Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Taxing businesses and the rich is just a way to finance infrastructure and labor maintenance & reproduction. Econ 101 allows owning class to treat workers as disposables that just appear out of nowhere eager, trained, ready to serve and to be discarded as needed. Wages paid do not cover the costs of labor. If government does not tax the rich/businesses to correct for their power to treat people and the world as ready to serve disposables Econ 101 self-destructs or it transitions to something ultra dystopian.
I am a lifelong Democrat but the reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than many imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.
Don't get me wrong...I think supply side economics is bad policy. But outlandish claims or assertions should die on the vine, especially in the age of Trump.
You are right. When I see Trump supporters cheering about how great their boy is making the economy, I have to ask "What has he done ?" Tweeting doesn't get things moving. There are bigger factors than who is sitting in the Oval Office that move our economy around, and it shows how little they understand that to make such statements.
Taxing businesses and the rich is just a way to finance infrastructure and labor maintenance & reproduction. Econ 101 allows owning class to treat workers as disposables that just appear out of nowhere eager, trained, ready to serve and to be discarded as needed. Wages paid do not cover the costs of labor. If government does not tax the rich/businesses to correct for their power to treat people and the world as ready to serve disposables Econ 101 self-destructs or it transitions to something ultra dystopian.
I never learned that in Econ 101. It was 30 years ago though.
As one of my Econ professors used to say "one month does not make a trend" in most economic data series. You need to look at quarterly data at a minimum.
Cleary this was a bad month but the reviews I read pointed to the govt shut down and bad weather as contributing to the poor monthly performance. Wage growth was a positive in this report. So take it with a grain of salt for now....
Agreed. One month is too short to be considered a future indicator. If the next job report is similar then there would be ground to worry about a slowdown.
I never learned that in Econ 101. It was 30 years ago though.
Half of the states in the country reported that 50 percent or more of births were financed by Medicaid, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report that requested the figures in 2016.
New Mexico reported the highest number of births financed by Medicaid, at 72 percent in 2015.
New Hampshire was the lowest at 27 percent, in numbers reported in 2015.
Capital i.e. the rich do not pay for reproduction of its two legged mules, they do not cover training of the mules not speaking of disposal costs either. State runs breeding & training enterprises on behalf of the rich, it also imports pre - trained workers somebody else paid for to raise. If the rich own this country and taxing the rich is anathema in this country who will pay for reproduction and training of the mules the rich work at wages that do not cover reproduction costs? So far power of the dollar allows US to fleece the rest of the world and finance medicaid etc. without overburdening the rich. Once that power will diminish just watch out.
If I'm recalling correctly, we all pay Medicare taxes from our paychecks. I think Medicaid is part of the Federal budget. Please correct me if I'm wrong, thanks.
So, if the rich pay the vast majority of personal tax burden, wouldn't that mean they do indeed pay for the Medicaid births, indeed the vast majority of the Medicaid system?
I don't know where you get these ideas, but it's certainly interesting that your mind thinks that way.
The actual number of jobs was 101,203 but the anal retentive like pretty graphs, so the real number of jobs was "seasonally adjusted" downward.
Sometimes, BLS "seasonally adjusts" jobs upwards, so when there 230,000 real true jobs, BLS reports 325,000 "seasonally adjusted" jobs.
In that case, you have 230,000 living breathing workers and 95,000 non-existent workers who don't pay taxes, because they don't really exist.
In any event, jobs are not an indicator of anything.
Case in point, during the 1952-53 Recession, you had job gains 23 out of 24 months.
Again, in the 1960-61 Recession, you never lost a single job.
You did finally lose jobs November 1961, but that was 9 months after the recession ended.
It's no different than the stock market. Sometimes during a recession stocks hit records highs, sometimes they do nothing, and sometimes they slump badly.
If I'm recalling correctly, we all pay Medicare taxes from our paychecks. I think Medicaid is part of the Federal budget. Please correct me if I'm wrong, thanks.
So, if the rich pay the vast majority of personal tax burden, wouldn't that mean they do indeed pay for the Medicaid births, indeed the vast majority of the Medicaid system?
I don't know where you get these ideas, but it's certainly interesting that your mind thinks that way.
Medicaid is state run, it gets matching federal subsidies. States tax anything to fill up their general funds. A poorer person cannot avoid paying state and local taxes. The rich most definitely do not pay full sticker price for this magnificent federal government serving them so well. It runs astronomical deficits only USA can run and nobody else. Take those deficit powered subsidies from the states and the system falls apart or rather de-evolves to something more African in appearance. The rich appropriate so much of output the system cannot regenerate itself without parasitizing on the rest of the world.
The actual number of jobs was 101,203 but the anal retentive like pretty graphs, so the real number of jobs was "seasonally adjusted" downward.
Sometimes, BLS "seasonally adjusts" jobs upwards, so when there 230,000 real true jobs, BLS reports 325,000 "seasonally adjusted" jobs.
In that case, you have 230,000 living breathing workers and 95,000 non-existent workers who don't pay taxes, because they don't really exist.
In any event, jobs are not an indicator of anything.
Case in point, during the 1952-53 Recession, you had job gains 23 out of 24 months.
Again, in the 1960-61 Recession, you never lost a single job.
You did finally lose jobs November 1961, but that was 9 months after the recession ended.
It's no different than the stock market. Sometimes during a recession stocks hit records highs, sometimes they do nothing, and sometimes they slump badly.
Can you provide link to where the actual number of jobs is sreported as 101,203.
Usually, there are seasonal layoffs in December and January. They use the seasonal factors to take that into account as well as the numbers returning to work shortly after.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tweeting doesn't get things moving. There are bigger factors than who is sitting in the Oval Office that move our economy around, and it shows how little they understand that to make such statements.