U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:00 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,638,390 times
Reputation: 9357

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
I wasn't changing the subject, you were asking how much higher could it go, so I was pointing to when it was higher.
You arent seriously trying to compare the society we have today, with all of our safety nets to the Reagan years? I remember my mom being on welfare during those years which consisted of a block of cheese, a jar of peanut butter, and a box of powdered milk. You want to compare that today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Again I'm simply stating the $$ is coming from the same place other $$$ is coming from to pay for other things.
And where would that place be? Come on, you can say it.. stop avoiding the subject and just admit its taken out of society..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
We do need to solve the unemployment problem. Extending benefits is the best way to solve that problem because it increases demand, and more jobs are created through increased demand.
If you remove $300B from the economy to pump $100B into it, how exactly is this creating increased demand? You keep telling me its a net positive effect, the CBO states otherwise when ALL factors are considered. You dont get to pretend that only part of the equation, (i.e. the pumping of the money into the economy) is all the matters and ignore the part where it first gets removed from the economy, and then it needs paid back.. State ALL of the facts, not just the limited BS coming from the Obama administration, who's very own economic advisors said in 1999 that unemployment insurance perpetuates unemployment. Now its a different tune...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Dems took over a year earlier, the tax refunds were filed generally a bit later than Jan. However, I found why you are trying to use those months as a benchmark. By using non-seasonally adjusted chart and those months, you are comparing a time period of the low point in jobs because of seasonal employment ending, to the high point in seasonal employment.
Ahh wrong.. I used beginning years, and ending years as the benchmark because going into January would give me more than a full year.. (i.e. 1 extra month). The TOTAL number of individuals employed as quoted were true. You dont seasonably adjust REAL numbers of employees, you seasonably adjust the PERCENTAGES You are either employed, or you arent..

I stand corrected on when Democrats took over Congress, but you are making it even worse on the Democrats by pointing this out. The figures show that employment numbers fell 100% under the Democratic controlled Congress after the taxcuts wre passed. And you still celebrate being a Democrat with their failed policies..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
So basically what you are doing is counting the seasonal jobs as jobs due to the cut. Now a more honest approach would be using the same month as your baseline, either compare end of seasonal employment to end of seasonal employment, or height of seasonal employment to height of seasonal employment. For example starting Jan 02 as you did but ending Jan 08 would be 7.24 million. Starting Dec 01 and ending Dec 07 its 7.38 million. If you are going to use the non-seasonally adjusted chart, you need to use the same month as your starting and ending point.
FAIL.. I stopped in December of 2007, but look at December 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 ALL had decreased employment.. If I was picking and choosing numbers, I would have picked a month ending UP, not down..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
I was talking about when the Democrats took over.
And Democrats have been talking about cancelling this since they took over, would you not agree? Do you think businesses retroactively create budgets, or proactively create them? They plan YEARS ahead of time. For example, do you expect a factory to invest and expand knowing a tax cut is going to end in 1-2 years, or do you think they are more likely to do so knowing tax cuts will continue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
$56 billion is the figure I stand corrected The $12 billion figure was actually from the original unemployment extension bill that the GOP blocked in the House. That was a 3 month extension.
And $56B cost means you have to remove $168B from the economy to get your $1.6 per dollar invested means you get a return of $89.6B.. thats a NEGATIVE return.. it might be a temporary positive boost, but only a fool looks short term.. Hey, it seems to be the Democratic way, the stimulus bill was another example of short term economic boosts, (which were nothing) despite the CBO saying long term costs which resulted in a net negative stimulus to the economy.. You guys were all fine with that as well..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:06 AM
 
7,542 posts, read 4,030,590 times
Reputation: 1187
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Thats not entirely correct because as I stated above

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

So by asking to remove $100B from the economy to boost the economy by $160B, you are actually removing $300B.. thats less than 0....
I don't know who is blowing in Obama's ear, so I will answer this again, in retro

Quote:
"What would be the effect of a $100 billion dollar reduction in Federal government spending?" At 1994 levels of national output, that would amount to about a 1.5 percentage point reduction in spending as a percent of Gross Domestic Product. Since Federal government spending stood at 22.0 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1994, a $100 billion reduction in spending would lower its percentage equivalent to 20.5. Substituting 20.5 percent for 22.0 percent would have the direct effect of increasing Gross Domestic Product by $38 billion. Put another way, a $100 billion decrease in Federal spending would result in a canceling of $38 billion of deadweight losses in the economy that are attributable to government being larger than desirable.
The Impact of the Welfare State on the American Economy (http://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-1/vg-1.htm - broken link)

This is a very good Executive Summary, even though it was written in 1995, math does not change.

I'm all for closing a few fed offices, by the way. Actually, more than just a few.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:26 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,638,390 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
I don't know who is blowing in Obama's ear, so I will answer this again, in retro

The Impact of the Welfare State on the American Economy (http://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-1/vg-1.htm - broken link)

This is a very good Executive Summary, even though it was written in 1995, math does not change.

I'm all for closing a few fed offices, by the way. Actually, more than just a few.
From your link
  • The optimal level of federal government spending is about 17.6 percent of GDP. Beyond this point, the resources consumed by government impose more costs on the economy than benefits.
And what is our current level of GDP spending? Far beyond 17.6%, which means government has more costs than benefits associated with spending
  • The current level of federal outlays is about 4 percentage points of GDP higher than its optimal level. Under the Republican policy of restraining deficit spending, the reduction in the GDP share of federal spending would substantially boost economic growth.
We ae trying to increase economic growth are we not? Meaning the government should be CUTTING spending, not increasing it.
  • For every $1 dollar of federal spending growth curtailed, the private sector of the economy will expand $1.38 in the same year. In other words, every dollar of federal spending growth restraint produces a net economic benefit of 38 cents. On the other hand, the failure to constrain each $1 dollar increase in federal spending will cause a net reduction in economic growth of 38 cents.
That means for every dollar government STOPPED spending, the economy grew $.38, again, we should be asking for small government so the economy can expand, not larger..
  • Over seven years, economic output would be $2.45 larger for every dollar of spending restraint enacted in the first year and sustained through the period.
Right.. which again means we should be restraining governmental spending because each restraint = $2.45 into the economy, (which the CBO has updated now to reflect $3.00)
  • This study has important implications for the current policy debate. In any given year, for every $100 billion of projected federal spending growth curtailed, the economy would grow by an additional $38 billion. This increase in economic output continues into following years so long as this policy remains in effect, compounding the benefits over time.
BINGO.. Which is exactly what I've said.. LONG term economic benefit, not short term.. The LONG term economic benefits are COMPOUNDED..

The part you might have missed from your quote is that $100B in increased spending represent $38B in LOSSES.. Its a NET LOSS to the economy, not an increase. If you want to increase the GDP, and the conomy which would cut unemployment, you CUT the federal governmental spending, $100B per every $38B increase in the GDP (at the time the report was written) you need.

you are validating my postings as accurate.. Thanks

Last edited by pghquest; 12-15-2010 at 02:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:30 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,710 posts, read 14,827,996 times
Reputation: 3846
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You arent seriously trying to compare the society we have today, with all of our safety nets to the Reagan years? I remember my mom being on welfare during those years which consisted of a block of cheese, a jar of peanut butter, and a box of powdered milk. You want to compare that today?
Again I was pointing out that it was higher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And where would that place be? Come on, you can say it.. stop avoiding the subject and just admit its taken out of society..
Not exactly. Its $$$ that otherwise would not be spent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
If you remove $300B from the economy to pump $100B into it, how exactly is this creating increased demand? You keep telling me its a net positive effect, the CBO states otherwise when ALL factors are considered. You dont get to pretend that only part of the equation, (i.e. the pumping of the money into the economy) is all the matters and ignore the part where it first gets removed from the economy, and then it needs paid back.. State ALL of the facts, not just the limited BS coming from the Obama administration, who's very own economic advisors said in 1999 that unemployment insurance perpetuates unemployment. Now its a different tune...
You really aren't removing that $300 billion out of the economy. That $$$ wouldn't be spent outside of that. The impacts unemployment benefits can have may differ from a booming economy such as what we had in 1999 compared to now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Ahh wrong.. I used beginning years, and ending years as the benchmark because going into January would give me more than a full year.. (i.e. 1 extra month). The TOTAL number of individuals employed as quoted were true. You dont seasonably adjust REAL numbers of employees, you seasonably adjust the PERCENTAGES You are either employed, or you arent..
Actually what you are technically doing is leaving off a month. The job totals listed for each month or for the end of that month. You are comparing Jan 31st 2002 to Dec 31st 2007, so you are leaving off what happened to employment in Jan 2002. You are using how Jan 02 ended, not how it started. What you are counting is 5 years and 11 months, not 6 years. If you wanted to honestly discuss the difference between 2002 and 2007, you would use Dec 2001 as your starting point because that is how 2001 ended. Of course though you chose to play a game with seasonal employment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I stand corrected on when Democrats took over Congress, but you are making it even worse on the Democrats by pointing this out. The figures show that employment numbers fell 100% under the Democratic controlled Congress after the taxcuts wre passed. And you still celebrate being a Democrat with their failed policies..
Jobs were added in 07....

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
FAIL.. I stopped in December of 2007 counting, but look at 2008, December 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 ALL had decreased employment.. If I was picking and choosing numbers, I would have picked a month ending UP, not down..
A slight difference. And the 2nd high point (high point is November) Look at Jan of each year, that had BY FAR the biggest drop every single year, yet you chose to count the job totals after the drop off as your starting point. If you are going to use a chart that is not seasonally adjusted you can't compare no seasonal employment to seasonal employment or vice versa. You need to compare the same thing. You either compare the job totals from the end of Dec one year to the end of Dec another, or the end of Jan one year to the end of Jan another year. You don't compare the end of Jan one year to the end of Dec another year, or the end of Dec one year to the end of jan of the next. Use the same month as a benchmark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And Democrats have been talking about cancelling this since they took over, would you not agree? Do you think businesses retroactively create budgets, or proactively create them? They plan YEARS ahead of time. For example, do you expect a factory to invest and expand knowing a tax cut is going to end in 1-2 years, or do you think they are more likely to do so knowing tax cuts will continue?
While small business's will generally report income as part of the return for an individual or a married couple, a larger business such as a factory doesn't do that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And $56B cost means you have to remove $168B from the economy to get your $1.6 per dollar invested means you get a return of $89.6B.. thats a NEGATIVE return.. it might be a temporary positive boost, but only a fool looks short term.. Hey, it seems to be the Democratic way, the stimulus bill was another example of short term economic boosts, (which were nothing) despite the CBO saying long term costs which resulted in a net negative stimulus to the economy.. You guys were all fine with that as well..

The cost is $56 billion. You aren't removing $168 Billion from the economy when the cost is $56 billion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:50 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,638,390 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Again I was pointing out that it was higher.
And so is todays safety net, including the number of folks living in governmental housing, welfare, etc, many of which DONT enter the work force at all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Not exactly. Its $$$ that otherwise would not be spent.
Says who? What exactly do you think people do with their money, sit on it under their matress?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
You really aren't removing that $300 billion out of the economy.
You remove 3x the amount from the economy because the money first needs to be borrowed, and then it needs paid back with interest, further paid for by the taxpayers.. Do you understand compounded interest costs? You are too removing it from the economy, again, where do you think its coming from? Peoples matresses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
That $$$ wouldn't be spent outside of that.
All money gets spent, even those put into a bank account. Do you not understand that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
The impacts unemployment benefits can have may differ from a booming economy such as what we had in 1999 compared to now.
CAN have? May have, might have, seriously, your argument now hinges on what could possibly happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Actually what you are technically doing is leaving off a month. The job totals listed for each month or for the end of that month. You are comparing Jan 31st 2002 to Dec 31st 2007, so you are leaving off what happened to employment in Jan 2002. You are using how Jan 02 ended, not how it started. What you are counting is 5 years and 11 months, not 6 years. If you wanted to honestly discuss the difference between 2002 and 2007, you would use Dec 2001 as your starting point because that is how 2001 ended. Of course though you chose to play a game with seasonal employment.
Seasonal employment numbers WENT DOWN and I accounted for the extra months, I said 10,200,000 jobs were created, but when you total up the 5 years and 11 months you get far greater than 10,200,000 jobs. Want to add the other month, fine, you still get over 10,200,000 jobs, even if you pick the month before, or the month after.. Its still MORE THAN..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Jobs were added in 07....
Wow, you figured that out all by yourself did you? And how about 2008? Again, businesses plan a year ahead of time.. they started budgeting for 2008 in 2007.. Jobs added in 2007 were planned in 2006. Do you even work? I find it hard to believe anyone with a job wouldnt know this..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
A slight difference. And the 2nd high point (high point is November) Look at Jan of each year, that had BY FAR the biggest drop every single year, yet you chose to count the job totals after the drop off as your starting point. If you are going to use a chart that is not seasonally adjusted you can't compare no seasonal employment to seasonal employment or vice versa. You need to compare the same thing. You either compare the job totals from the end of Dec one year to the end of Dec another, or the end of Jan one year to the end of Jan another year. You don't compare the end of Jan one year to the end of Dec another year, or the end of Dec one year to the end of jan of the next. Use the same month as a benchmark.
Even if you add in January, you still get more than 10,200,000 jobs.. Try it You can keep trying to spin the facts, but the facts are the Democrats oversaw the complete collapse of the economy and did absolutely nothing about it.. By your own admission jobs were still being created in 2007..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
While small business's will generally report income as part of the return for an individual or a married couple, a larger business such as a factory doesn't do that.
Small businesses are the backbone of the country.. Did you not know this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
The cost is $56 billion. You aren't removing $168 Billion from the economy when the cost is $56 billion
The CBO said you are wrong.. again, its 3x the amount spending which is removed from the economy to cover the bill. The money needs REPAID, with interest.. If you dont think its 3x the cost, then you can argue with the CBO.. I would find it odd though for you to argue with the CBO while trying to claim they are accurate at the same time...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:03 AM
 
Location: Texas
42,280 posts, read 49,833,895 times
Reputation: 67136
I had no problem with UE until I met a guy who was getting $4900 a month in pension AND collecting UE bennies of $2000. WTF IS THAT ABOUT??!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:05 AM
 
7,542 posts, read 4,030,590 times
Reputation: 1187
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
From your link
  • The optimal level of federal government spending is about 17.6 percent of GDP. Beyond this point, the resources consumed by government impose more costs on the economy than benefits.
And what is our current level of GDP spending? Far beyond 17.6%, which means government has more costs than benefits associated with spending
  • The current level of federal outlays is about 4 percentage points of GDP higher than its optimal level. Under the Republican policy of restraining deficit spending, the reduction in the GDP share of federal spending would substantially boost economic growth.
We ae trying to increase economic growth are we not? Meaning the government should be CUTTING spending, not increasing it.
  • For every $1 dollar of federal spending growth curtailed, the private sector of the economy will expand $1.38 in the same year. In other words, every dollar of federal spending growth restraint produces a net economic benefit of 38 cents. On the other hand, the failure to constrain each $1 dollar increase in federal spending will cause a net reduction in economic growth of 38 cents.
That means for every dollar government STOPPED spending, the economy grew $.38, again, we should be asking for small government so the economy can expand, not larger..
  • Over seven years, economic output would be $2.45 larger for every dollar of spending restraint enacted in the first year and sustained through the period.
Right.. which again means we should be restraining governmental spending because each restraint = $2.45 into the economy, (which the CBO has updated now to reflect $3.00)
  • This study has important implications for the current policy debate. In any given year, for every $100 billion of projected federal spending growth curtailed, the economy would grow by an additional $38 billion. This increase in economic output continues into following years so long as this policy remains in effect, compounding the benefits over time.
BINGO.. Which is exactly what I've said.. LONG term economic benefit, not short term.. The LONG term economic benefits are COMPOUNDED..

The part you might have missed from your quote is that $100B in increased spending represent $38B in LOSSES.. Its a NET LOSS to the economy, not an increase. If you want to increase the GDP, and the conomy which would cut unemployment, you CUT the federal governmental spending, $100B per every $38B increase in the GDP (at the time the report was written) you need.

you are validating my postings as accurate.. Thanks
Your welcome. However, the summary is targeting the increased size of the government, not the benefits the economy reaps from unemployment compensation. For that argument, more data is needed. Which is in the article of the second post I made to this thread. I've seen the references of the dollar amounts ($1.90) made in an economists report, I just haven't that report available made ready for comment. But---I'll be back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:09 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,710 posts, read 14,827,996 times
Reputation: 3846
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And so is todays safety net, including the number of folks living in governmental housing, welfare, etc, many of which DONT enter the work force at all...
More back then didn't even enter the workforce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Says who? What exactly do you think people do with their money, sit on it under their matress?
That $$ isn't in the hand of the people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post

You remove 3x the amount from the economy because the money first needs to be borrowed, and then it needs paid back with interest, further paid for by the taxpayers.. Do you understand compounded interest costs? You are too removing it from the economy, again, where do you think its coming from? Peoples matresses?
Yes its being borrowed. So based off that would you say the wars costs triple what we have been told??


Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
All money gets spent, even those put into a bank account. Do you not understand that?
I'm talking about the government,

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
CAN have? May have, might have, seriously, your argument now hinges on what could possibly happen?
Point being that comment was made during an economic boom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Seasonal employment numbers WENT DOWN and I accounted for the extra months, I said 10,200,000 jobs were created, but when you total up the 5 years and 11 months you get far greater than 10,200,000 jobs. Want to add the other month, fine, you still get over 10,200,000 jobs, even if you pick the month before, or the month after.. Its still MORE THAN..
100% false. You are trying to count seasonal employment gains as part of the overall gains, but without counting the seasonal job losses that come as a result of the seasonal job gain. If you count the jobs from 2002-2007 that would mean you would start with the amount of jobs that 2001 ended with (Dec 01) and compare that to the amount of jobs 07 ended with (Dec 07) Those figures are 131.491 and 138.875. That is 7.384 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post

Wow, you figured that out all by yourself did you? And how about 2008? Again, businesses plan a year ahead of time.. they started budgeting for 2008 in 2007.. Jobs added in 2007 were planned in 2006. Do you even work? I find it hard to believe anyone with a job wouldnt know this..
Sometimes its just months ahead of time. Things both positive and negative can change on a dime at times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Even if you add in January, you still get more than 10,200,000 jobs.. Try it You can keep trying to spin the facts, but the facts are the Democrats oversaw the complete collapse of the economy and did absolutely nothing about it.. By your own admission jobs were still being created in 2007..
No you would get 7.384 million in Jan 02 was included. You would be starting from where Dec 01 left off. Seasonal jobs come and go every single year. That has nothing to do with republicans, Democrats, tax increases or tax decreases. Its just the nature of seasonal jobs, they come and go. You are trying to count the seasonal job gains in your numbers without counting the corresponding seasonal job losses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Small businesses are the backbone of the country.. Did you not know this?
Yes, and as I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of small business's do not have taxable incomes of more than the $250,000 threshold. Even the small % of ones that do, the taxable income would need to get close to $ 1 million before it equates to one salary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The CBO said you are wrong.. again, its 3x the amount spending which is removed from the economy to cover the bill. The money needs REPAID, with interest.. If you dont think its 3x the cost, then you can argue with the CBO.. I would find it odd though for you to argue with the CBO while trying to claim they are accurate at the same time...
Where exactly does the CBO say this. And again if that is the case are you trying to suggest that the wars cost 3x what we have been told they cost?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:24 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,710 posts, read 14,827,996 times
Reputation: 3846
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
I had no problem with UE until I met a guy who was getting $4900 a month in pension AND collecting UE bennies of $2000. WTF IS THAT ABOUT??!!!
You can collect a pension and unemployment. However, you must be seeking work, and depending on how much of your pension you contributed you could see a reduction.

Below is the reduction rules in NY

The amount of the weekly benefit rate reduction is as follows:

If you did not contribute towards your pension, your benefit rate will be reduced by the weekly equivalent of your pension.
If you contributed less than 50% of the total value of your pension, the reduction is one-half the weekly equivalent of your pension.
If you contributed 50% or more or if you rolled your pension over to a qualifying IRA account, there is no pension reduction.


Not sure what state this guy was in, so the rules could be different, but if its similar to NY then the only way what this guy was doing was legal was if he contributed more than 50% to his pension.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:40 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,638,390 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
More back then didn't even enter the workforce.
And not counted as unemployed..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
That $$ isn't in the hand of the people.
Where the hell do you think it is? I've asked you now twice if you thought it was being kept under a mattress.. Where is it? It sounds good and all, until you actually have to respond with FACTS, dont it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Yes its being borrowed. So based off that would you say the wars costs triple what we have been told??
Not discussing the war, but if you claim unemployment is a stimulus, then clearly the wars are one as well right? Soldiers are PAID are they not? Machinery is PURCHASED is it not? Should we be invading Canada now? Think of the economic stimulus that'll create ha?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
I'm talking about the government,
I'm not.. Again, where does the government get the money from? How many times will I need to ask this of you before you respond?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Point being that comment was made during an economic boom.
Ahh no.. money is borrowed and paid back later.. The fact that the economic "boom" took place at the same time government was contracting I would think would teach you something.. Sadly, obviously it didnt..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
100% false. You are trying to count seasonal employment gains as part of the overall gains, but without counting the seasonal job losses that come as a result of the seasonal job gain. If you count the jobs from 2002-2007 that would mean you would start with the amount of jobs that 2001 ended with (Dec 01) and compare that to the amount of jobs 07 ended with (Dec 07) Those figures are 131.491 and 138.875. That is 7.384 million.
Wrong.. I counted January of the beginning year to December of another.. thats a FULL YEAR. This would INCLUDE seasonably adjusted jobs.. Again, are you math challenged that you cant do the math?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Sometimes its just months ahead of time. Things both positive and negative can change on a dime at times.
Clearly you have no business experience because I've NEVER made them month by month, or even months ahead of time. Businesses plan YEARS, sometimes DECADES ahead because the capital costs of expansion is too costly to go month by month. You adjust your plan as time moves forward but only a fool wings it month by month, especially considering it costs millions upon millions for capital expenditures. Hell, I'm planning to buy a $125,000 printer and I had to plan out 5 years before I could justify it.. and yes, tax consequences was indeed part of the consideration..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
No you would get 7.384 million in Jan 02 was included. You would be starting from where Dec 01 left off. Seasonal jobs come and go every single year. That has nothing to do with republicans, Democrats, tax increases or tax decreases. Its just the nature of seasonal jobs, they come and go. You are trying to count the seasonal job gains in your numbers without counting the corresponding seasonal job losses.
Thats bull crap.. the seasonable job losses would be subtracted the following month.. If I hire 5 people for this month for seasonal work and they get laid off next month, they are subtracted from next months totals. The figures posted are the NET POSITIVE job growth.. You are arguing bs to try to spin numbers into something they arent. Its a NET JOB TOTAL which is being counted.. If I went into another month it would be falsifiying data, but even if I did, the NET POSITIVE JOB GROWTH was OVER 10,000,000 jobs.. Who are you trying to kid here? You might be able to pass this bs off on some liberal but I'm not that stupid. I learned how to add in elementary school
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Yes, and as I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of small business's do not have taxable incomes of more than the $250,000 threshold. Even the small % of ones that do, the taxable income would need to get close to $ 1 million before it equates to one salary.
Its 3 percent of all small businesses, but this represents 1/2 of all business income. If you think 1/2 of all small business income. If you think 1/2 of the small business income is minor then you get an F..
The Plum Line - Boehner concedes only three percent of small businesses affected by extending tax cuts

"There is no argument that the President's plan would raise taxes on half of the small business income in the United States, according to the non-partisan Joint Tax Committee. Why do Washington Democrats want to raise taxes on anyone -- especially small businesses -- in a struggling economy? If Speaker Pelosi allows a fair debate and vote in the House, we're confident that our plan to stop all of the tax hikes would prevail."

Thats HUGE.. and 1/2 of all small business income represents a hell of a lot of employees.. Even if you pretend it doesnt because 80% of all individuals effected are small business owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Where exactly does the CBO say this. And again if that is the case are you trying to suggest that the wars cost 3x what we have been told they cost?
This is now the 5th time I've linked to it..
CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul - Washington Times

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

If the government is spending $100B, then $300B is removed from the economy which cant be spent. Take this to the stimulus, that $1T stimulus bill, which removed $3T from the economy.. How the hell do you expect the economy to grow with nothing left?

You can shout for joy over temporary boosts in the economy over things like the stimulus, unemployment extensions but other than short term, its a negative stimulator. Even the CBO admitted this when discussing the stimulus package, but you didnt hear that from Obama did you? From the same link
CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.

The same is true for unemployment because IT NEEDS PAID BACK..

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

You can celebrate short term gains at long term expenses, I choose not to. I prefer real solutions..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top