• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jobless Rate Holds at 9.7%; Weather Cited in Job Losses

A fiscal conservative could support a giant government program that provides the same services to the American public for a lower overall cost (versus private industry)! :prof

And what program would that be?...... maybe the USPS? :shock:

Oh!!!!!!!!....... I know.....
























Cash for clunkers!
 
A fiscal conservative could support a giant government program that provides the same services to the American public for a lower overall cost (versus private industry)! :prof

Obama's HC bill won't lower the overall costs one bit. It'll just shift them onto the American taxpayer.
 
Well the rightwing better hope there is no trend towards lower unemployment. Or get some good spin going... if Obama straightens this economy out repubs are going to be in trouble... Clinton - Bush - Obama - two successful dem Presidencies with a Repub failure in between will be bad news for the GOP.

What is typical is the fact that once again liberals don't get it and never will. 36,000 more Americans lost their jobs and another 140,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force. Isn't that wonderful? It is a great day in America according to Harry Reid as we has spent almost 2 trillion dollars and all we have to show for it is a reported 15 million unemployed Americans, a true unemployment rate of 16.8% but liberals spin this positively. Is there any wonder that liberals today have zero credibility.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

what this is showing is that growing the public sector doesn't solve the unemployment problem nor does it grow the economy enough to reduce the deficit by creating jobs.
 
When we're at 9.7 in June, I wonder if they'll blame the heat.
 
When we're at 9.7 in June, I wonder if they'll blame the heat.

Probably as this Administration is good at blaming everyone else but themselves.

The percentage isn't a valid issue, the total number of unemployed including those dropping out of the work force is the issue. The 9.7% is based upon a lower workforce base due to people actually dropping out of the labor market.

Going to the BLS.gov website, clicking on unemployment, then at the bottom of the page click on labor force statistics. That is the key page to do research. There is a section there called discouraged workers and it shows the number of people dropping out of the labor force. those are truly unemployed people. There are now another 1.2 million people that dropped out of the labor force that should be added to the roles of the unemployed. That would make the real rate 16.8%.

You won't see any Obama supporter touch this issue.
 
A fiscal conservative could support a giant government program that provides the same services to the American public for a lower overall cost (versus private industry)! :prof

ummm, no he wouldn't. else the government could take over the food industry, feed us all mcdonalds and save tons of money.
 
Yes it does

And what do you want the government to do about it?

Give everyone jobs?

immediately:

1. immediately halt the stimulus payouts
2. come out and say flat out we aren't going to pass cap-and-tax, or it's EPA equivalent
3. come out and flat say we aren't going to pass obamacare
4. Drastically simplify the tax code. I prefer the fair tax, but I'll take a flat tax, or a graduated flat tax or anything therein, or anything that gets rid of the death tax, and hopefully drastically cuts corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes.

longer term:

5. balanced budget amendment with a debt payment plan to protect the dollar
6. significantly lower the percentage of the economy taken up by the government through the removal of unconstitutional, unnecessary, and damaging programs, such as farm subsidies.
7. establish free trade agreements with all nations ruled by representative governments with at least moderate recognition of human rights.
8. minimize the regulatory burden of the US in accordance with #6.
9. lower unemployment benefits, and impose drastic cuts to the welfare state in accordance with #6.
10. immigration reform which imposes a minimum $5,000 fine or 1 year in prison for each illegal immigrant knowingly hired by an employer.
 
immediately:

1. immediately halt the stimulus payouts
2. come out and say flat out we aren't going to pass cap-and-tax, or it's EPA equivalent
3. come out and flat say we aren't going to pass obamacare
4. Drastically simplify the tax code. I prefer the fair tax, but I'll take a flat tax, or a graduated flat tax or anything therein, or anything that gets rid of the death tax, and hopefully drastically cuts corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes.

longer term:

5. balanced budget amendment with a debt payment plan to protect the dollar
6. significantly lower the percentage of the economy taken up by the government through the removal of unconstitutional, unnecessary, and damaging programs, such as farm subsidies.
7. establish free trade agreements with all nations ruled by representative governments with at least moderate recognition of human rights.
8. minimize the regulatory burden of the US in accordance with #6.
9. lower unemployment benefits, and impose drastic cuts to the welfare state in accordance with #6.
10. immigration reform which imposes a minimum $5,000 fine or 1 year in prison for each illegal immigrant knowingly hired by an employer.

cp, You have my vote.
 
if i may humbly add to cp's outstanding menu:

to direct with firm, forceful visionary leadership this nation's angst over its future, which is monumental right now, into a NATIONAL MOBILIZATION, emergency footing, ala fdr in ww2, in the area of ENERGY PRODUCTION, omnibus approach:

oil, offshore, anwr, refineries, electrical power plants, gas, offshore gas (see bob mcdonnell's virginia), clean coal, nukes, wind, solar, tidal, butterfly wings, shale, batteries, alternatives, cars, r&d...

anything that in any way can remotely be conceived to develop POWER

tax breaks for, public investment in

GREAT jobs, secure, hi paying, benefits, retirements, health care...

productive, lucrative JOBS...

ENERGY is sure to be a world wide critical need for at least the next century

he who produces power has the world at his well grounded feet

thru leasing offshore oil fields alone CALIFORNIA, of all places, can come close to balancing its budget

THIS is the way out for america

national mobilization, emergency footing, fdr, ww2---ENERGY!
 
unfortunately, under current leadership, americans are palpably losing hope

there's politics, there's economics

there's indicators, there's guts

POLITICS IS IN THE GUT

and if you can't FEEL america's mounting desperation, her sense of no-way-out...

well, you might be too eggheaded for your own good

in my opinion
 
1. immediately halt the stimulus payouts

And watch demand take a nasty turn to the left (pun intended).

2. come out and say flat out we aren't going to pass cap-and-tax, or it's EPA equivalent

In this economic climate, you would be correct.

3. come out and flat say we aren't going to pass obamacare

Well.... Something has to be done as something is better than nothing. And since there is no talk of a public option, i have no idea why you would be against such measures.

4. Drastically simplify the tax code. I prefer the fair tax, but I'll take a flat tax, or a graduated flat tax or anything therein, or anything that gets rid of the death tax, and hopefully drastically cuts corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes.

That is a mixed bag if i have ever seen one. During periods of very low monetary velocity, cutting taxes will be less than desirable. I can agree on cutting taxes on middle to lower end income earners as they tend to spend the majority of their incomes thereby creating a steady multiplier in which to feel confident about.



5. balanced budget amendment with a debt payment plan to protect the dollar

Debt payment plan? Are you aware that treasury securities mature on a daily basis?

6. significantly lower the percentage of the economy taken up by the government through the removal of unconstitutional, unnecessary, and damaging programs, such as farm subsidies.

I can agree with this; but only to a certain point. It is a matter of national security to be able to produce much of ones food.

7. establish free trade agreements with all nations ruled by representative governments with at least moderate recognition of human rights.

I can agree with that. Realizing it however might be a tad bit tricky although possible.

8. minimize the regulatory burden of the US in accordance with #6.

Do industries regulate themselves or are we to believe externalities will suddenly disappear?

9. lower unemployment benefits, and impose drastic cuts to the welfare state in accordance with #6.

Ehhhh.... Reform as opposed to cuts is optimal in my opinion. Why? Because **** does happen, and not everyone has the ability/fortitude to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Is Social Darwinism your end all desire?

10. immigration reform which imposes a minimum $5,000 fine or 1 year in prison for each illegal immigrant knowingly hired by an employer.

One way to boost the economy (while lowering GDP/capita) is to allow the floodgates to be open, and promote a heavy onslaught of legal immigration.
 
I can agree on cutting taxes on middle to lower end income earners as they tend to spend the majority of their incomes thereby creating a steady multiplier in which to feel confident about.
There's nothing left to cut other than payroll taxes and that's not going to help anybody. Middle to lower end income earners don't pay income tax as it is.
 
And watch demand take a nasty turn to the left (pun intended).

i don't think so. people tend to forget that government deficit spending does not increase aggregate demand; it only shifts it around. all that stimulus spending is doing is crowding out private investment in favor of political cronies. you'd see some readjustment, to be sure, but i'd bet you'd see more than enough counter-investment due to the sudden drop in uncertainty.

In this economic climate, you would be correct.

yup; i'd say right now uncertainty about the costs of this and obama care are probably one of (if not the) main reason why employers aren't looking to hire.

Well.... Something has to be done as something is better than nothing. And since there is no talk of a public option, i have no idea why you would be against such measures.

"something" is not always better than nothing. Arguing that we should pass the Senate bill because it's not as bad as the House version is like arguing that we should shoot ourselves in the foot rather than the face; a better option to be sure but why shoot yourself at all?

That is a mixed bag if i have ever seen one. During periods of very low monetary velocity, cutting taxes will be less than desirable.

i have to disagree; permanently cutting taxes is likely to put that money back into circulation in much more productive ways than government spending. nor do i think that one of the major issues we are facing currently is that we haven't been spending enough. rather the opposite, i think; we need a cultural shift in how we approach consumer spending, debt, and savings.

I can agree on cutting taxes on middle to lower end income earners as they tend to spend the majority of their incomes thereby creating a steady multiplier in which to feel confident about.

ah. but not on those small business owners who create the vast majority of America's new jobs?

Debt payment plan? Are you aware that treasury securities mature on a daily basis?

yes, debt payment plan. not as a means of paying out matured securities; as a means of reducing our debt exposure overall. we service our debt, to be sure, but we roll it over into new debt.

I can agree with this; but only to a certain point. It is a matter of national security to be able to produce much of ones food.

The US Government purchases, stores, and destroys massive amounts of food because the American farmer produces more than he can sell, both here and abroad at the subsidized prices. The Midwest has served as the breadbasket of the world; I tend to look on the "national security" argument as a red herring.

I can agree with that. Realizing it however might be a tad bit tricky although possible.

it would be a powerful diplomatic tool in creating blocs that give struggling nations a place to go in the face of the rising regional dominance of China and Russia.

Do industries regulate themselves or are we to believe externalities will suddenly disappear?

industries regulate themselves as it is; it's just that currently they do it by purchasing politicians to protect their market share.

Ehhhh.... Reform as opposed to cuts is optimal in my opinion. Why? Because **** does happen, and not everyone has the ability/fortitude to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Is Social Darwinism your end all desire?

Entertaining that social Darwinism is the immediate tool that the opponents of such measures reach for. I'm not blaming you, mind you; it's the way we are taught. But these programs were put in place by social Darwinists for the purpose of social Darwinism. Even Paul Krugman recognizes that unemployment benefits increase unemployment.

One way to boost the economy (while lowering GDP/capita) is to allow the floodgates to be open, and promote a heavy onslaught of legal immigration.

If they can be integrated into the legitimate economy, instead of being integrated into a black market economy and a welfare system, yes. But we have opted for the second rather than the first and we need to fix that before we can worry about mass integration.
 
i don't think so. people tend to forget that government deficit spending does not increase aggregate demand; it only shifts it around.

Nonsense. During a full employment GDP gap, AD has been shifted to the left thereby lowering overall demand. Why has this shift occurred? Because spending has been reduced which is why government has the means necessary to "smooth" out the effects.

all that stimulus spending is doing is crowding out private investment in favor of political cronies.

Ah ha! Now we are getting somewhere. But to make a truly telling analysis, we have to dissect the nature of investment demand. Why..... Oh why do private investors feel the need... the desire... to invest into low yield securities offered by the public when they can put money into various aspects of private debt or equities that pay far greater returns?

Ill wait;)

you'd see some readjustment, to be sure, but i'd bet you'd see more than enough counter-investment due to the sudden drop in uncertainty.

What will suddenly drop the uncertainty facing both consumers and/or producers? :confused:

yup; i'd say right now uncertainty about the costs of this and obama care are probably one of (if not the) main reason why employers aren't looking to hire.

Nope! First and foremost, not all industries face decreased marginal profitability due to cap and trade. Secondly, the effect (cost) of health care reform is quite ambiguous in respects to firm profitability. You are going to have to do more than make blanket assertions.

"something" is not always better than nothing. Arguing that we should pass the Senate bill because it's not as bad as the House version is like arguing that we should shoot ourselves in the foot rather than the face; a better option to be sure but why shoot yourself at all?

Relating health care reform not sponsored by talk radio to shooting ourselves carries no merit. The costs of medicare are needed to be reduced long term if any talk of fiscal responsibility is to be taken seriously.

i have to disagree; permanently cutting taxes is likely to put that money back into circulation in much more productive ways than government spending.

Going back to EGTRRA in 2001, what was the net effect of the Bush tax cuts? 2/3 were saved and not spent thereby negating the entire premise of tax cuts based on the guise of stimulation (what you are perceiving them to be). As deficits increase, tax cuts cannot be internalized by tax payers as being "permanent".

nor do i think that one of the major issues we are facing currently is that we haven't been spending enough. rather the opposite, i think; we need a cultural shift in how we approach consumer spending, debt, and savings.

It most certainly is. A $1.5 trillion infrastructure stimulus would have been optimal (especially if we could have phased it into a three year plan).



ah. but not on those small business owners who create the vast majority of America's new jobs?

Have you lived under a rock? The largest aspect of the current stimulus was in regards to tax cut/breaks.

Investmentbubble.jpg


yes, debt payment plan. not as a means of paying out matured securities; as a means of reducing our debt exposure overall. we service our debt, to be sure, but we roll it over into new debt.

With a balanced budget (no deficit), the debt will naturally expire as stipulated on the investors purchase of various instruments. You cannot make a 30 year treasury expire any sooner.

The US Government purchases, stores, and destroys massive amounts of food because the American farmer produces more than he can sell, both here and abroad at the subsidized prices.

Care to expand on this a tad bit more with some quality sources? Not that i disagree with your premise entirely, but i feel you are leaving things out as a matter of convenience.

The Midwest has served as the breadbasket of the world; I tend to look on the "national security" argument as a red herring.

I am only explaining one of the main concerns in regards to international trade. You are the one claiming we do not need as many American farmers.

it would be a powerful diplomatic tool in creating blocs that give struggling nations a place to go in the face of the rising regional dominance of China and Russia.

First, we have to consider the net effects on international trade before we can assume other positive externalities of free trade agreements.

industries regulate themselves as it is; it's just that currently they do it by purchasing politicians to protect their market share.

That does not answer my question (weak attempt to shuffle). In the absence of US regulatory authority, would all private firms self regulate?

Entertaining that social Darwinism is the immediate tool that the opponents of such measures reach for. I'm not blaming you, mind you; it's the way we are taught. But these programs were put in place by social Darwinists for the purpose of social Darwinism. Even Paul Krugman recognizes that unemployment benefits increase unemployment.
Care to provide a quote?

If they can be integrated into the legitimate economy, instead of being integrated into a black market economy and a welfare system, yes. But we have opted for the second rather than the first and we need to fix that before we can worry about mass integration.

I can agree. But we must first consider what draws immigrants (legal or illegal) into the black market.
 
Nonsense. During a full employment GDP gap, AD has been shifted to the left thereby lowering overall demand. Why has this shift occurred? Because spending has been reduced which is why government has the means necessary to "smooth" out the effects.



Ah ha! Now we are getting somewhere. But to make a truly telling analysis, we have to dissect the nature of investment demand. Why..... Oh why do private investors feel the need... the desire... to invest into low yield securities offered by the public when they can put money into various aspects of private debt or equities that pay far greater returns?

Ill wait;)



What will suddenly drop the uncertainty facing both consumers and/or producers? :confused:



Nope! First and foremost, not all industries face decreased marginal profitability due to cap and trade. Secondly, the effect (cost) of health care reform is quite ambiguous in respects to firm profitability. You are going to have to do more than make blanket assertions.



Relating health care reform not sponsored by talk radio to shooting ourselves carries no merit. The costs of medicare are needed to be reduced long term if any talk of fiscal responsibility is to be taken seriously.



Going back to EGTRRA in 2001, what was the net effect of the Bush tax cuts? 2/3 were saved and not spent thereby negating the entire premise of tax cuts based on the guise of stimulation (what you are perceiving them to be). As deficits increase, tax cuts cannot be internalized by tax payers as being "permanent".



It most certainly is. A $1.5 trillion infrastructure stimulus would have been optimal (especially if we could have phased it into a three year plan).





Have you lived under a rock? The largest aspect of the current stimulus was in regards to tax cut/breaks.

Investmentbubble.jpg




With a balanced budget (no deficit), the debt will naturally expire as stipulated on the investors purchase of various instruments. You cannot make a 30 year treasury expire any sooner.



Care to expand on this a tad bit more with some quality sources? Not that i disagree with your premise entirely, but i feel you are leaving things out as a matter of convenience.



I am only explaining one of the main concerns in regards to international trade. You are the one claiming we do not need as many American farmers.



First, we have to consider the net effects on international trade before we can assume other positive externalities of free trade agreements.



That does not answer my question (weak attempt to shuffle). In the absence of US regulatory authority, would all private firms self regulate?


Care to provide a quote?



I can agree. But we must first consider what draws immigrants (legal or illegal) into the black market.

There are a couple problems with your analysis with the major one being the Obama so called tax cuts. Here is what happened

Individuals will get a tax credit of $400, while couples will get $800. The tax credit payments, expected to start around June, will be spread out through the rest of 2009 in the form of reduced federal tax withholdings taken from workers' paychecks. For 2009, the tax credit will amount to about an extra $13 per week and about $7.70 a week in 2010. Individuals with annual taxable incomes in excess of $100,000, and couples filing jointly with incomes in excess of $200,000 will not be eligible for the workers' tax credits. The credit begins to phase out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.

Now compare that to the rate cuts of Reagan or Bush. Rebate checks never work for once they are gone they are gone. Rate cuts continue on and put more into each taxpayer's check each pay period. I hope you see the difference because the economy sure did. Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts actually grew the American Economy, created jobs, and also grew govt. revenue.

Second, the stimulus plan was supposed to go for "shovel" ready jobs and not be spect over 3 years and as a result it has stimulated nothing except bailing out Democrat contituent groups and growing the size of govt, both of which are unsustainable.

By definition a stimulus in our economy should be designed to stimulate the private sector but instead only stimulated the growth in the govt. and that just grows the debt.

The fact is the stimulus plan increased unemployment which is closer to 17% than it is to the 9.7% reported, as if 9.7% is to be celebrated. Jobs continue to be lost in this economy in spite of all the spending and a reduction in the numbers of unemployed isn't really what happened. Instead people dropped out of the labor market and with a growing economy the labor force dropped 1.1 million in the last year.
 
So you want Obama to fix global warming, healthcare and give you a pacifier?

He's hiring temporary census workers that offsets the weather he's using as an excuse for his failed policies. How long his followers continue to sway in front of him as he announces more job losses with near 10% unemployment in anyone's guess.
'
 
He's hiring temporary census workers that offsets the weather he's using as an excuse for his failed policies. How long his followers continue to sway in front of him as he announces more job losses with near 10% unemployment in anyone's guess.
'

Barack Obama along with his liberal elite Administration haven't a clue how to grow the U.S. economy and everything they are doing actually hurts that growth long term. We have a private sector economy that is being ignored. GDP Growth and any employment gains are being created in the public sector and that is unsustainable and costly to the taxpayers. The govt. cannot create enough jobs to do anything other than create debt.
 
Time for a reality check here.

Until everyone who is unemployed is back to work there are NO net jobs being created.

9.7% isn't close to the real number which is about 16%.

There is some happy talk circulating but is just that happy talk not based in reallity.

A local Mom and Pop neighborhood grocery store that has been in operation for over 50 years is closing near here because people don't have money and they can't compete with major chains 11 miles away.

They were doing fine until last year.

We are told the inflation rate will be 2.5% this month but does not figure in Food or Energy which are both way more than that.
 
Time for a reality check here.

Until everyone who is unemployed is back to work there are NO net jobs being created.

9.7% isn't close to the real number which is about 16%.

There is some happy talk circulating but is just that happy talk not based in reallity.

A local Mom and Pop neighborhood grocery store that has been in operation for over 50 years is closing near here because people don't have money and they can't compete with major chains 11 miles away.

They were doing fine until last year.

We are told the inflation rate will be 2.5% this month but does not figure in Food or Energy which are both way more than that.

Good luck in getting Obama supporters to deal in reality. They are so used to buying what Obama says and the media reports that they ignore the actual results which you are pointing out.

In the BLS report there is a section called discouraged workers and that is the number being ignored by the media so your number unemployment numbers are more accurate than the media is reporting.

The number that really bothers me is the reduction in the labor force that has occurred this past year due to people getting discouraged. Those discouraged workers need to be added to the unemployed number thus giving us a higher unemployment rate.
 
Conservative,

Could you do me a favor and post the labor force statistics between the month of January and February?

You should include: The total labor force, the number of people employed, the number of people unemployed, and the unemployment rate. Following the postings, can you provide a brief description of your findings and a source for the numbers?

Thanks,

GB
 
Conservative,

Could you do me a favor and post the labor force statistics between the month of January and February?

You should include: The total labor force, the number of people employed, the number of people unemployed, and the unemployment rate. Following the postings, can you provide a brief description of your findings and a source for the numbers?

Thanks,

GB

The following information comes from BLS. Subtract the unemployed from the labor force to get the employment number. My findings are that unemployment continues to climb

Labor Force 2009 Jan-Dec
154140(1)
154401
154164
154718
154956
154759
154351
154426
153927
153854
153720
153059

2010-Jan-Feb
153170(1)
153512

Unemployed Jan-Dec in Millions
2009
11919
12714
13310
13816
14518
14721
14534
14993
15159
15612
15340
15267

2010-Jan-Feb
14837
14871
Discouraged Workers Jan-Dec in Thousands
2009
734
731
685
740
792
793
796
758
706
808
861
929
778

2010-Jan-Feb in thousands
1065
1204

What this shows is that unemployment rose throughout 2009 and dropped in 2010 but the discouraged increased thus the unemployment rate did not drop at all.
 
The following information comes from BLS. Subtract the unemployed from the labor force to get the employment number. My findings are that unemployment continues to climb

Labor Force

2010-Jan-Feb
153170(1)
153512

Unemployed
2010-Jan-Feb
14837
14871

Discouraged Workers

2010-Jan-Feb in thousands
1065
1204

What this shows is that unemployment rose throughout 2009 and dropped in 2010 but the discouraged increased thus the unemployment rate did not drop at all.

Thank you for posting the labor force, discouraged workers, and unemployed for a 12 month plus time frame. However, you did not post the number of people employed and made an effort not to do so. Why?

Number of people employed

January 2010: 138,333,000

February 2010: 138,641,000

The reason i asked you to post the total labor force, and the unemployment rate is to give a little info behind job creation. You instead attempted to post unneeded data from previous months.

Care to provide a comment based on the number of people employed?
 
Thank you for posting the labor force, discouraged workers, and unemployed for a 12 month plus time frame. However, you did not post the number of people employed and made an effort not to do so. Why?

Number of people employed

January 2010: 138,333,000

February 2010: 138,641,000

The reason i asked you to post the total labor force, and the unemployment rate is to give a little info behind job creation. You instead attempted to post unneeded data from previous months.

Care to provide a comment based on the number of people employed?


I told you how to get the number of people employed. The concern is the unemployed and the discouraged workers being ignored in the unemployment number.

What I showed you was that after passing that "emergency" stimulus plan that was going to keep unemployment at 8% that unemployment rose dramatically. What I showed is that the situation is worse today than it was prior to the stimulus and all we got for it was rising unemployment and debt.

I provided you what you asked for and your comments are the best you can do? Interesting attempt at diversion because the labor force dropping is the concern just like the discouraged and unemployed working.

Not a pretty picture is it?
 
I told you how to get the number of people employed. The concern is the unemployed and the discouraged workers being ignored in the unemployment number.

Even if you did not have an exact number ready, why did you fail to post it and instead give directions?

What I showed you was that after passing that "emergency" stimulus plan that was going to keep unemployment at 8% that unemployment rose dramatically. What I showed is that the situation is worse today than it was prior to the stimulus and all we got for it was rising unemployment and debt.

So you could not wait to make a partisan statement? In 2008, the non-instutionalized population of the US was 233,788,000 where as today it is 236,998,000. Even with minimal growth, unemployment would have continued to expand due to the natural demographics. One of the negatives of such a large "package" that has to be paid for via treasury auctions (record ones) is the time it takes to appropriate. I do agree that the projections were completely off (as was the size needed to achieve them).

I provided you what you asked for and your comments are the best you can do? Interesting attempt at diversion because the labor force dropping is the concern just like the discouraged and unemployed working.

Yet you did not provide what i asked for. Care to answer why you purposefully did not post that there was actually job creation in the tune of 300,000?

Not a pretty picture is it?

Of course not. But things are getting better.
 
Back
Top Bottom