• 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

Goldenboy219;1058606144]Even if you did not have an exact number ready, why did you fail to post it and instead give directions?

How many times do I have to give directions to the bls.gov? You just don't like the results and I don't blame you.



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).

The point is the non farm payroll numbers are worse than claimed by the Obama Administration and reported by the media. Most jobs being created are in the govt. and that public sector creates debt, not govt. revenue. Obama stimulus plan went to grow the size of govt. and that grows the size of the debt. It is unsustainable.



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?

See above, govt. job creation is debt creation as govt. produces very little. Are you happy that it is the govt. creating the jobs instead of the private sector? Your description is that of being a Libertarian but your comments are that of a liberal.


Of course not. But things are getting better.
[/QUOTE]

Explain how a labor force dropping and discouraged workers growing are examples of things getting better?
 
How many times do I have to give directions to the bls.gov? You just don't like the results and I don't blame you.

I had this PDF in front of me on the 5th. http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseea1.pdf This has nothing to do with whether i like the results or not, so do not try to shuffle.

The point is the non farm payroll numbers are worse than claimed by the Obama Administration and reported by the media. Most jobs being created are in the govt. and that public sector creates debt, not govt. revenue. Obama stimulus plan went to grow the size of govt. and that grows the size of the debt. It is unsustainable.

The only one talking about Obama here is you. You cannot even make a comment without mentioning his name one time. Come on, its time to get over it.

See above, govt. job creation is debt creation as govt. produces very little. Are you happy that it is the govt. creating the jobs instead of the private sector? Your description is that of being a Libertarian but your comments are that of a liberal.

Ha.... Nice try. At this point we need people to have jobs, be they working for the government, or not. I am non biased in my comments, beliefs, and opinions and therefore you will never... ever... get a "cookie cutter" response from me.

Explain how a labor force dropping and discouraged workers growing are examples of things getting better?

I never claimed that those things are making things better, so please refrain from associating such claims with me. 300,000 more jobs is better an 0, or -300,000. Does your partisanship have any limits?
 
I understand that the right would rather do nothing but for Pete's sake, some things need to get done in this country. I don't care which party does it but we know the GOP won't do squat so I can only hope the dems can squeeze out a little something for the nation in between corporate welfare/giveaways.
If you think the right wants to do nothing then you are ignorant of the facts, which have been available to you for probably a year. Here let me help..... http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare ....... check it out. Just because the MSM doesn't pay any attention to the right's suggestions, doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219;1058606163]I had this PDF in front of me on the 5th. http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseea1.pdf This has nothing to do with whether i like the results or not, so do not try to shuffle.

Whether you like the results or not is relevant because the situation isn't improving it is getting worse. Labor force dropping, discouraged workers rising. What did we get for the 800+ billion stimulus?



The only one talking about Obama here is you. You cannot even make a comment without mentioning his name one time. Come on, its time to get over it.

It is the Democrat Stimulus plan that isn't stimulating anything but discouragement and debt.



Ha.... Nice try. At this point we need people to have jobs, be they working for the government, or not. I am non biased in my comments, beliefs, and opinions and therefore you will never... ever... get a "cookie cutter" response from me.

People working for the govt. are paid by the taxpayers thus their wages are offset by tax payments or in the case today debt.



I never claimed that those things are making things better, so please refrain from associating such claims with me. 300,000 more jobs is better an 0, or -300,000. Does your partisanship have any limits?

Where are the discouraged workers in those labor force numbers? There have been NO jobs created when factoring in the discouraged and those actually looking but unemployed. Stop digging the hold, you are going to be buried.
 
It is the Democrat Stimulus plan that isn't stimulating anything but discouragement and debt.

More partisanship. Nothing new to address here.

People working for the govt. are paid by the taxpayers thus their wages are offset by tax payments or in the case today debt.

So??? They are still spending money in the private sector by paying their bills, buying food, clothing, etc.... Deficits rise during a recession, or haven't you heard?

Where are the discouraged workers in those labor force numbers? There have been NO jobs created when factoring in the discouraged and those actually looking but unemployed. Stop digging the hold, you are going to be buried.

What....... The **** are you talking about? Stop boring me with the partisan BS. Discouraged workers could be going back to school, fixing up their house, etc.... The only reason you bring this up is because you are looking for any reason to slam this administration for the state of the economy. It is kinda sad when this is the agenda behind your activity here instead of intellectual debate.
 
I understand that the right would rather do nothing but for Pete's sake, some things need to get done in this country. I don't care which party does it but we know the GOP won't do squat so I can only hope the dems can squeeze out a little something for the nation in between corporate welfare/giveaways.

Until you and your party learn to have an intellectually honest discussion, there is nothing to talk about with your kind.

The plan Republicans are offering up is EXACTLY what Americans really want, but it isn't nearly socialistic enough for the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, so they ignore it and claim that Republicans are being obstructionists.

Fortunately, most Americans, including independents, are seeing through this bull**** easily.

Those stooges are doing irrepairable damage to your party.
 
More partisanship. Nothing new to address here.



So??? They are still spending money in the private sector by paying their bills, buying food, clothing, etc.... Deficits rise during a recession, or haven't you heard?



What....... The **** are you talking about? Stop boring me with the partisan BS. Discouraged workers could be going back to school, fixing up their house, etc.... The only reason you bring this up is because you are looking for any reason to slam this administration for the state of the economy. It is kinda sad when this is the agenda behind your activity here instead of intellectual debate.

Spoken like a true liberal, not libertarian. Is that lightbulb ever going to go off in that head of yours?

I bring this up because it is the facts that confuse you and the media. Obama is a very likeable individual but his policies are destroying the free market economy. When someone celebrates that the unemployment rate stays at 9.7% and ignores the drop in labor force and the increase in discouraged workers, that is partisanship and someone out of touch with reality.

My agenda is obvious, promote a pro growth, pro business economy that actually creates jobs. You are ignoring facts and starting to revert to the liberal tactic of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message.

Tell me when there ever has been discouraged workers over a million? That is a lot of people redecorating their rooms or houses, :spin: What it shows is that you really don't have a clue as to what drives our economy and how it works. You also are willing to buy what you are told and even when confronted with facts you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.
 
Spoken like a true liberal, not libertarian. Is that lightbulb ever going to go off in that head of yours?

And then you will go on to say i attack the messenger? My political lean has nothing to do with this discussion, and only serves as a means to shift the discussion.

I bring this up because it is the facts that confuse you and the media. Obama is a very likeable individual but his policies are destroying the free market economy. When someone celebrates that the unemployment rate stays at 9.7% and ignores the drop in labor force and the increase in discouraged workers, that is partisanship and someone out of touch with reality.

Again, you couldn't resist.... When have i celebrated? There has been nothing partisan about my posts, or would you like to highlight it?

My agenda is obvious, promote a pro growth, pro business economy that actually creates jobs. You are ignoring facts and starting to revert to the liberal tactic of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message.

This is a pro business economy if i have ever seen one. The problem is this; Things were really really bad about a year ago, and recovery is not a one step process considering where we stood.

Tell me when there ever has been discouraged workers over a million? That is a lot of people redecorating their rooms or houses,

Given it is impossible to know exactly what these people are doing (many are known to increase their skill sets), speculativly lumping them into the unemployed catagory speaks volumes.

:spin: What it shows is that you really don't have a clue as to what drives our economy and how it works. You also are willing to buy what you are told and even when confronted with facts you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

Really? We have been down this road before.

Care to make a little wager on the state of the economy by July? Will unemployment fall below 9%? Will consumer and consumer confidence be higher than it was in 2007? Will the Fed begin to unload parts of its balance sheet? Will long term yields eclipse 5%?
 
Goldenboy219;1058606276]And then you will go on to say i attack the messenger? My political lean has nothing to do with this discussion, and only serves as a means to shift the discussion.

It has everything to do with your political leaning which is for less govt. not more yet you give Obama a pass on increasing the size of the govt. and not implementing policy that grows the private sector.


Again, you couldn't resist.... When have i celebrated? There has been nothing partisan about my posts, or would you like to highlight it?

Calling me partisan when I point out actual facts is the issue here but again you divert.


This is a pro business economy if i have ever seen one. The problem is this; Things were really really bad about a year ago, and recovery is not a one step process considering where we stood.

What is pro business about the Obama economic agenda? Where we stood was Congress had to pass the stimulus plan immediately to stop unemployment from exceeding 8%. So what did Obama do to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% and how did that work out for the country?


Given it is impossible to know exactly what these people are doing (many are known to increase their skill sets), speculativly lumping them into the unemployed catagory speaks volumes.

Hardly impossible, you just don't want to accept it. I asked when the discouraged workers have ever exceeded 1 million and this is your answer? Why would the labor force decrease with a growing population?


Care to make a little wager on the state of the economy by July? Will unemployment fall below 9%? Will consumer and consumer confidence be higher than it was in 2007? Will the Fed begin to unload parts of its balance sheet? Will long term yields eclipse 5%?

Unfortunately I would love to make that wager. The economy has to create 200,000 jobs a month just to break even and thus to employ the 15 million unemployed and encourage the discouraged to return is not going to happen without a 180 degree shift in the Obama economic policy.

If you were in private business spending the amount of money Obama is and getting the results he has generated you would be fired. My bet is we are going to see inflation like you haven't seen since the Carter years and that is going to destroy a lot of people, especially the young.

Here is where you can go to verify my data

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
 
Last edited:
It has everything to do with your political leaning which is for less govt. not more yet you give Obama a pass on increasing the size of the govt. and not implementing policy that grows the private sector.

Obama is not responsible for "growing" the private sector as that task will forever be part of a market economy. The "private sector" will grow on its own accord regardless of the size and scope of Obama. You give him far too much credit (you sound like Hanity). Government spending does in fact boost (upward shift) aggregate demand. Now we sit back and wait for it to take effect.

Calling me partisan when I point out actual facts is the issue here but again you divert.

You have brought up Obama in every single post thus far. I got it (you hate him) last month. Nothing you have stated however has been substantial.

What is pro business about the Obama economic agenda? Where we stood was Congress had to pass the stimulus plan immediately to stop unemployment from exceeding 8%.

Agreed. I was expecting (even with the puny stimulus) unemployment in the tune of 12%-13% and therefore this so called stimulus package has clearly beaten my expectations.

So what did Obama do to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% and how did that work out for the country?

And that is just it. Hell bent on exposing the 8% given how bad everything truly was shows your detachment from reality. The fact that U6 unemployment is 17% now and not 33% is going to be viewed as a positive in my book. Optimal? Nope! But given the lack of size (it should have been in the upwards of $1.5 trillion with 90% towards various infrastructure) i am content with the results.

Hardly impossible, you just don't want to accept it. I asked when the discouraged workers have ever exceeded 1 million and this is your answer? Why would the labor force decrease with a growing population?

The relative size of discouraged workers is not a vital issue during this stage in the game. If unemployment were @ 13.5%, such an issue would become vital as it accounts for a greater aspect of both the labor force and non-institutionalized population.




Unfortunately I would love to make that wager. The economy has to create 200,000 jobs a month just to break even and thus to employ the 15 million unemployed and encourage the discouraged to return is not going to happen without a 180 degree shift in the Obama economic policy.

Great analysis:roll: Anyways what wagers do you agree to and what are the terms? For unemployment (over under 9%) shall it be a Reagan/Obama avatar to the loser. Not that i love the current president, but seeing you sport it would be great for a month.

If you were in private business spending the amount of money Obama is and getting the results he has generated you would be fired. My bet is we are going to see inflation like you haven't seen since the Carter years and that is going to destroy a lot of people, especially the young.

Inflation......:shock: Dare anyone speak that dreaded word! The austrians were clamoring for hyperinflation due to the bursting of the housing bubble and now you are betting for inflation? Why not keep your mouth closed and max out your investment fund with a TIPS etf, or short treasuries, buy gold, etc...? I'll go an entire year with the avatar of your choice for this wager. I would only require you 1 month if for some reason there is not double digit inflation (ill even give you a 2 point handicap). By the end of this year. Deal?
 
Goldenboy219;1058606361]Obama is not responsible for "growing" the private sector as that task will forever be part of a market economy. The "private sector" will grow on its own accord regardless of the size and scope of Obama. You give him far too much credit (you sound like Hanity). Government spending does in fact boost (upward shift) aggregate demand. Now we sit back and wait for it to take effect.

You have a reading comprehension problem, read what I posted, "implementing policy" is different that actually growing the private sector.


You have brought up Obama in every single post thus far. I got it (you hate him) last month. Nothing you have stated however has been substantial.

Right, unemployment, discouraged workers, labor force, deficit, debt are all non substantial especially when they are negative. :rofl



Agreed. I was expecting (even with the puny stimulus) unemployment in the tune of 12%-13% and therefore this so called stimulus package has clearly beaten my expectations.

Again, your posts are laughable, unemployment is closer to 17% so he has exceeded your expectations to the negative.



And that is just it. Hell bent on exposing the 8% given how bad everything truly was shows your detachment from reality. The fact that U6 unemployment is 17% now and not 33% is going to be viewed as a positive in my book. Optimal? Nope! But given the lack of size (it should have been in the upwards of $1.5 trillion with 90% towards various infrastructure) i am content with the results.

Were you around during the late 70's, old enough to be working and paying taxes? This is nothing compared to then. You must be in school thus content with the results. Eventually that lightbulb in your head is going to go off, hopefully not too late.



The relative size of discouraged workers is not a vital issue during this stage in the game. If unemployment were @ 13.5%, such an issue would become vital as it accounts for a greater aspect of both the labor force and non-institutionalized population
.

Unemployment rate is closer to 17%, not even 13.5% you mention. There is no incentive for the private sector to grow. The private sector costs are going up thanks to Obama but that doesn't matter to people who don't understand the private sector, incentive, and a pro growth economic policy.

Great analysis:roll: Anyways what wagers do you agree to and what are the terms? For unemployment (over under 9%) shall it be a Reagan/Obama avatar to the loser. Not that i love the current president, but seeing you sport it would be great for a month.

If unemployment goes below 9% by July I will drop my Bush Avatar and will admit that I was wrong.

Inflation......:shock: Dare anyone speak that dreaded word! The austrians were clamoring for hyperinflation due to the bursting of the housing bubble and now you are betting for inflation? Why not keep your mouth closed and max out your investment fund with a TIPS etf, or short treasuries, buy gold, etc...? I'll go an entire year with the avatar of your choice for this wager. I would only require you 1 month if for some reason there is not double digit inflation (ill even give you a 2 point handicap). By the end of this year. Deal?

I spent 35 years in the business world, benefited during every President but did my best during Reagan. I am fine, living fine, doing well. I know what it takes to drive the economy and nothing Obama is doing supports what I know grows the economy.
 
You have a reading comprehension problem, read what I posted, "implementing policy" is different that actually growing the private sector.

There is very little if nothing a president, or congress for that matter, can do to have a substantial effect on growing the private sector given the state of the economy. "Red = short run" Cutting taxes during a period of extremely low monetary velocity is going to create deficits and shift supply (which can have a negative effect on prices i.e. deflation). Cutting spending is only going to decrease (downward shift) aggregate demand. Increased spending while holding taxes near a constant will boost aggregate demand. The private sector will act accordingly as consumer spending begins to increase. If you cannot understand how an the economy actually works, then please refrain from providing us with your insight. You are adding nothing important.

Right, unemployment, discouraged workers, labor force, deficit, debt are all non substantial especially when they are negative. :rofl

When you highlight them in the manner in which you find informative... partisanship bleeds through.

Again, your posts are laughable, unemployment is closer to 17% so he has exceeded your expectations to the negative.

The only thing laughable is endless replies of drivel. U-6 unemployment is closer to 17% and U-3 (the measure i was describing) is @ 9.7%. Now you have resorted to grasping at straws. Bravo!

Were you around during the late 70's, old enough to be working and paying taxes? This is nothing compared to then.

Agreed. There was no risk of a complete collapse of the global financial system. However, exogenous supply shocks shook the foundation of the Phillips curve and forever changed the way economists think. The Fed still follows a model in which replicates the Phillips curve, although they have built in measures in which to correctly weight aspects of aggregate supply (such as energy).


You must be in school thus content with the results. Eventually that lightbulb in your head is going to go off, hopefully not too late.

I have taken at least 6 credit hours every year since i left high school. Not sure what you are getting at though. Always the need to get personal when arguing from a position of weakness....

Unemployment rate is closer to 17%, not even 13.5% you mention.

See from above. In the future, it would be helpful for you to distinguish between the benchmark (U-6) and other measures.

There is no incentive for the private sector to grow.

Again.... This is why you are not taken seriously. There is always incentive for the private sector to grow. The integral aspect of the US market economy is the ease of firm creation. Even during cyclical recessions, there still is a fair amount of firm creation, just not as much during an up turn. Obama nor any other government official will ever possess the power or ability to disrupt this.

The private sector costs are going up thanks to Obama but that doesn't matter to people who don't understand the private sector, incentive, and a pro growth economic policy.

Inflation? Core, producer, wholesale???? Care to provide these extra costs and how they transcribe to increased prices.

If unemployment goes below 9% by July I will drop my Bush Avatar and will admit that I was wrong.

Deal. And i will admit i was wrong if it is still 9% or higher. (you should add the avatar of my choice though and i will do the same if you are correct).



I spent 35 years in the business world, benefited during every President but did my best during Reagan.

Are you aware that during the ages of 45-60, the average American has their highest income/consumption period in their entire lives? Something to consider.

I am fine, living fine, doing well. I know what it takes to drive the economy and nothing Obama is doing supports what I know grows the economy.

And their is your flaw. Obama (the guy you are obsessed with) cannot drive the economy. Innovation is what drives an economy BTW....
 
Goldenboy219;1058606439]There is very little if nothing a president, or congress for that matter, can do to have a substantial effect on growing the private sector given the state of the economy. "Red = short run" Cutting taxes during a period of extremely low monetary velocity is going to create deficits and shift supply (which can have a negative effect on prices i.e. deflation). Cutting spending is only going to decrease (downward shift) aggregate demand. Increased spending while holding taxes near a constant will boost aggregate demand. The private sector will act accordingly as consumer spending begins to increase. If you cannot understand how an the economy actually works, then please refrain from providing us with your insight. You are adding nothing important.

Pretty simple question, if you have more money in your pocket, i.e. tax cuts, what do you do with it? What affect does that have on the economy?

Learn the 4 components of GDP and how they affect the economy. Get back to me with the results.


When you highlight them in the manner in which you find informative... partisanship bleeds through.

Facts aren't partisan, they are indeed facts. Refute them instead of calling facts partisan.



The only thing laughable is endless replies of drivel. U-6 unemployment is closer to 17% and U-3 (the measure i was describing) is @ 9.7%. Now you have resorted to grasping at straws. Bravo!

It is obvious to me that your textbooks haven't taught you anything. Try using some logic and common sense and apply those to the facts given you.

Agreed. There was no risk of a complete collapse of the global financial system. However, exogenous supply shocks shook the foundation of the Phillips curve and forever changed the way economists think. The Fed still follows a model in which replicates the Phillips curve, although they have built in measures in which to correctly weight aspects of aggregate supply (such as energy).

Like most "intellectuals" you make it too complicated. Supply and demand still drives the U.S. economy and people with more personal income are the engine that does that. It is a fact there are fewer taxpayers today and thus govt. revenue is dropping leading to the deficit which requires more borrowing to service. Until Obama realizes it is the private sector that really creates the jobs, the deficits will continue to grow and we are going to remain buried in debt. Obama spending on govt. programs and hiring govt. workers is short term and cannot drive the U.S. economy. Any job creation is minimal.




I have taken at least 6 credit hours every year since i left high school. Not sure what you are getting at though. Always the need to get personal when arguing from a position of weakness....

Try taking that book smarts and appling some street smarts to it. Figure out what affect people keeping more of their money has on the economy.


See from above. In the future, it would be helpful for you to distinguish between the benchmark (U-6) and other measures.

Try understanding that there weren't "only" 36,000 jobs lost in February



Again.... This is why you are not taken seriously. There is always incentive for the private sector to grow. The integral aspect of the US market economy is the ease of firm creation. Even during cyclical recessions, there still is a fair amount of firm creation, just not as much during an up turn. Obama nor any other government official will ever possess the power or ability to disrupt this.

Normally someone who refutes the liberal spin is never taken seriously but ignoring the facts makes you look foolish.

Obama hasn't a clue as to what he is doing and has employed a lot of book smart street stupid individuals who believe the way to grow ourselves out of a recession is through massive growth in the size of the govt. The results are obvious even to the blind Obama supporters.


Inflation? Core, producer, wholesale???? Care to provide these extra costs and how they transcribe to increased prices.

Massive borrowing, increased debt service, and the large growth in the size of govt. is going to drive the value of the dollar down and make what you purchase more expensive. Basic supply and demand.


Are you aware that during the ages of 45-60, the average American has their highest income/consumption period in their entire lives? Something to consider.

The more you earn the higher your taxes. Cut taxes and you have more spendable income. What do you do with that money? Under Reagan I got a 25% tax cut and used it wisely


And their is your flaw. Obama (the guy you are obsessed with) cannot drive the economy. Innovation is what drives an economy BTW....

Wrong, the Obama economic policy is what drives the economy, just like the economic policies of any President.
 
The recession eliminated about 8.4 million jobs. The slow-motion recovery means hiring is expected to remain feeble for the rest of the year — at most a net gain averaging about 100,000 a month.

To put that in perspective, about 125,000 new jobs are needed each month just to keep up with population growth and prevent the unemployment rate from rising.

To reduce the jobless rate significantly, employers would need to create 200,000 to 300,000 jobs a month. But most of them are waiting to see stronger sales, more spending by consumers and businesses, and a more vigorous global rebound to stimulate demand for U.S. goods and services.

Employment data lift hopes but where are the jobs? - Yahoo! News
 
so much pessimism---cnbc, ap, abc, wsj

News Headlines

Congressional estimates show grim deficit picture - Yahoo! News

Economists Warn Another Financial on Way to U.S. Economy - ABC News

National Debt, Budget Deficit Scary Forecast for Taxpayers: Obama to Sign Fiscal Reform, Economists Predict Cutbacks, Tax Increases - ABC News

At Davos, Experts See Dip Ahead - WSJ.com

i can't find the times but i remember her tone and general point of view were pretty much identical

the almost consensual pessimism derives from all the uncertainty

the prez is clueless, all can see

americans are losing hope

hope is in the heart not the head

try to understand your neighbors, where they're coming from, don't be so selfish
 
What purpose is there to provide facts that some here will just ignore?

50 people will read this thread

48 will see the truth in the numbers

half of them will tell their friends (and foes)

you're awesome, friend

keep up the outstanding work, i learn from you

cliff
 
50 people will read this thread

48 will see the truth in the numbers

half of them will tell their friends (and foes)

you're awesome, friend

keep up the outstanding work, i learn from you

cliff

Thanks, Cliff, but all I am doing is providing verifiable facts. Problem is too many don't want the facts or cannot handle them when they are presented. Not sure what drives people to support an agenda that doesn't allow them to do research to get the facts.

Wanting to believe what one is told often leads to massive disappointment and looking foolish.
 
The current low rates on the country’s debt were caused by temporary factors that are already beginning to fade. One factor was the economic crisis itself, which caused panicked investors around the world to plow their money into the comparative safety of Treasury bills and notes. Even though the United States was the epicenter of the global crisis, investors viewed Treasury securities as the least dangerous place to park their money.

On top of that, the Fed used almost every tool in its arsenal to push interest rates down even further. It cut the overnight federal funds rate, the rate at which banks lend reserves to one another, to almost zero. And to reduce longer-term rates, it bought more than $1.5 trillion worth of Treasury bonds and government-guaranteed securities linked to mortgages.

News Headlines
 
Pretty simple question, if you have more money in your pocket, i.e. tax cuts, what do you do with it? What affect does that have on the economy?

Depends on the Ricardian equivalence. Do you believe there will be greater taxation down the road or not.

Learn the 4 components of GDP and how they affect the economy. Get back to me with the results.

K... got'em.... How does exchange effect the income component? (refer to the quantity theory of money).

Facts aren't partisan, they are indeed facts. Refute them instead of calling facts partisan.

You are simply pointing out numbers that have no attached value to your position other than (obama is bad).

It is obvious to me that your textbooks haven't taught you anything. Try using some logic and common sense and apply those to the facts given you.

Another blanket statement without any merit.

Like most "intellectuals" you make it too complicated. Supply and demand still drives the U.S. economy and people with more personal income are the engine that does that. It is a fact there are fewer taxpayers today and thus govt. revenue is dropping leading to the deficit which requires more borrowing to service. Until Obama realizes it is the private sector that really creates the jobs, the deficits will continue to grow and we are going to remain buried in debt. Obama spending on govt. programs and hiring govt. workers is short term and cannot drive the U.S. economy. Any job creation is minimal.

There is no more to argue and constantly react to the need to use labels. We have made a wager and the rest is history.

Try taking that book smarts and appling some street smarts to it. Figure out what affect people keeping more of their money has on the economy.

More labels? Seriously though, consider the consumer psyche. They are hesitant to spend even if they did have more money which is what gives your analysis its naivety. Therefore the fed (i no longer wish to discuss the fiscal aspect as you are far too subjective) will constantly monitor employment in attempts to help facilitate economic growth.


Try understanding that there weren't "only" 36,000 jobs lost in February

In order for a job to be lost, the person has to have had it and then been fired or released. You are conflating two entirely different aspects of labor economics in an attempt to make an extremely weak point. Unless we see a sudden uptick in U-3 unemployment (or U-6 eclipse 20% on a consistent basis), bringing up discouraged workers is only used as smear against your political opposition.

Normally someone who refutes the liberal spin is never taken seriously but ignoring the facts makes you look foolish.

Not ignoring anything. Do you find there is significance in reporting underemployment numbers? How about pointing out that they are up or increasing? It is like claiming it is cold in Chicago during January.

Obama hasn't a clue as to what he is doing and has employed a lot of book smart street stupid individuals who believe the way to grow ourselves out of a recession is through massive growth in the size of the govt. The results are obvious even to the blind Obama supporters.

Not an Obama supporter nor care about your view of him. I do find it telling to point out your hate and argue against emotion and ideology. The economy will begin to recover during 2010 and see quite a bit of growth during 2011. Nothing you have presented points to the contrary.

Massive borrowing, increased debt service, and the large growth in the size of govt. is going to drive the value of the dollar down and make what you purchase more expensive. Basic supply and demand.

Well that all depends on the level of recovery... does it not? Why is long term credit far cheaper than it was during previous expansionary years? In accordance, what does the cost of credit do in regards to business investment? Forget arguing about fiscal policy. There are other aspects of stimulus not being considered in your analysis.

The more you earn the higher your taxes. Cut taxes and you have more spendable income.

When will they spend? Down the road or right now??? Simply believing increased disposable income is a 1:1 function in regards to consumption is absolutely hilarious! I'd bet anything you do not even recognize your error. Either way, :rofl.

What do you do with that money? Under Reagan I got a 25% tax cut and used it wisely

You mean the equivalence of: You were being taxed $25,000 one year and then $18,750 the next??? That's nice! Was there an incredible national debt exceeding 80% of GDP? Was there high inflation? You take everything to act on the most simplistic basis possible without considering quite a few important aspects.

What was the multiplier effect of tax cuts then? What was the multiplier effect of the Bush tax cuts?

Wrong, the Obama economic policy is what drives the economy, just like the economic policies of any President.

Nope. Otherwise we have a non market economy that is driven by the public sector. Instead, we have a primarily market orientated economy that reacts to various endogenous and exogenous stimulus. Thankfully monetary policy was quick to react during such a period.
 
Goldenboy219;1058606633]Depends on the Ricardian equivalence. Do you believe there will be greater taxation down the road or not.

No, it isn't that complicated. Simple answer that you want to make complex

K... got'em.... How does exchange effect the income component? (refer to the quantity theory of money).

Foreign rates only affect import/exports which is a very small part of the GDP



You are simply pointing out numbers that have no attached value to your position other than (obama is bad).

Pointing out the numbers refute the Obama claim that things are getting better. It doesn't take a very smart person to look at the numbers and see what is happening.


Another blanket statement without any merit.

Apparently nothing posted is with merit in the world if an apparent intellectual elite.



More labels? Seriously though, consider the consumer psyche. They are hesitant to spend even if they did have more money which is what gives your analysis its naivety. Therefore the fed (i no longer wish to discuss the fiscal aspect as you are far too subjective) will constantly monitor employment in attempts to help facilitate economic growth.

The Psyche does play a role in this and that is what really helped the Reagan economy. Reagan understood that his economic policy of cutting taxes along with a positive message helped create the greatest economic boom in history. Reagan implemented the economic policy and then got out of the way. Obama wants to micromanage everything.



In order for a job to be lost, the person has to have had it and then been fired or released. You are conflating two entirely different aspects of labor economics in an attempt to make an extremely weak point. Unless we see a sudden uptick in U-3 unemployment (or U-6 eclipse 20% on a consistent basis), bringing up discouraged workers is only used as smear against your political opposition.

Sorry but discouraged workers exist and are being ignored to promote a more positive spin on the current economic disaster. The fact remains, Obama has done nothing that has had a positive affect on the economy and if you are truly a libertarian you would see that.


Not ignoring anything. Do you find there is significance in reporting underemployment numbers? How about pointing out that they are up or increasing? It is like claiming it is cold in Chicago during January.

Every year there is a January. Unemployment is not down it is up. What were the discouraged workers last January? Stop buying what the media and Administration are telling you.


Not an Obama supporter nor care about your view of him. I do find it telling to point out your hate and argue against emotion and ideology. The economy will begin to recover during 2010 and see quite a bit of growth during 2011. Nothing you have presented points to the contrary.

I have no personal hatred for Obama but his policies are something that I do hate and make no sense. What economic policy has Obama proposed to help the economy recover? Who pays for Obamacare if it passes? What affect does a repeal of the tax cuts have on private business? Do you honestly believe private sector employers are going to add employees based upon increasing costs?


Well that all depends on the level of recovery... does it not? Why is long term credit far cheaper than it was during previous expansionary years? In accordance, what does the cost of credit do in regards to business investment? Forget arguing about fiscal policy. There are other aspects of stimulus not being considered in your analysis.

When the Federal Reserve increases the interest rates what does that do to the debt service? What does that increase in interest rates do to private sector borrowing? What aspects of the stimulus have had a positive influence on the private sector?


When will they spend? Down the road or right now??? Simply believing increased disposable income is a 1:1 function in regards to consumption is absolutely hilarious! I'd bet anything you do not even recognize your error. Either way, :rofl.

LOL, again no answer, what do you do when you get to keep more of your own money? let me help you, you spend it, save it, invest it, or pay down debt. All helps the economy. Like a typical liberal you believe purely in mathematics. If you cut taxes and keep the same number of taxpayers tax revenue drops. That never happens however for when you cut taxes you create MORE taxpayers thus grow govt. revenue


You mean the equivalence of: You were being taxed $25,000 one year and then $18,750 the next??? That's nice! Was there an incredible national debt exceeding 80% of GDP? Was there high inflation? You take everything to act on the most simplistic basis possible without considering quite a few important aspects.

The Obama debt is projected to be 20 trillion dollars at the end of his term. What percentage is that of GDP? It really isn't that complex but liberals want to make the simple complex thus their very existence. Think instead of feeling.

What do you think I did with that addition $6200? Again you don't truly understand GDP so get the facts before making a further fool of yourself.


What was the multiplier effect of tax cuts then? What was the multiplier effect of the Bush tax cuts?

Reagan cut taxes 25% and doubled GDP and Govt. revenue. Bush cut taxes but had 9/11, fought two wars to keep us safe, and had three major hurricanes, one being the worst in U.S. Modern history yet still grew govt. revenue. Bush tax rate cuts went into effect in July 2003

From the U.S. Treasury site

Total Income tax revenue

2008 2,417.3
2007 2,309.5
2006 2148.2
2004 1801.6
2003 1705.9




Nope. Otherwise we have a non market economy that is driven by the public sector. Instead, we have a primarily market orientated economy that reacts to various endogenous and exogenous stimulus. Thankfully monetary policy was quick to react during such a period.

You really need to get out in the world, away from the textbooks, and experience real world economics and learn how our economy works.
 
so much bull hidden from speakers of english in polysyllabic hrmph's

such as:

something is better than nothing

during periods of very low monetary velocity cutting taxes will be less than desirable, i can agree on cutting taxes on middle to lower income

realizing [free trade agreements] might be a tad bit tricky tho possible, we have to consider the net effects on international trade before we can assume positive externalities of free trade

govt has the means necessary to smooth out the effects of [plummeting demand]

why do investors invest in public securities paying nothing instead of putting their money in private enterprises that pay far greater returns?

what will suddenly drop the uncertainty plaguing the economy?

the cost of health care reform is quite ambiguous

not all industries face decreased marginal profitability due to cap and trade

talk of fiscal responsibility taken seriously

health care reform not sponsored by talk radio

tax cuts cannot be internalized by taxpayers as permanent

in the absence of US reg, would firms reg themselves?

the only one here talking about obama is you

discouraged workers could be fixing their houses

the only reason you bring up [discouraged workers] is you are looking for any reason to slam this admin for the state of the economy

my political leaning has nothing to do with this discussion and only serves as a means to shift the discussion

this is a pro business economy

lumping [a million discouraged workers] into the unemployed category speaks volumes [about your motives]

wanna bet?

obama is not responsible for growing the private sector

"I" was expecting 13% so we're ahead of expectations

the relative size of discouraged workers is not a vital issue during this stage of the game

i no longer wish to discuss fiscal aspects as you are too subjective

unless we see underemploment at 20% on a consistent basis bringing up discouraged workers is only a smear

are underemployment numbers significant?

your hate and emotional ideology are showing, the economy will recover in 2010 and grow quite a bit in '11, your views to the contrary

why is long term credit far cheaper today?

otherwise we have a non market economy driven by the public sector
 
Last edited:
the truth is so simple

obama promised 8% tops

he was wrong, way wrong
 
no one except you (and my mom) really cares what i want

on behalf of the american people---fix this economy, mr president

NOW!

or depart permanently the premises
i doubt your mom cares either.
 
apparently, you care

about ME

LOL!
 
Back
Top Bottom