• 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!

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
You certainly don't understand cost of living at all including low taxes so you continue to ignore reality. I posted bls data, you haven't refuted it. You posted 2009 to the present data ignoring the Obama stimulus program for shovel ready jobs. You promote the California entitlement mentality which makes Obama a hero in your world. Debt, low job creation, slow economic growth have no place in your world. Stick to California as that is exactly what you deserve

By the way, keep ignoring the minimum wage jobs created in California. I believe that 1.6 million minimum wage jobs in California exceed the 500,000 in TX but could be wrong. I don't use liberal math


Again....you can't accept the truth so you distort. Sorry Charlie....but Texas is tied with Mississippi for having the highest proportion of its citizens working for minimum wage. Must make you real proud!!
 
Secular stagnation has little to do with the executive, much less one who came into office 9 years after it began to take hold.

It has everything to do with destroying incentive and penalizing wealth creation which Democrats are good at doing except to their own.
 
That's cool.



I don't look at variables in a vacuum. If debt/GDP > 100% and the economy continued to shrink, you would have a point. But it is not shrinking and neither is the labor force.

No it isn't shrinking but it is stagnating and not growing in relationship to the population nor is job creation. The labor force grew over 10 million during the Bush term and 2 million under Obama. That is stagnation promoted by liberalism.
 
No it isn't shrinking but it is stagnating and not growing in relationship to the population nor is job creation. The labor force grew over 10 million during the Bush term and 2 million under Obama. That is stagnation promoted by liberalism.

That's utterly ****ing absurd.
 
And instead of facing the fact that your "I voted for JFK" does not negate your Southern Conservative ideology, you shift to a worn out meme about the Bush Recession and GLOBAL economic stagnation as a result. We know what the neoliberal cuts will do, just look at nearly any other OECD growth rate.

Look, you and I are never going to agree. I will put my resume up against yours any day of the week but that is irrelevant. You are a liberal and refuse to acknowledge you are part of the problem not part of the solution. I see no further reason to continue posting the same data and information over and over again only to be ignored.
 
Again....you can't accept the truth so you distort. Sorry Charlie....but Texas is tied with Mississippi for having the highest proportion of its citizens working for minimum wage. Must make you real proud!!

That is a lie and no matter how many times you state it, it doesn't make it true. Even with Federal Minimum wage that isn't true, Texas has the highest total but not the highest proportion by a long shot. Better worry about your own state with 1.6 million minimum wage workers and leading the nation in poverty.
 
I can play this game...

No, some that never progress and get stuck in the conservative phase like to think that of others because it excuses their own lack of growth.

See that?

The point was, you assumed con had been liberal, he never was liberal.

No, you obviously can't play this game, at least not very well. It is accepted fact that humans in general go from liberal to conservative as they mature. Not the other way around.

So yes, it is more likely that as a young man Conservative was far more liberal.
 
To add, if "progress" is having a lower IQ, being more fearful, tending towards higher rates of prejudice, more prone to authoritarianism, well that is something I do not want to grow towards.


The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.

Wow, sounds like I really hit the nail on the head with you and you're throwing everything at it. What's next, "Nah, Nah, can't hear you"?

Don't worry, you've got company, not everyone progress to adulthood.
 
Look, you and I are never going to agree. I will put my resume up against yours any day of the week but that is irrelevant. You are a liberal and refuse to acknowledge you are part of the problem not part of the solution. I see no further reason to continue posting the same data and information over and over again only to be ignored.
I never ignore real data, and I don't keep trying to pass off some ever changing story about my past ideology. You do. Today it's "I was always a conservative", but 3 years ago it was:

No, actually I didn't, I was a liberal back then ....

so your history is whatever you want it to be, you can't keep a your story straight nor can you keep your arguments on point....but then that is what you are consistent with, being inconsistent.
 
If the goal was for the creation of larger numbers of higher paying WAGE employment........why do you insist on going in circles? I'm not arguing for greater concentrations of wealth in fewer hands, you are, by your own admission. Again, you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting yourself. You don't lament the large numbers of low wage jobs, you want it by arguing for wealthier owners.

Further, the poor cannot create jobs, since they are capital poor....durr.

No I said I want MORE rich people. More means more. More doesnt mean fewer. Dur.

And as for your "Poor cannot create jobs" argument...sorry but that is just plain false. One of my best friends went from being poor to owning a company that continues to expand every year....she profits over $300k a year. In the not-so-distant future she will be profiting over a million a year. I guess you should talk to the people she employs if they have jobs or not.
 
Wow, sounds like I really hit the nail on the head with you and you're throwing everything at it. What's next, "Nah, Nah, can't hear you"?

Don't worry, you've got company, not everyone progress to adulthood.
First it was "progressing" (LOL!!) toward conservatism, now it is "adulthood=conservatism" while you childishly try to put words in my mouth (irony!). Growth is learning to accept difference, to live with it, not to close it off, to pull away from, to become more dogmatic and traditional.
 
Reagan's last budget was a trillion dollars and took GDP from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion.

GDP (in nominal dollars) was $2.8 trillion in 1980. Reagan became president in Jan 1981. In that year, it was $3.2 trillion.

In 1989, it was $5.6 trillion. Bush41 became president in January of that year.

The Reagan numbers go from $3.2 trillion in 1981 to $5.25 trillion in 1988. So not "from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion," but rather from 3.2 to 5.25. Funny how ya got that wrong.

Unlike every macroeconomist in the world, you think inflation should be ignored. Nevertheless, I think it should be accounted for. When you look at real per capita GDP growth, Reagan's economy grew at 2.6% annually, while Obama's has grown at 2.1%.

The growth under Reagan resulted in large part from the trillions of (inflation-adjusted) dollars that were contained in federal deficits. Now Obama has had large deficits as well. But most of that money came from wars he didn't start and big tax cuts for the wealthy that he opposes. Moreover, yer not gonna get the same recovery form a financial crisis that you would from a business cycle recession.

The numbers just aren't there to validate yer claim that the Reagan economy was stronger than the one we've had under Obama.

>>You think Obama is a deficit hawk proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget?

Federal expenditures in FY2014 were $3.5 trillion. Spending has fallen under Obama. The FY2009 budget was almost all Bush's doing. The spending that Obama added was required to avoid a complete collapse of the economy. We'll see what the total for FY2015 ends up being. I know what you want cut — all those handouts to the black trash that are rioting in our streets.

>>BLS, BEA, and Treasury make you look foolish

How's that?
 
No I said I want MORE rich people. More means more. More doesnt mean fewer. Dur.
You don't get "more" rich people with more SB employment, you get more low wage employment.

And as for your "Poor cannot create jobs" argument...sorry but that is just plain false. One of my best friends went from being poor to owning a company that continues to expand every year....she profits over $300k a year. In the not-so-distant future she will be profiting over a million a year. I guess you should talk to the people she employs if they have jobs or not.
Um, your anecdotal "friend" did not go to bed poor and wake up the next day "rich" without some level of capitalization in between. And I REALLY hope you are not going to go off on some distraction from your original point (which you keep getting further and further from) with an argument about upward mobility.
 
No, you obviously can't play this game, at least not very well. It is accepted fact that humans in general go from liberal to conservative as they mature. Not the other way around.

So yes, it is more likely that as a young man Conservative was far more liberal.
He has no idea what he was, his story is ever changing. People might become more careful economically as they age (fear of losing wealth), but socially, folks who become more fearful socially are not "progressing". they are in fact regressing.
 
GDP (in nominal dollars) was $2.8 trillion in 1980. Reagan became president in Jan 1981. In that year, it was $3.2 trillion.

In 1989, it was $5.6 trillion. Bush41 became president in January of that year.

The Reagan numbers go from $3.2 trillion in 1981 to $5.25 trillion in 1988. So not "from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion," but rather from 3.2 to 5.25. Funny how ya got that wrong.

Unlike every macroeconomist in the world, you think inflation should be ignored. Nevertheless, I think it should be accounted for. When you look at real per capita GDP growth, Reagan's economy grew at 2.6% annually, while Obama's has grown at 2.1%.

The growth under Reagan resulted in large part from the trillions of (inflation-adjusted) dollars that were contained in federal deficits. Now Obama has had large deficits as well. But most of that money came from wars he didn't start and big tax cuts for the wealthy that he opposes. Moreover, yer not gonna get the same recovery form a financial crisis that you would from a business cycle recession.

The numbers just aren't there to validate yer claim that the Reagan economy was stronger than the one we've had under Obama.

>>You think Obama is a deficit hawk proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget?

Federal expenditures in FY2014 were $3.5 trillion. Spending has fallen under Obama. The FY2009 budget was almost all Bush's doing. The spending that Obama added was required to avoid a complete collapse of the economy. We'll see what the total for FY2015 ends up being. I know what you want cut — all those handouts to the black trash that are rioting in our streets.

>>BLS, BEA, and Treasury make you look foolish

How's that?

There you go again unable to figure out what nominal even means and the period covered, the 2.8 trillion was the economy at the end of 1980. The economy at the end of 1988 was 5.2 trillion. those are the numbers that mattered because both revenue and expenses were in those year values.

Trillions? Really? the entire economy was less than 3 trillion when he took office and the budget wasn't even a trillion dollars. Please research the Reagan stimulus and tell me how much spending was in that stimulus??
\
Then please learn how to use the quote function

Oh, by the way since you claim all the 2009 deficit was Bush's please tell me how he did that from October 2008 to January 21, 2009 and then show me the Bush signed 2009 budget?
 
QUOTE=Conservative;1064628783]There you go again unable to figure out what nominal even means and the period covered, the 2.8 trillion was the economy at the end of 1980. The economy at the end of 1988 was 5.2 trillion. those are the numbers that mattered because both revenue and expenses were in those year values.
[/QUOTE]


030312krugman1-blog480.jpg
 
QUOTE=Conservative;1064628783]There you go again unable to figure out what nominal even means and the period covered, the 2.8 trillion was the economy at the end of 1980. The economy at the end of 1988 was 5.2 trillion. those are the numbers that mattered because both revenue and expenses were in those year values.


030312krugman1-blog480.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Love those percentage charts, do you understand the affects a denominator and numerator have in the percentages? Also would you please show me the govt. spending in the Reagan Stimulus??
 
Conservative;1064628857]
030312krugman1-blog480.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Love those percentage charts, do you understand the affects a denominator and numerator have in the percentages? Also would you please show me the govt. spending in the Reagan Stimulus??[/QUOTE]

Of course I understand what are the components of a percentage calculation...hurr durr....and to be accurate it would be "effect"'. And I can tell you generally that the St Ronnie stimulus consisted of low multiplier "defense" spending.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan? - The Washington Post
 
Conservative;1064628857]
030312krugman1-blog480.jpg

Love those percentage charts, do you understand the affects a denominator and numerator have in the percentages? Also would you please show me the govt. spending in the Reagan Stimulus??[/QUOTE]



Of course I understand what are the components of a percentage calculation...hurr durr....and to be accurate it would be "effect"'. And I can tell you generally that the St Ronnie stimulus consisted of low multiplier "defense" spending.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan? - The Washington Post


How you coming on finding that spending in the Reagan stimulus? Wonder what the public would think if Obama did spend to create a peace dividend, 17 million jobs, and doubling of GDP? Hmmm, good question
 
Reagan came along and brought such programs to life with an infusion of money. Defense spending hit a peak of $456.5 billion in 1987 (in projected 2005 dollars), compared with $325.1 billion in 1980 and $339.6 million in 1981, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Most of the increase was for procurement and research and development programs. The procurement budget leapt to $147.3 billion from $71.2 billion in 1980.

Reagan's Defense Buildup Bridged Military Eras (washingtonpost.com)
 
How you coming on finding that spending in the Reagan stimulus? Wonder what the public would think if Obama did spend to create a peace dividend, 17 million jobs, and doubling of GDP? Hmmm, good question
Um, he did not "double GDP", and his GDP gains were built on tripling the debt through low multiplier "defense" spending...not that I expect you to understand a multiplier in macro use.
 
Reagan's last budget was a trillion dollars

Federal outlays in the FY1989 budget were $1.79 trillion. That's $3.39 trillion adjusted for inflation.

My guess is that you would be an embarrassment to Ronald Reagan. And the way you clowns try to claim JFK and MLK as yer own is sickening. Kennedy was a cold warrior, no doubt, and he was a bit late to the game on civil rights, but he was no conservative. To say he was is, as Kobie has correctly pointed out several times of late, patently absurd.

What's yer view on Bobby? A tough, hard-nosed SOB for sure. Ya think he was a conservative like his brother? Ya think their political views were very far apart?

figure out … the period covered

For once, yer right. The $2.8 trillion figure should be used as the baseline.

>>The economy at the end of 1988 was 5.2 trillion.

Gee, what happened to yer $5.6 trillion figure? I guess we both made a mistake. You gave him nine years and I gave him seven.

>>Trillions? Really? the entire economy was less than 3 trillion when he took office and the budget wasn't even a trillion dollars.

If yer gonna compare Reagan's dollar numbers to Obama's, you need to adjust for inflation. You say I need to learn what nominal means. I'd say the lack of understanding is on yer part. You say that adjusting for inflation is a mistake. Yeah, OK.

>>Please research the Reagan stimulus and tell me how much spending was in that stimulus?

I already did, in post #343.

$1.4 trillion in deficits. That's more than three trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars.

>>you claim all the 2009 deficit was Bush's please tell me how he did that from October 2008 to January 21, 2009 and then show me the Bush signed 2009 budget?

I spent a lot of time on this a year ago and I won't do it again. An outgoing president has the responsibility for the spending that takes place in the fiscal year that starts in Oct of his last full year. It's his budget and he's there for four months of it. It doesn't matter if he signs it or not. Dubya could just as well be criticized for not stepping up the plate.

Now 2009 was a very exceptional year. And yes, some of the spending can reasonably be attributed to Obama. I think the number was about 12-15%. You have no interest in how the numbers could reasonably be divided up. You just wanna push yer partisan, ideological line. Anyone who doesn't share yer mindset can see that.
 
Reagan came along and brought such programs to life with an infusion of money. Defense spending hit a peak of $456.5 billion in 1987 (in projected 2005 dollars), compared with $325.1 billion in 1980 and $339.6 million in 1981, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Most of the increase was for procurement and research and development programs. The procurement budget leapt to $147.3 billion from $71.2 billion in 1980.

Reagan's Defense Buildup Bridged Military Eras (washingtonpost.com)

Yep, and not one dime of that money was in the stimulus. How are you coming finding the data? Wonder if the public would accept that spending to create another peace dividend like it did then? Are we safer today than we were with Reagan in the WH?
 
Um, he did not "double GDP", and his GDP gains were built on tripling the debt through low multiplier "defense" spending...not that I expect you to understand a multiplier in macro use.

Really? so BEA.gov. got it wrong. Interesting those are the numbers there but guess you know better. Tripling the debt by increasing it 1.7 trillion? Hmmm, wonder if the public would take 1.7 trillion in debt to generate 17 million jobs, growth in GDP from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion, and a peace dividend. Looks like a pretty good return on a 1.7 trillion dollar debt or do you expect the govt. to make money?
 
Yep, and not one dime of that money was in the stimulus. How are you coming finding the data? Wonder if the public would accept that spending to create another peace dividend like it did then? Are we safer today than we were with Reagan in the WH?
Wait, you are arguing that the massive increase in military spending by St Raygun was not a stimulative measure?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom