goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: "storm"nut on October 05, 2012, 08:18:24 AM
-
:lol:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html)
Really wish the unemployment rate did drop that far, really do but the numbers just don't add up. Would like to so the math behind this. Even thought the unemployment number is fuzzy math to begin with I would love for the DOL to have to show there work behind this number.
Like a Math teach in High school, I don't care about the correct answer, just show me the work you did to get to that number!
Yes, I am a bitter republican that is skeptical of any positive news that helps Obama.
-
My brother got a job in August, so I'm fairly certain it is accurate.
-
My brother got a job in August, so I'm fairly certain it is accurate.
Great post! /thread
-
Great work by the president here. Economy is looking pretty good as of late.
-
October surprise!
-
Great work by the president here. Economy is looking pretty good as of late.
It would be great news indeed and I would vote for O because of it, too bad the number is a myth and will be "revised" after the election.
-
Great work by the president here. Economy is looking pretty good as of late.
It would be great news indeed and I would vote for O because of it, too bad the number is a myth and will be "revised" after the election.
You would change your vote based on the jobless rate changing by .3%? :dubious:
-
Great work by the president here. Economy is looking pretty good as of late.
It would be great news indeed and I would vote for O because of it, too bad the number is a myth and will be "revised" after the election.
take it to the conspiracy thread to be debunked heinzballs
-
Great work by the president here. Economy is looking pretty good as of late.
It would be great news indeed and I would vote for O because of it, too bad the number is a myth and will be "revised" after the election.
You would change your vote based on the jobless rate changing by .3%? :dubious:
And that is how stupid the talking media heads will sound today. It should be noted that this is close to the mythical Unemployment number that good old W left O with when he started up. Good Job president, for bringing us back to 0.
-
Totally manipulated by Obama.
The number of employed Americans comes from a government survey of 60,000 households that determines the unemployment rate. The government asks a series of questions, by phone or in person. For example:
Do you own a business? Did you work for pay? If not, did you provide unpaid work for a family business or farm? (Those who did are considered employed.)
Afterward, the survey participants are asked whether they had a job and, if so, whether it was full or part time.
The government's definition of unemployed is someone who's out of work and has actively looked for a job in the past four weeks.
The revisions also showed that federal, state and local governments added 63,000 jobs in July and August, compared with earlier estimates that showed losses.
Still, many of the jobs the economy added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million.
-
Great work by the president here. Economy is looking pretty good as of late.
It would be great news indeed and I would vote for O because of it, too bad the number is a myth and will be "revised" after the election.
take it to the conspiracy thread to be debunked heinzballs
it's no conspiracy that the unemployment numbers used by presidents since the 1990 is stupid and slanted to make the person in office look good. The real unemployment number is closer to 14% and that number did not change with today's report. Interesting.
-
I just think it's funny that the republicans seem to think it's the government's role to create jobs.
-
I just think it's funny that the republicans seem to think it's the government's role to create jobs.
:bait:
-
I just think it's funny that the republicans seem to think it's the government's role to create jobs.
The government provides the environment for either job growth or loss with taxes or regulations.
-
:lol:
-
just show me the work you did to get to that number!
all of the data are publicly available. get to mathing, you lazy eff.
-
President Obama and his allies are celebrating finally getting the unemployment rate down below the 8-percent level that, 44 months ago, they said it would never exceed if Obama’s $831,000,000,000 “stimulus” were to be passed (see Figure 1). But the celebration is rather premature — for the latest figures from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that a lower percentage of Americans are employed now than at any point during the recession.
The latest BLS figures show that only 58.7 percent of Americans over the age of 16 are employed. This marks the 37th straight month under Obama that fewer than 59.0 percent of Americans have been employed. To put that into perspective, the lowest percentage of Americans who were employed during the Bush-Obama recession was 59.4 percent. The lowest percentage of Americans who were employment during the 20 years before Obama took office was 61.0 percent. In other words, the worst month in the two decades before Obama was 2.3 points better than where we’re at now.
Percentage of Americans in the workforce:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS12300000_2002_2012_all_period_M09_data.gif&hash=3652cc6de07d2e4135b41cb87cfb25645ba81406)
link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/employment-remains-worse-during-recession_653770.html)
-
im guessing that if Obama hadn't been altering the math on this, he would have had more time to prepare for the debate. Can't win em all is what I'm getting at.
fwiw, my company is hiring like crazy this quarter and last.
-
the proof is in the pudding, guys. Obama is a fantastic president. Eat it, haters.
-
Great work by the president here. Economy is looking pretty good as of late.
It would be great news indeed and I would vote for O because of it, too bad the number is a myth and will be "revised" after the election.
Let me get this straight, you think Wall Street is duped as well?
-
I mean, the rough ridin' Dow was at it's highest point today since December 2007. You think those mother fuckers think the fix is in? Get the eff out of here with at that stupid crap.
-
I mean, the rough ridin' Dow was at it's highest point today since December 2007. You think those mother fuckers think the fix is in? Get the eff out of here with at that stupid crap.
Wall street (aka Barack street) is clearly in on the fix, too.
-
I mean, the rough ridin' Dow was at it's highest point today since December 2007. You think those mother fuckers think the fix is in? Get the eff out of here with at that stupid crap.
Wall street (aka Barack street) is clearly in on the fix, too.
The rough ridin' audacity, it's mind boggling. The largest institutional investors in the WORLD don't seem to find any issue with the numbers. Yet, Jack Welch is spouting off.
Let's examine why someone like Jack Welch would say something so obviously full of rough ridin' crap:
1. Capital Gains taxes
2. Estate taxes
Those are the ONLY meaningful things in the short time that remains in Jack Welch's life. His personal life has been a train wreck, and he no longer has the pleasure of leading a kingdom at GE. He's a man at the end of his days, grasping to hang onto the only things he has left.
-
im guessing that if Obama hadn't been altering the math on this, he would have had more time to prepare for the debate. Can't win em all is what I'm getting at.
fwiw, my company is hiring like crazy this quarter and last.
Mine had our best year in our 10+ year history last year, and we are going to beat that number this year. Our customers are the largest companies in America.
-
It's a pretty good time to have a college education. For everyone else, not so much. Thanks Barry.
-
So, last year (2011) the average number of jobs added per month was 153,000. the unemployment rate stayed pretty much steady, dropped about 0.5 percent for the year.
This year so far, the average number of jobs added per month is 146,000, and the unemployment rate stayed pretty much steady, dropped about 0.2 % for the year.
For September they added 114,000, and the unemployment rate dropped 0.3 % in one month. :dubious:
Wall Street couldn't care less about jobs. Companies are making more money with fewer employees.
-
It's a pretty good time to have a college education. For everyone else, not so much. Thanks Barry.
50% of last years college graduates are unemployed.
-
Wall Street couldn't care less about jobs. Companies are making more money with fewer employees.
Which is exactly what Republicans want. You are all over the rough ridin' place.
-
Wall Street couldn't care less about jobs. Companies are making more money with fewer employees.
Which is exactly what Republicans want. You are all over the rough ridin' place.
They'll hire when revenues increase. Not happening on a large scale right now.
-
It's a pretty good time to have a college education. For everyone else, not so much. Thanks Barry.
please direct "everyone else" to DM me for application instructions. yw.
-
Why does everyone think that they president has something to do with the success or failure of the economy? :dunno:
-
Why does everyone think that they president has something to do with the success or failure of the economy? :dunno:
Because he has spent a couple of trillion dollars to try and prop it up? :dunno: Maybe it was a waste of money.
-
For September they added 114,000, and the unemployment rate dropped 0.3 % in one month. :dubious:
they revised the numbers from previous months up. have you never looked at a jobs report before? or any econ stats? they revise everything for like 2 years following the first publication.
-
Also, the 114K is new jobs ... i.e. jobs created in September. Unemployment actually went down because something like 875k people found work. Combination of new jobs and previous jobs etc. This was actually a stellar jobs report because the labor participation rate went up as well.
Also it appears that some seasonal assumptions are changing. The 20-24 year employment from Aug to Sept is functionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) right now with a big drop in Aug and a huge gain in Sept.
But Sys is absolutely right...that 875k number is really, really noisy to the tune of being adjusted +/- around 400k by the time the full information is available. New jobs number is similar in that it's about +/- 40k.
-
We're back baby!
-
Also, the 114K is new jobs ... i.e. jobs created in September. Unemployment actually went down because something like 875k people found work. Combination of new jobs and previous jobs etc. This was actually a stellar jobs report because the labor participation rate went up as well.
Also it appears that some seasonal assumptions are changing. The 20-24 year employment from Aug to Sept is functionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) right now with a big drop in Aug and a huge gain in Sept.
But Sys is absolutely right...that 875k number is really, really noisy to the tune of being adjusted +/- around 400k by the time the full information is available. New jobs number is similar in that it's about +/- 40k.
The 114,000 are real jobs for real money. I would love to see the true results of the household polling and more of the questions they were asking in order to find 750,000 jobs not reported by businesses. I'm guessing most of those are unpaid campaign canvassers for the Obama campaign (acorn and such). It's all very convenient. :jeffy:
-
Also, the 114K is new jobs ... i.e. jobs created in September. Unemployment actually went down because something like 875k people found work. Combination of new jobs and previous jobs etc. This was actually a stellar jobs report because the labor participation rate went up as well.
Also it appears that some seasonal assumptions are changing. The 20-24 year employment from Aug to Sept is functionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) right now with a big drop in Aug and a huge gain in Sept.
But Sys is absolutely right...that 875k number is really, really noisy to the tune of being adjusted +/- around 400k by the time the full information is available. New jobs number is similar in that it's about +/- 40k.
The 114,000 are real jobs for real money. I would love to see the true results of the household polling and more of the questions they were asking in order to find 750,000 jobs not reported by businesses. I'm guessing most of those are unpaid campaign canvassers for the Obama campaign (acorn and such). It's all very convenient. :jeffy:
How do you not understand the difference between a new job and existing job? There were 114k NEW jobs last month. There's millions of existing jobs that are unfilled. The report says that 875k people found work through a combination of new jobs and existing jobs.
It's also possible only 74k new jobs were created and only 475k people found work. Of course the new jobs could also be revised to 154k and people finding work could be 1,275k. It's a best guess with incomplete information. It can often be incredibly noisy when season factors are wrong (20-24 demo noted earlier) or there's a swing from one direction to another. Employment has always been a lagging indicator and we won't know the true September employment number for several more months.
-
It's a pretty good time to have a college education. For everyone else, not so much. Thanks Barry.
50% of last years college graduates are unemployed.
Must be a :kstategrad: thing, but literally no one I know that graduated in either May or December are unemployed. Including a couple communications majors and a photo major
-
Also, the 114K is new jobs ... i.e. jobs created in September. Unemployment actually went down because something like 875k people found work. Combination of new jobs and previous jobs etc. This was actually a stellar jobs report because the labor participation rate went up as well.
Also it appears that some seasonal assumptions are changing. The 20-24 year employment from Aug to Sept is functionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) right now with a big drop in Aug and a huge gain in Sept.
But Sys is absolutely right...that 875k number is really, really noisy to the tune of being adjusted +/- around 400k by the time the full information is available. New jobs number is similar in that it's about +/- 40k.
The 114,000 are real jobs for real money. I would love to see the true results of the household polling and more of the questions they were asking in order to find 750,000 jobs not reported by businesses. I'm guessing most of those are unpaid campaign canvassers for the Obama campaign (acorn and such). It's all very convenient. :jeffy:
How do you not understand the difference between a new job and existing job? There were 114k NEW jobs last month. There's millions of existing jobs that are unfilled. The report says that 875k people found work through a combination of new jobs and existing jobs.
It's also possible only 74k new jobs were created and only 475k people found work. Of course the new jobs could also be revised to 154k and people finding work could be 1,275k. It's a best guess with incomplete information. It can often be incredibly noisy when season factors are wrong (20-24 demo noted earlier) or there's a swing from one direction to another. Employment has always been a lagging indicator and we won't know the true September employment number for several more months.
Yeah, I get it. The numbers are complete bullshit designed for people that have no clue so they can run around proclaiming Obama is the new Ronald Reagan adding 875,000 new jobs!
The ADP National Employment Report
September 2012 Report
Employment in the U.S. nonfarm private business sector increased by 162,000 from August to September, on a seasonally adjusted basis. The estimated gains in previous months were revised lower: the July increase was reduced by 17,000 to an increase of 156,000, while the August increase was reduced by 12,000 to an increase of 189,000. Employment in the private, service-providing sector expanded 144,000 in September, down from 175,000 in August. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector added 18,000 jobs in September. Manufacturing employment rose 4,000, while construction employment rose 10,000, the strongest since March when mild winter weather was boosting construction activity. The financial services sector added 7,000 jobs in September, marking the fourteenth consecutive monthly gain.
-
OK, you want to continue to be a tard. I now remember why I largely quit responding to you.
-
OK, you want to continue to be a tard. I now remember why I largely quit responding to you.
Like I said, I know what the numbers represent, but I also know why they suddenly decided to release them now, to confuse the useful idiots. The household survey numbers mean almost nothing.
-
I also know why they suddenly decided to release them now.
jfc.
-
It's a pretty good time to have a college education. For everyone else, not so much. Thanks Barry.
50% of last years college graduates are unemployed.
Must be a :kstategrad: thing, but literally no one I know that graduated in either May or December are unemployed. Including a couple communications majors and a photo major
Confirmed.
-
Oh snap! The real numbers are back, including California this time.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659)
-
Dammit I thought this was an Alabama statistical matchup thread :frown:
-
Real numbers are once again being reported. Good work 51% of America.
The Department of Labor has announced that new jobless claims rose by a staggering 78,000 in the first week after the election, reaching a seasonally-adjusted total of 439,000. Over the past year, and in the weeks leading up to the election, jobless claims were said to be declining, dipping as low as 339,000, with the media proclaiming that they had reached the "lowest level in more than four years." Now, suddenly, the news seems far less rosy.
From the Department of Labor press release this morning:
In the week ending November 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 439,000, an increase of 78,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 361,000. The 4-week moving average was 383,750, an increase of 11,750 from the previous week's revised average of 372,000.
Some of the new claims, especially in New Jersey, were due to Hurricane Sandy--but these were offset by a decline in claims filed in New York. The highest numbers of new filings came from Pennsylvania and Ohio, where there were thousands of layoffs in the construction, manufacturing, and automobile industries.
Both states had been targeted by the presidential campaigns. President Obama highlighted his record of job creation in Ohio in particular, focusing on the automobile industry. The state reported 6,450 new jobless claims in the week after the election--second-highest after Pennsylvania, which recorded 7,766 new claims.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm#.UKUpU2eWHIV (http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm#.UKUpU2eWHIV)
-
. . . and more layoffs coming.
-
I love how the food stamp # was supposed to come out a day before the election. Well, it didn't
-
Biggest increases in unemployment applications . . . Ohio and Penn.
-
Maybe there are a lot of butthurt assholes just laying off everyone with an Obama bumper sticker like I keep hearing about on the radio.
-
Maybe there are a lot of butthurt assholes just laying off everyone with an Obama bumper sticker like I keep hearing about on the radio.
or we're heading into a nasty recession, and Obamacare is going to make it even worse
-
sounds like a lot of butthurt loser companies are waiting for the gubment to help them not lay off employees.
-
The herd is thinning. Nothing to see here. If your company can't handle a recession, you probably shouldn't be running a company anyway.
-
sounds like a lot of butthurt loser companies are waiting for the gubment to help them not lay off employees.
Obama has said he wants to bail out lots of companies like he did with GM and Chrysler, so it makes sense.
-
sounds like a lot of butthurt loser companies are waiting for the gubment to help them not lay off employees.
Obama has said he wants to bail out lots of companies like he did with GM and Chrysler, so it makes sense.
Obama only said that so the losers in the herd would go ahead and thin themselves out. Recessions breed opportunity. Seize yours.
-
sounds like a lot of butthurt loser companies are waiting for the gubment to help them not lay off employees.
Obama has said he wants to bail out lots of companies like he did with GM and Chrysler, so it makes sense.
Obama only said that so the losers in the herd would go ahead and thin themselves out. Recessions breed opportunity. Seize yours.
OK Nancy Pelosi. Sounds like things are looking up.
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
Yes, the government must KEEP SPENDING!!!
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
Yes, the government must KEEP SPENDING!!!
Exactly.
-
Hey Remember when the Democrats were swept in to take control of Congress in 2006.
They were gonna nip those budget deficits in the bud, they were gonna fix the economy, they were gonna slow the acceleration of the National Debt, they were gonna extract the United States from all of those wars.
Yeah . . . I remember.
-
Dax: neocon
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
49% of the country is going to blame Obama for killing even more jobs. Republicans don't want to cut revenue, they just don't want to increase taxes. They do want to increase revenue, just not the same way as Obama.
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
49% of the country is going to blame Obama for killing even more jobs. Republicans don't want to cut revenue, they just don't want to increase taxes. They do want to increase revenue, just not the same way as Obama.
They don't really want to increase revenue.
-
does anyone think we will see inflation?
-
Dax: neocon
From a neocon perspective, the current administration has carried on nicely.
-
does anyone think we will see inflation?
God I hope so
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
49% of the country is going to blame Obama for killing even more jobs. Republicans don't want to cut revenue, they just don't want to increase taxes. They do want to increase revenue, just not the same way as Obama.
They don't really want to increase revenue.
Of course they do, but through growth, not taxes. It's been done before.
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
Yes, the government must KEEP SPENDING!!!
Exactly.
oh. Well, what good will this do?
-
Republicans don't want to cut revenue, they just don't want to increase taxes. They do want to increase revenue, just not the same way as Obama.
They don't really want to increase revenue.
Of course they do, but through growth, not taxes. It's been done before.
If you're talking about Reagan and the Laffer Curve, it's debatable that cutting taxes was the cause of increased revenue at that time. (The smart President Bush called it "voo-doo economics.") In any event, Reagan was cutting from a top tax rate of 70%. Even the Laffer Curve can't support an argument that cutting tax rates further from current top rate boosts government income. No, Republicans now just want to cut taxes, NOT increase revenue.
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
Yes, the government must KEEP SPENDING!!!
Exactly.
oh. Well, what good will this do?
1) Increase societal goods such as schools, police, governmental services everyone uses (e.g., the DMV and the court system), infrastructure everyone uses (e.g., highways and bridges), and the social safety net for the elderly and less privileged.
2) Increase the money in the economy because governmental spending gets into the economy more directly (and more completely) than tax cuts for people that will only put a small percentage of any cut back into the economy. This improves the nation's economic numbers.
What bad will it do?
-
Inflation, for one.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser5%2Fimageroot%2F2012%2F09%2Fseptember-11-2012.png&hash=fe6bd7f40b302a8ac1202608cd3e9323641aa80f)
That's just over the past decade
Austerity is necessary, and the painful recession that comes with it is part of the correction. Afterwards during recovery you don't have to tax the balls off of people because the government isn't as big. Thus resources are correctly allocated, whereas now they aren't and the economy is extremely leveraged. This debt sucks money out of the economy (your savings lose value, and taxes). Continuing down this death spiral with more schools and roads simply isn't going to help. The GDP equation pretty much tells this story
GDP = C + I + G + (net exports)
Of course the government does get to lie about GDP because they can manipulate G as they want. The more G goes up, the more it sucks out of C and I. So since the gov doesn't produce anything you have to subtract out G to get the true growth rate, which the last several years has been negative.
Hopefully they can get something done. Raising taxes and cut spending will be devastating, but it maybe necessary at this point
-
Raising taxes and cut spending will be devastating, but it maybe necessary at this point
Well, I'm of the opinion that going off the "fiscal cliff" would be better for the country than any deal that could be reached in the present environment.
-
Why does everyone think that they president has something to do with the success or failure of the economy? :dunno:
Because he has spent a couple of trillion dollars to try and prop it up? :dunno: Maybe it was a waste of money.
The '09 stimulus was ~$800 billion. Not even close to $2 trillion. My guess is that you are confused by Republican mythology, and wrongly believe that Obama also signed TARP into law in October of 2008. That was actually Bush, and most of TARP has been paid back by the big banks.
-
Dax: neocon
From a neocon perspective, the current administration has carried on nicely.
Yeah, leaving Iraq and Afghanistan and staying out of military conflict with countries like Libya, Syria, Iran, etc., etc. just screams neocon. But let me guess, you're butthurt because we're actually utilizing our military technology and taking advantage of all the money we spend on things like drones.
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
49% of the country is going to blame Obama for killing even more jobs. Republicans don't want to cut revenue, they just don't want to increase taxes. They do want to increase revenue, just not the same way as Obama.
They don't really want to increase revenue.
Of course they do, but through growth, not taxes. It's been done before.
Not really. What do you think was supposed to happen after the Bush tax cuts? It was supposed to broaden the tax base, and instead the middle class has shrunk, the rich have got richer, and we have been through the worst recession since the Great Depression. The old "Reaganomics" ideas are out-dated and simply don't work for anyone outside of the top income brackets. You guys beat off to Reagan, but the truth is that Reagan tripled national spending from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion over the course of his presidency, and also raised taxes eleven times (after his initial tax cut was too big). It isn't the 1980's anymore... get some new ideas.
-
Why does everyone think that they president has something to do with the success or failure of the economy? :dunno:
Because he has spent a couple of trillion dollars to try and prop it up? :dunno: Maybe it was a waste of money.
The '09 stimulus was ~$800 billion. Not even close to $2 trillion. My guess is that you are confused by Republican mythology, and wrongly believe that Obama also signed TARP into law in October of 2008. That was actually Bush, and most of TARP has been paid back by the big banks.
If you haven't noticed, we have been spending a $trillion dollars more than we have in every "budget" the last 3 years, not to mention the auto bailout. It's actually much, much, more than $2 trillion.
-
Why does everyone think that they president has something to do with the success or failure of the economy? :dunno:
Because he has spent a couple of trillion dollars to try and prop it up? :dunno: Maybe it was a waste of money.
The '09 stimulus was ~$800 billion. Not even close to $2 trillion. My guess is that you are confused by Republican mythology, and wrongly believe that Obama also signed TARP into law in October of 2008. That was actually Bush, and most of TARP has been paid back by the big banks.
If you haven't noticed, we have been spending a $trillion dollars more than we have in every "budget" the last 3 years, not to mention the auto bailout. It's actually much, much, more than $2 trillion.
The last price tag I saw for the auto bailout was $25 billion. The truth is that federal spending has flattened under Obama.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Fezra-klein%2FStandingArt%2Fspendingobama.JPG&hash=0ebbcd07efe92b648da303eaf07dbc066fa10492)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html)
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
49% of the country is going to blame Obama for killing even more jobs. Republicans don't want to cut revenue, they just don't want to increase taxes. They do want to increase revenue, just not the same way as Obama.
They don't really want to increase revenue.
Of course they do, but through growth, not taxes. It's been done before.
Not really. What do you think was supposed to happen after the Bush tax cuts? It was supposed to broaden the tax base, and instead the middle class has shrunk, the rich have got richer, and we have been through the worst recession since the Great Depression. The old "Reaganomics" ideas are out-dated and simply don't work for anyone outside of the top income brackets. You guys beat off to Reagan, but the truth is that Reagan tripled national spending from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion over the course of his presidency, and also raised taxes eleven times (after his initial tax cut was too big). It isn't the 1980's anymore... get some new ideas.
Regan didn't start raising taxes until the country was regularly adding 300,000 plus jobs a month. Government growth and spending has also been tried and it doesn't work. I'll take Regan's plan over Greece's right now.
-
Why does everyone think that they president has something to do with the success or failure of the economy? :dunno:
Because he has spent a couple of trillion dollars to try and prop it up? :dunno: Maybe it was a waste of money.
The '09 stimulus was ~$800 billion. Not even close to $2 trillion. My guess is that you are confused by Republican mythology, and wrongly believe that Obama also signed TARP into law in October of 2008. That was actually Bush, and most of TARP has been paid back by the big banks.
If you haven't noticed, we have been spending a $trillion dollars more than we have in every "budget" the last 3 years, not to mention the auto bailout. It's actually much, much, more than $2 trillion.
The last price tag I saw for the auto bailout was $25 billion. The truth is that federal spending has flattened under Obama.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Fezra-klein%2FStandingArt%2Fspendingobama.JPG&hash=0ebbcd07efe92b648da303eaf07dbc066fa10492)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html)
This is pretty funny. You take the worst of Bush, continue it, and call it an improvement.
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
49% of the country is going to blame Obama for killing even more jobs. Republicans don't want to cut revenue, they just don't want to increase taxes. They do want to increase revenue, just not the same way as Obama.
They don't really want to increase revenue.
Of course they do, but through growth, not taxes. It's been done before.
Not really. What do you think was supposed to happen after the Bush tax cuts? It was supposed to broaden the tax base, and instead the middle class has shrunk, the rich have got richer, and we have been through the worst recession since the Great Depression. The old "Reaganomics" ideas are out-dated and simply don't work for anyone outside of the top income brackets. You guys beat off to Reagan, but the truth is that Reagan tripled national spending from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion over the course of his presidency, and also raised taxes eleven times (after his initial tax cut was too big). It isn't the 1980's anymore... get some new ideas.
Regan didn't start raising taxes until the country was regularly adding 300,000 plus jobs a month. Government growth and spending has also been tried and it doesn't work. I'll take Regan's plan over Greece's right now.
This is why we can't even have a legit political discussion. Government spending has been used for decades to stimulate the economy. It has worked time and time again. It got us out of the Great Depression. It fueled our economy during World War II. It helped get us out of the '09 recession. This premise that spending doesn't stimulate growth is completely wrong. Consumer spending is what drives the economy. Consumer demand is what creates and sustains businesses.
As for Greece, one of their biggest problems is tax evasion. They have an archaic tax system that hasn't been computerized until just recently, and they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue due to corruption and simple incompetence.
-
Why does everyone think that they president has something to do with the success or failure of the economy? :dunno:
Because he has spent a couple of trillion dollars to try and prop it up? :dunno: Maybe it was a waste of money.
The '09 stimulus was ~$800 billion. Not even close to $2 trillion. My guess is that you are confused by Republican mythology, and wrongly believe that Obama also signed TARP into law in October of 2008. That was actually Bush, and most of TARP has been paid back by the big banks.
If you haven't noticed, we have been spending a $trillion dollars more than we have in every "budget" the last 3 years, not to mention the auto bailout. It's actually much, much, more than $2 trillion.
The last price tag I saw for the auto bailout was $25 billion. The truth is that federal spending has flattened under Obama.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Fezra-klein%2FStandingArt%2Fspendingobama.JPG&hash=0ebbcd07efe92b648da303eaf07dbc066fa10492)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html)
This is pretty funny. You take the worst of Bush, continue it, and call it an improvement.
This is how it works. Budget obligations extend beyond the current year. We will be paying for the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War well beyond 2012.
-
This is why we can't even have a legit political discussion. Government spending has been used for decades to stimulate the economy. It has worked time and time again. It got us out of the Great Depression. It fueled our economy during World War II. It helped get us out of the '09 recession. This premise that spending doesn't stimulate growth is completely wrong. Consumer spending is what drives the economy. Consumer demand is what creates and sustains businesses.
As for Greece, one of their biggest problems is tax evasion. They have an archaic tax system that hasn't been computerized until just recently, and they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue due to corruption and simple incompetence.
Pro tip: We're not out of the recession. Once government spending gets 50 million people off food stamps and gets the employment rate below 15% then you may have an argument
And yeah, Greece just isn't taxing themselves enough :jerk:
-
Greece's debt to GDP is ~150%. Damn that archaic tax system! :shakesfist:
-
This is why we can't even have a legit political discussion. Government spending has been used for decades to stimulate the economy. It has worked time and time again. It got us out of the Great Depression. It fueled our economy during World War II. It helped get us out of the '09 recession. This premise that spending doesn't stimulate growth is completely wrong. Consumer spending is what drives the economy. Consumer demand is what creates and sustains businesses.
As for Greece, one of their biggest problems is tax evasion. They have an archaic tax system that hasn't been computerized until just recently, and they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue due to corruption and simple incompetence.
Pro tip: We're not out of the recession. Once government spending gets 50 million people off food stamps and gets the employment rate below 15% then you may have an argument
And yeah, Greece just isn't taxing themselves enough :jerk:
We are out of the worst of the recession. Moody's predicts that the economy will add 12 million new jobs over the next four to five years. Also, the unemployment rate is well below 15%. I believe the actual number right now is 7.9%. Republicans and others pretend like the discrepancy between the real unemployment rate and the calculated unemployment rate is some new phenomenon. The real unemployment rate is always higher than the calculated rate. When someone gets discouraged and quits looking for work, they drop out of the labor force altogether. This isn't some new concept that only applies to Obama.
As for Greece, I never once even hinted that I think tax rates are their problem. An inefficient tax system and an inability to collect their taxes has been a big problem, though. Corruption in places like Greece is even worse than it is here. This goes back to my point that we can't even have a legit discussion about these things, because we can't agree to simple facts. You basically just tried to change the entire premise of my argument in order to somehow win a message board debate.
-
Greece's debt to GDP is ~150%. Damn that archaic tax system! :shakesfist:
Japan's debt to GDP is 229.77%.
-
the pit had been surprisingly reasonable until Beams came back.
-
This is why we can't even have a legit political discussion. Government spending has been used for decades to stimulate the economy. It has worked time and time again. It got us out of the Great Depression. It fueled our economy during World War II. It helped get us out of the '09 recession. This premise that spending doesn't stimulate growth is completely wrong. Consumer spending is what drives the economy. Consumer demand is what creates and sustains businesses.
As for Greece, one of their biggest problems is tax evasion. They have an archaic tax system that hasn't been computerized until just recently, and they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue due to corruption and simple incompetence.
Pro tip: We're not out of the recession. Once government spending gets 50 million people off food stamps and gets the employment rate below 15% then you may have an argument
And yeah, Greece just isn't taxing themselves enough :jerk:
We are out of the worst of the recession. Moody's predicts that the economy will add 12 million new jobs over the next four to five years. Also, the unemployment rate is well below 15%. I believe the actual number right now is 7.9%. Republicans and others pretend like the discrepancy between the real unemployment rate and the calculated unemployment rate is some new phenomenon. The real unemployment rate is always higher than the calculated rate. When someone gets discouraged and quits looking for work, they drop out of the labor force altogether. This isn't some new concept that only applies to Obama.
As for Greece, I never once even hinted that I think tax rates are their problem. An inefficient tax system and an inability to collect their taxes has been a big problem, though. Corruption in places like Greece is even worse than it is here. This goes back to my point that we can't even have a legit discussion about these things, because we can't agree to simple facts. You basically just tried to change the entire premise of my argument in order to somehow win a message board debate.
Yeah I'm aware about the employment rate. The government reports 7.9 because they're lying. Just because people "drop out of the labor force" doesn't mean it's right or good and should go un noticed. Odd you talk about agreeing to facts when you can't even see through the BS your own government is feeding you
Back to Greece. You're arguing that government spending is key to our prosperity, yet the entire continent of Europe has been doing this and they are falling apart, with Greece being the best example. Corruption seems to be a convenient excuse instead of blaming the true underlying problem.
-
Greece's debt to GDP is ~150%. Damn that archaic tax system! :shakesfist:
Japan's debt to GDP is 229.77%.
What's your point? That's obviously unsustainable, but at least japan has bridges to no where. Not to mention the Yen is worthless. The Nikkei has lost like 80% in 20 years
-
This is why we can't even have a legit political discussion. Government spending has been used for decades to stimulate the economy. It has worked time and time again. It got us out of the Great Depression. It fueled our economy during World War II. It helped get us out of the '09 recession. This premise that spending doesn't stimulate growth is completely wrong. Consumer spending is what drives the economy. Consumer demand is what creates and sustains businesses.
As for Greece, one of their biggest problems is tax evasion. They have an archaic tax system that hasn't been computerized until just recently, and they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue due to corruption and simple incompetence.
Pro tip: We're not out of the recession. Once government spending gets 50 million people off food stamps and gets the employment rate below 15% then you may have an argument
And yeah, Greece just isn't taxing themselves enough :jerk:
We are out of the worst of the recession. Moody's predicts that the economy will add 12 million new jobs over the next four to five years. Also, the unemployment rate is well below 15%. I believe the actual number right now is 7.9%. Republicans and others pretend like the discrepancy between the real unemployment rate and the calculated unemployment rate is some new phenomenon. The real unemployment rate is always higher than the calculated rate. When someone gets discouraged and quits looking for work, they drop out of the labor force altogether. This isn't some new concept that only applies to Obama.
As for Greece, I never once even hinted that I think tax rates are their problem. An inefficient tax system and an inability to collect their taxes has been a big problem, though. Corruption in places like Greece is even worse than it is here. This goes back to my point that we can't even have a legit discussion about these things, because we can't agree to simple facts. You basically just tried to change the entire premise of my argument in order to somehow win a message board debate.
Yeah I'm aware about the employment rate. The government reports 7.9 because they're lying. Just because people "drop out of the labor force" doesn't mean it's right or good and should go un noticed. Odd you talk about agreeing to facts when you can't even see through the BS your own government is feeding you
Back to Greece. You're arguing that government spending is key to our prosperity, yet the entire continent of Europe has been doing this and they are falling apart, with Greece being the best example. Corruption seems to be a convenient excuse instead of blaming the true underlying problem.
I have always viewed the unemployment rate as a measure of just how difficult it is to find work. Under that metric, why count people who aren't looking? It's not like they are going to get a job that I apply for.
-
This is why we can't even have a legit political discussion. Government spending has been used for decades to stimulate the economy. It has worked time and time again. It got us out of the Great Depression. It fueled our economy during World War II. It helped get us out of the '09 recession. This premise that spending doesn't stimulate growth is completely wrong. Consumer spending is what drives the economy. Consumer demand is what creates and sustains businesses.
As for Greece, one of their biggest problems is tax evasion. They have an archaic tax system that hasn't been computerized until just recently, and they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue due to corruption and simple incompetence.
Pro tip: We're not out of the recession. Once government spending gets 50 million people off food stamps and gets the employment rate below 15% then you may have an argument
And yeah, Greece just isn't taxing themselves enough :jerk:
We are out of the worst of the recession. Moody's predicts that the economy will add 12 million new jobs over the next four to five years. Also, the unemployment rate is well below 15%. I believe the actual number right now is 7.9%. Republicans and others pretend like the discrepancy between the real unemployment rate and the calculated unemployment rate is some new phenomenon. The real unemployment rate is always higher than the calculated rate. When someone gets discouraged and quits looking for work, they drop out of the labor force altogether. This isn't some new concept that only applies to Obama.
As for Greece, I never once even hinted that I think tax rates are their problem. An inefficient tax system and an inability to collect their taxes has been a big problem, though. Corruption in places like Greece is even worse than it is here. This goes back to my point that we can't even have a legit discussion about these things, because we can't agree to simple facts. You basically just tried to change the entire premise of my argument in order to somehow win a message board debate.
Yeah I'm aware about the employment rate. The government reports 7.9 because they're lying. Just because people "drop out of the labor force" doesn't mean it's right or good and should go un noticed. Odd you talk about agreeing to facts when you can't even see through the BS your own government is feeding you
Back to Greece. You're arguing that government spending is key to our prosperity, yet the entire continent of Europe has been doing this and they are falling apart, with Greece being the best example. Corruption seems to be a convenient excuse instead of blaming the true underlying problem.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is not "lying." The unemployment rate is simply (unemployed/unemployed + employed) or (unemployed/labor force). People can leave the labor force for various reasons, whether it's a mom who wants to stay at home and raise her kids, or a businessman who's ready to retire at the age of 57. People also get discouraged looking for work and drop out of the labor force. There is no bias in how the number is calculated. If you can provide a legitimate argument for how the government distorts this number, I'd be willing to listen, but until then, it's just a bunch of nonsense.
And again, I have not once in this thread argued that government spending is "the key to our prosperity." I have pointed to times when government spending has helped stimulate economic growth, but that's it. Consumer spending and consumer demand are the foundation of any economy.
-
Somebody (Obama) is actually going to try to do something about the deficit and you all freak out about job numbers suddenly. You know the Republican response is to cut taxes and go deeper into debt. Also this proves that government spending is linked to economic performance. Look at Europe, where austerity has been the rule of the day and they are back in recession.
If a deal doesn't get done on taxes, the public is going to blame the Republicans for protecting rich people. The Democrats won the election and have the majority of people on their side.
49% of the country is going to blame Obama for killing even more jobs. Republicans don't want to cut revenue, they just don't want to increase taxes. They do want to increase revenue, just not the same way as Obama.
They don't really want to increase revenue.
Of course they do, but through growth, not taxes. It's been done before.
Not really. What do you think was supposed to happen after the Bush tax cuts? It was supposed to broaden the tax base, and instead the middle class has shrunk, the rich have got richer, and we have been through the worst recession since the Great Depression. The old "Reaganomics" ideas are out-dated and simply don't work for anyone outside of the top income brackets. You guys beat off to Reagan, but the truth is that Reagan tripled national spending from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion over the course of his presidency, and also raised taxes eleven times (after his initial tax cut was too big). It isn't the 1980's anymore... get some new ideas.
Regan didn't start raising taxes until the country was regularly adding 300,000 plus jobs a month. Government growth and spending has also been tried and it doesn't work. I'll take Regan's plan over Greece's right now.
This is why we can't even have a legit political discussion. Government spending has been used for decades to stimulate the economy. It has worked time and time again. It got us out of the Great Depression. It fueled our economy during World War II. It helped get us out of the '09 recession. This premise that spending doesn't stimulate growth is completely wrong. Consumer spending is what drives the economy. Consumer demand is what creates and sustains businesses.
As for Greece, one of their biggest problems is tax evasion. They have an archaic tax system that hasn't been computerized until just recently, and they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue due to corruption and simple incompetence.
You have no credibility. We are not out of the recession and the economic growth is still slowing every year.
If government spending was the key to economic success, Greece would be a powerhouse.
33% percent of Greeks were on government payrolls before the collapse. The top income tax rate has increased to 45 percent. The top corporate tax rate was 24 percent for the financial period from August 2010 to July 2011, with a lower 20 percent rate approved for the period after that. The overall tax burden amounts to about 30 percent of GDP, and government spending has reached a level exceeding 50 percent of GDP. Chronic budget deficits continue, and public debt far exceeds the size of the economy.
-
1. We are out of the worst of the recession. The housing market has stabilized, the DJIA is a full 4,000-5000 points higher than it was in '09, companies are experiencing record profits, the unemployment rate is down, and we've had 30+ straight months of real job growth.
2. The United States is not Greece, and I have never once claimed that spending is the only way to economic prosperity. Government spending can have a stimulative effect on the economy, and so can tax cuts. The problem we have right now is that ever since the Bush tax cuts and the economic recession, we've been increasing spending and losing revenue. We need to decrease spending where we can and raise revenue where we can. I'm actually pretty confident that Congress will work together and compromise on a debt deal within the coming months.
-
the pit had been surprisingly reasonable until Beams came back.
people get tired of posting to walls. beems came in hot, but he's not going to last any longer than anyone else has.
-
Unemployment down another tick this month. Super annoying that Oh-Bama is still messing with the numbers after the election. He's already starting his re-election machine up, no doubt.
:shakesfist:
-
Unemployment down another tick this month. Super annoying that Oh-Bama is still messing with the numbers after the election. He's already starting his re-election machine up, no doubt.
:shakesfist:
yeah, but what about people that left the workforce??? what are the true numbers??? :armscrossed:
-
Unemployment down another tick this month. Super annoying that Oh-Bama is still messing with the numbers after the election. He's already starting his re-election machine up, no doubt.
:shakesfist:
yeah, but what about people that left the workforce??? what are the true numbers??? :armscrossed:
Labor Force Participation Rate
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8JWf1.gif&hash=5c7a3bc06cabb1444ed6c07b77b54c347f71c90a)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9 66.0 65.8 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.5 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.1 64.1 64.1 64.0 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)
-
While looking around the Bureau of Labor statistics, I came across these interesting numbers for comparos.
Month Year labor force* employed* unemployed* unemployment rate
November 2012 155,291 143,262 12,029 7.7%
January 2009 154,236 142,187 12,049 7.8%
*in thousands
Only 20,000 fewer people unemployed than 4 years ago. The US population is growing by more than 2 million per year.
http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm (http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm)
-
While looking around the Bureau of Labor statistics, I came across these interesting numbers for comparos.
Month Year labor force* employed* unemployed* unemployment rate
November 2012 155,291 143,262 12,029 7.7%
January 2009 154,236 142,187 12,049 7.8%
*in thousands
Only 20,000 fewer people unemployed than 4 years ago. The US population is growing by more than 2 million per year.
http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm (http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm)
It is easier to find a job today than it was four years ago. That is the takeaway from this.
-
Labor participation going to to drop into the 50's?
-
Lulz at Beems clown suiting his opponents in this thread. You know when Beems makes you look like a mouth breathing Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) you should just eject. Maybe a self ban is in order to wipe the slate clean.
-
Double :lol: at those who just ignore things like the labor participation numbers.
For Obamabots that statistical category is a game changer, because it keeps their guy from looking absolutely abysmal.
-
The new strategy is to move the unemployed onto disability after 99 weeks and simply pretend they don't exist.
-
when do baby boomers start being eligible for social security?
-
when do baby boomers start being eligible for social security?
Maybe this year? :dunno:
-
when do baby boomers start being eligible for social security?
Maybe this year? :dunno:
Well using 1946 as a start date for that generation, I'd say some of them already have?
-
Double :lol: at those who just ignore things like the labor participation numbers.
For Obamabots that statistical category is a game changer, because it keeps their guy from looking absolutely abysmal.
Do you like to compare apples to apples? Or oranges? This has been part of the unemployment rate calculation for decades. If you want to change it for Obama, then change it for all the prior Presidents. Or just find something else to complain about for Obama.
BTW, "participation rates" peaked in Clinton's second term. They went down under Bush II. But nobody cared because it doesn't really matter...
-
Only a moron (by definition includes all obama supporters) could look at this and not see a problem.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS11300000_1981_2012_all_period_M11_data.gif&hash=2b0458f5046de89068a45148068de68fc8be769f)
Derrrrrr, the denominator has no effect on the product, duurrrrrrr
-
Only a moron (by definition includes all obama supporters) could look at this and not see a problem.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS11300000_1981_2012_all_period_M11_data.gif&hash=2b0458f5046de89068a45148068de68fc8be769f)
Derrrrrr, the denominator has no effect on the product, duurrrrrrr
It's hard to see a problem when the y-axis is not labeled.
-
Only a moron (by definition includes all obama supporters) could look at this and not see a problem.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS11300000_1981_2012_all_period_M11_data.gif&hash=2b0458f5046de89068a45148068de68fc8be769f)
Derrrrrr, the denominator has no effect on the product, duurrrrrrr
It's hard to see a problem when the y-axis is not labeled.
Derrrrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrr you're a rough ridin' moron NK*
per FSD. <3 you NK because I think you are an OK dude.
-
Only a moron (by definition includes all obama supporters) could look at this and not see a problem.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS11300000_1981_2012_all_period_M11_data.gif&hash=2b0458f5046de89068a45148068de68fc8be769f)
Derrrrrr, the denominator has no effect on the product, duurrrrrrr
So labor participation has dropped less than 4 percentage points as the largest demographic in the nation reached retirement age, we're in the midst of a technology revolution that has greatly increased productivity and population growth overall is slowing?
-
Only a moron (by definition includes all obama supporters) could look at this and not see a problem.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS11300000_1981_2012_all_period_M11_data.gif&hash=2b0458f5046de89068a45148068de68fc8be769f)
Derrrrrr, the denominator has no effect on the product, duurrrrrrr
So labor participation has dropped less than 4 percentage points as the largest demographic in the nation reached retirement age, we're in the midst of a technology revolution that has greatly increased productivity and population growth overall is slowing?
The baby boom demographic is overplayed. The population of the US has doubled in the last 65 years.
-
Baby Boomer demographic overplayed? :lol:
1950 population growth with 145 million people = 2,972,000
2012 population growth with 314 million people = 2,822,860
-
If baby boomers represent about 25% of the population, they have a 19 year age spread, and the average life span is about 80 years, it would seem the country has pretty much outgrown the boomers. It would be completely irrelevant if social security didn't run like a ponzi scheme and governments didn't make ridiculous assumptions pertaining to population and economic growth.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FG9rsU.jpg&hash=40fc777c8d8262e58d33f03c50e3df16dcb7ac2e)
-
If baby boomers represent about 25% of the population, they have a 19 year age spread, and the average life span is about 80 years, it would seem the country has pretty much outgrown the boomers. It would be completely irrelevant if social security didn't run like a ponzi scheme and governments didn't make ridiculous assumptions pertaining to population and economic growth.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FG9rsU.jpg&hash=40fc777c8d8262e58d33f03c50e3df16dcb7ac2e)
It is hilarious how dumb you are. Thanks for posting a graph to back up my point.
-
If baby boomers represent about 25% of the population, they have a 19 year age spread, and the average life span is about 80 years, it would seem the country has pretty much outgrown the boomers. It would be completely irrelevant if social security didn't run like a ponzi scheme and governments didn't make ridiculous assumptions pertaining to population and economic growth.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FG9rsU.jpg&hash=40fc777c8d8262e58d33f03c50e3df16dcb7ac2e)
It is hilarious how dumb you are. Thanks for posting a graph to back up my point.
I wasn't arguing your numbers, just a statement of the folly of social security and it's imminent demise. The government just isn't good at running our lives, yet more than half the population wants them more involved.
-
He isn't stupid, it just is nearly impossible to see what is happening to the U.S. demographically. Follow the fat part.
http://populationpyramid.net/United+States+of+America/2000/ (http://populationpyramid.net/United+States+of+America/2000/)
http://populationpyramid.net/United+States+of+America/2010/ (http://populationpyramid.net/United+States+of+America/2010/)
http://populationpyramid.net/United+States+of+America/2030/ (http://populationpyramid.net/United+States+of+America/2030/)
There is a big difference.
-
Only a moron (by definition includes all obama supporters) could look at this and not see a problem.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS11300000_1981_2012_all_period_M11_data.gif&hash=2b0458f5046de89068a45148068de68fc8be769f)
Derrrrrr, the denominator has no effect on the product, duurrrrrrr
So labor participation has dropped less than 4 percentage points as the largest demographic in the nation reached retirement age, we're in the midst of a technology revolution that has greatly increased productivity and population growth overall is slowing?
What a frivolous post. A failed attempt to marginalize a horrific statistic.
-
christ. i hope we experience a pestilence, or some other horrific population decimating event before we get to 400 million.
-
... if social security didn't run like a ponzi scheme and governments didn't make ridiculous assumptions pertaining to population and economic growth.
One of my biggest regrets about Bush being elected... :cry:
MR. GORE: And here's what I would do, here's my plan. I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt and the interest savings I would put right back into Social Security. That extends the life of Social Security for 55 years.
[...]
You know, Social Security is a trust fund that pays the checks this year with the money that's paid into Social Security this year. The governor wants to divert one out of every six dollars off into the stock market, which means that he would drain a trillion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund over the, in this generation, over the next 10 years, and Social Security under that approach would go bankrupt within this generation. His leading adviser on this plan actually said that would be O.K. because then the Social Security trust fund could start borrowing. It would borrow up to $3 trillion. Now, Social Security has never done that, and I don't think it should do that. I think it should stay in a lockbox, and I'll tell you this, I will veto anything that takes money out of Social Security for privatization or anything else, other than Social Security.
[...]
MR. BUSH: No. There's enough money to pay seniors today and the current affairs of Social Security. The trillion comes from the surplus. Surplus is more -- is money, more money than needed.
Then Bush did what he said he would, and gave it all away in tax cuts...
-
... if social security didn't run like a ponzi scheme and governments didn't make ridiculous assumptions pertaining to population and economic growth.
One of my biggest regrets about Bush being elected... :cry:
MR. GORE: And here's what I would do, here's my plan. I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt and the interest savings I would put right back into Social Security. That extends the life of Social Security for 55 years.
[...]
You know, Social Security is a trust fund that pays the checks this year with the money that's paid into Social Security this year. The governor wants to divert one out of every six dollars off into the stock market, which means that he would drain a trillion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund over the, in this generation, over the next 10 years, and Social Security under that approach would go bankrupt within this generation. His leading adviser on this plan actually said that would be O.K. because then the Social Security trust fund could start borrowing. It would borrow up to $3 trillion. Now, Social Security has never done that, and I don't think it should do that. I think it should stay in a lockbox, and I'll tell you this, I will veto anything that takes money out of Social Security for privatization or anything else, other than Social Security.
[...]
MR. BUSH: No. There's enough money to pay seniors today and the current affairs of Social Security. The trillion comes from the surplus. Surplus is more -- is money, more money than needed.
Then Bush did what he said he would, and gave it all away in tax cuts...
One thing about Bush is he always did what he said he would, right or wrong. The only thing I miss about GWB.