complain he can't make faster headway. However, in spite of GOP obstruction, the economic disaster that Obama inherited is undeniably reversed.

Is the economy booming? No. But that is largely due to the political inability to do what needs to be done. Right now, the House is trying to disband the Export Import Bank, something that helps U.S. exports and jobs. They also now want to tie up federal highway funds at a time when U.S. public construction is taking a nose-dive. Try to get more public spending out of the House, forget it.

070314krugman1-blog480.png


I am sorry but you seem to have no problem spending someone else's money and using the same liberal ploy of attacking wealth. Tell me since others won't answer what percentage of one's income should a person pay in Federal, State, and Local Taxes?

it is always about jealousy and what someone else has or someone else' makes. You will never understand that those evil rich people who earned their money are going to get a bigger tax cut because they pay most of the taxes. In fact after the Bush tax cut their burden went up not down and govt. revenue has grown every year we had tax rate cuts.

You like far too many don't seem to understand what drives economic activity and that there isn't enough you can take from the rich to support the liberal spending appetite. Never have I seen you attack the size of the federal govt. and the 3.9 trillion dollar budget Obama has proposed. Instead it is all about diversion. Tell me exactly what benefit you get out of the bigger U.S. Govt?

We tried to tell you what we were getting with Obama in 2008 and you refused to listen, we tried again in 2012 and 4 million more got the message. Today Obama's JAR is more representative of reality but as with all liberal policies it really is too late to say "I told you so"

You do seem to have a serious problem understanding basic economics, basic civics, as well as how a private sector economy works. One of these days you will actually realize what a fool liberalism has made out of you.
 
We know what Mitt Romney would have done because we listened to what he said we would do. His policies were the standard GOP lines: lower taxes on the rich; relax regulations; and slash spending on those undeserving poor people.

The narrative that only the rich work hard is notoriously false. Those "lazy" 47% are typically hard working. They just earn little money. The country was not built by ignoring the common man. It was just the opposite. As Joseph Stiglitz wrote in the Times:

While conservatives believe that liberals are head-over-heels in love with Obama, he was never our ideal. However, given the choice between Obama and the GOP alternative, liberals, and the rest of the country, rightly chose Obama.

Regarding Obama's record, it is ironic that conservatives like you knock Obama's record while also supporting GOP obstruction, like shutting down the government and threatening default on U.S. bonds. It is undeniably that the GOP has been on a mission to stymie Obama's initiatives. Basically, they throw stumbling blocks in his way and then complain he can't make faster headway. However, in spite of GOP obstruction, the economic disaster that Obama inherited is undeniably reversed.

Is the economy booming? No. But that is largely due to the political inability to do what needs to be done. Right now, the House is trying to disband the Export Import Bank, something that helps U.S. exports and jobs. They also now want to tie up federal highway funds at a time when U.S. public construction is taking a nose-dive. Try to get more public spending out of the House, forget it.

070314krugman1-blog480.png

lol...the Keynesian/big government excuses...more money, more regulations.

Okay...prove it.

You say the economy is not 'booming' because of 'political inability'.

Prove using links to unbiased facts/data that this is so, please?

That if these magical initiatives went through that they would not only stifle America further...but would actually help America 'boom'.

Either prove it or admit you cannot.


Oh, and by the way; not 'booming'?

JP Morgan just recast their GDP expectations for 2014 down to 1.4%.

The labor market lost over 1/2 a million full time jobs last month.

The economy is not just 'not booming'...the economy sucks.


JPM Cuts Its Original 2014 GDP Forecast In Half, Sees Slowest Full Year Growth Since 2009 | Zero Hedge

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
 
I am sorry but you seem to have no problem spending someone else's money and using the same liberal ploy of attacking wealth. Tell me since others won't answer what percentage of one's income should a person pay in Federal, State, and Local Taxes?

it is always about jealousy and what someone else has or someone else' makes. You will never understand that those evil rich people who earned their money are going to get a bigger tax cut because they pay most of the taxes. In fact after the Bush tax cut their burden went up not down and govt. revenue has grown every year we had tax rate cuts.

You like far too many don't seem to understand what drives economic activity and that there isn't enough you can take from the rich to support the liberal spending appetite. Never have I seen you attack the size of the federal govt. and the 3.9 trillion dollar budget Obama has proposed. Instead it is all about diversion. Tell me exactly what benefit you get out of the bigger U.S. Govt?

We tried to tell you what we were getting with Obama in 2008 and you refused to listen, we tried again in 2012 and 4 million more got the message. Today Obama's JAR is more representative of reality but as with all liberal policies it really is too late to say "I told you so"

You do seem to have a serious problem understanding basic economics, basic civics, as well as how a private sector economy works. One of these days you will actually realize what a fool liberalism has made out of you.
While you smugly assert you understand economics better than me, saying so doesn't mean it is so, Nothing in your narrative is supported by history or economics. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that low taxes have resulted in greater economic activity or more job growth -- none. Your argument then collapses into, 'it's just not fair to tax rich people more.' Well, with all the moral battles to fight in this world, the right of rich people to hold onto more of their money isn't on my top ten.

What is clear and apparent is that the period of time following the New Deal until the Reagan Revolution, a period of high taxation on wealth, strong unions and a wide safety net, produced unprecedented economic gains for the middle-class. These gains further resulted in a better educated middle-class that spurred productivity further, with more economic gains. Those gains were all but erased with movement conservatism that lowered upper-income taxes, reduced the safety net and was hostile to unions.

As far as your question, "what percentage of one's income should a person pay in Federal, State, and Local Taxes," is concerned, I could live with the tax-rates under Reagan, 50% top income rate with a 60/40% tax on short/long term capital gains.
 
Back
Top Bottom