Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic
I'd recommend you face the fact that the president is only one gear in the entire economic engine and he alone has little control over the outcome.
|
Then, please, send him a text/sext, e-mail, fax, telephone message or hire a plane with one of them banner things telling him exactly what you said....because he seems to think that he can do something and so long as he continues to lie, I'm going to stomp all over him at every opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic
The deficit is a problem, but it was worth borrowing money to save our country. Look at how austerity and fiscal discipline is working in Europe.
|
WTF? You can't even distinguish between the budget deficit and the National Debt.
And did you really save your country? The jury is still out on that one, and will be for at least a decade.
And for the record, austerity is working in Europe. Austerity is not a one-size-fits-all scheme. It has to be tailored to address specific issues in each country's economy. Those EU States that implemented the correct austerity measures for their unique country fared well, and those that did not will need to continue with austerity measures.
You will be forced into austerity measures soon enough -- and it will be your fault because you refuse to objectively view economic data.
Have fun with that.
Recommending....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
The workforce participation rate has been shrinking for over ten years through multiple Administrations.
|
You're fun to debunk.
LNU01300000 Civilian labor force participation rate
Year Annual LFPR
1990 66.5%
1991 66.2%
1992 66.4%
1993 66.3% Approximate point of maximum saturation of women in the work-force
1994 66.6%
1995 66.6%
1996 66.8%
1997 67.1%
1998 67.1% Aberration due to Y2K/Millennium Fever
1999 67.1%
2000 67.1%
2001 66.8%
2002 66.6%
2003 66.2%
2004 66.0%
2005 66.0%
2006 66.2%
2007 66.0%
2008 66.0%
2009 65.4%
2010 64.7%
2011 64.1%
2012 63.6%
As you can see, you made another false claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
When did you become concerned?
|
2005.
A friend asked me to review Social Security to help him plan for his retirement, as well as guide his parents and in-laws, and provide for his children.
At that time I predicted Social Security would be insolvent by 2014, and that the Trust Fund would collapse in 2028 -- SSA was predicting 2041. I erred on the 2014 prediction -- SSA became insolvent in 2009, but that was due to the recession. Had the recession not occurred, SSA would have become insolvent in 2014.
There are three integral components to funding Social Security and Medicare, and by extension, Obamacare:
1] ratio of workers to beneficiaries
2] FICA/SECA tax rates
3] real wages
The Labor Force Participation Rate impacts the ratio of workers to beneficiaries.
Real Wages have been declining since the Clinton Administration....
National Average Wage Index
1951-1960: 4.09%
1961-1970: 4.45%
1971-1980: 7.31%
1981-1990: 5.34%
1991-2000: 4.35%
2001-2010: 2.64%
BigJon posted data to support that as well as prove that wages are continuing to be flat/decline, but you dismissed that as "irrelevant" and then claimed it was a "
positive Economic Trend."
Your own ideology and blatant disregard for Realityâ„¢ blinds you to the Truthâ„¢, which is that you cannot fund Social Security or Medicare, and by extension Obamacare.
You will need to increase the FICA/SECA tax rates and the level of increase is related to real wages and your Labor Force Participation Rate. You ignore the damage to your economy, not only at the national level but at the State and local level as well, when the FICA/SECA tax rates must be increased to pay for those programs.
Unless you intend to pay for them out of the General Fund.....but then that would a form of Austerityâ„¢, since you're cutting government spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Yawn.
Alzheimer's.
You would've done better to just jump in with the usual useless data and tenuous ties to nothing pertinent.
|
Then pray tell, what exactly do you believe to be pertinent?
The only thing you're doing is proving that you have no understanding of Economics, and that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Just be honest: You'd rather the economy send no positive signals because it helps your candidate...pretty simple formula to gain a modicum of respect, right?
|
I'm loathe to speak for another, but some of us are only interested in the Truth, even if the Truth is ugly, even if the Truth isn't want we want it to be and even if the Truth is painful.
Obviously, you're not interested in the Truth.
It is the Truth that provides a solid foundation on which to build, instead of an house of cards, and it doesn't matter if you're planning your household budget, running your business or running a country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Watching Bush's cheer leading neocons crying about the decline in the labor participation rate is more comedy than the average ticket supports.
|
I'm a Constructivist, not a Neo-Con. I'm the one who consistently points out the flaws of Neo-Cons -- even when they were called Social Democrats before they became Neo-Cons -- but you wouldn't know anything about that, because you're not interested in Truth.
You'd also have to question the intelligence of someone who is so pathetic they don't understand that Republicans are not Neo-Cons and Neo-Cons are not Republicans.
To the extent that you rail against Neo-Cons, why don't you explain to everyone why Carter had Neo-Cons on his White House Staff? Why did Clinton have Neo-Cons on his White House Staff? Why did Clinton submit the name of a Neo-Con on his White House Staff to be CIA Director? Why did Obama have a Neo-Con as his foreign policy advisor during the 2008 Election Campaign? Why did Obama hand-pick 6 Neo-Cons to be on his White House Staff?
And it isn't my fault that you don't understand the implications of the Labor Force Participation Rate, especially as it relates to certain social welfare programs, like Social Security and Medicare, and Obamacare, and even that it impacts your State/local government employee pension programs.
Lower Labor Force Participation Rate with stagnant/declining wages, yeah, the States/cities are really raking in the sales tax revenue and income tax revenue to fund their pension programs, right?
You might want to spend less time yawning and more time studying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
The economy continues to improve.
|
Dream on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Perspective.
|
Something you totally lack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Clearly a Romneybot...but what else can we expect.
|
On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
I've never made any statements in support of Romney. The fact that I question the policies of the Obama Administration does not make me a
de facto Romney supporter -- it just means I'm smarter than the idiots who refuse to question policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Nope not an economist,...
|
Other than your blatantly obvious attempts to mislead people, then why are you commenting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
... but then I don't play commentator from outside the US either.
|
I'm not from the outside.
I'm an American citizen of Romanian descent, and a decorated disabled veteran. I'm here for medical reasons, but I choose to live in Romania because it suits my life-style, and because the cost-of-living is significantly lesser than the US. I paid just over $13,000 cash for my house which sits on about 12 hectares or so (whatever that is in acres). I'm totally self-sufficient for the most part.
I can live better than you on just $300-$350/month, and if you cannot, then that's your problem, not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Yeah, the data was irrelevant and covered in another thread, try to keep up. This thread has a topic.
|
The data is not "irrelevant."
The topic is "
Why do Republican's despair positive Economic Trends?"
Even though I'm not a Republican, although I am an ultra-conservative (I'm a registered Democrat), I addressed your topic with these questions......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
How are flat/declining wages a "positive Economic Trend?"
How is declining household income a "positive Economic Trend?"
How is declining GDP a "positive Economic Trend?"
How is the loss of 536,000 full-time jobs a "positive Economic Trend?"
How is 1.3 Million part-time jobs a "positive Economic Trend?"
How is a decline in manufacturing a "positive Economic Trend?"
How is declining labor force participation rate a "positive Economic Trend?"
|
.....which you have blatantly refused to answer -- obviously -- since it would debunk your own topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
I know you love doomsday prognostications, fortunately for us, for as long as you've been spouting them, you've been wrong.
|
You obviously have me confused with someone else.
I have no fear of making economic predictions, and have been making them here since 2007, and I have never been wrong......not even once.
I have underestimated things at times. For exampled I predicted the corn harvest for 2011 would be low and the price would rise over $7/bushel. The harvest was low and it jumped from $6.50/bushel to $7.50/bushel....so excuse the hell out of me.
Where's your 5% unemployment rate?
I said in 2010 it would never happen, and explained why.
And in spite of what you think, I've never made any "
doomsday prognostications." In fact, I have repeatedly chastised, ridiculed, debunked, slammed and ragged on those who have made
"doomsday prognostications."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The next time you hear a dog barking, pay attention, because the dog is probably barking something about "economic collapse" (snicker) and whatever the dog said would be more credible...and accurate.... than the crap from economicbarfbag.
I know people fantasize and romanticize about "economic collapse" (snicker) but this is the real world and it doesn't work that way. Is your economy going to slow down and contract? Sure, especially when you have to start paying for the party you've been having, but it won't collapse.
Unbiasedly...
Mircea
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
"Could" collapse?
What, you can't be any more certain than that? How pathetic. How much do you get post this drivel and waste band-width?
Do you get paid by the megabyte or terabyte?
Not amused with propaganda artists...
Mircea
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Heavy drinking and extreme stress?
Collapse of what? The economy? Don't you have something better to do?
Indicating...
Mircea
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You just won't give up will you?
No, the economy will not collapse. Quit drinking out of kramercat's cup.
Laughing at the superior intellect...
Mircea
|
Those are just a few of the 115-odd post over the last 6 years.
I'm all for Truth, and the Truth is your economy will not collapse and there will be no doomsday, and I have repeatedly maintained that, but the Truth is that there is nothing good happening, and and that will be the situation for a long-time to come, and you had best get used to it.
I would point out that back in 2007, before I correctly predicted the year and quarter of your recession start, I was saying the OASDI Trust Fund would become exhausted in 2028.
People thought I was crazy, except 5 years later the 2012 SSA Report shows the OASDI Trust Fund becoming exhausted in 2027 under the High Cost Assumptions, so I guess I wasn't that far off the mark after all.
And no, it isn't fear-mongering or doomsday prognosticating, it is educating people in the Truth, which is something you adamantly abhor.
But your economy is far worse than even I predicted, and so the Trust Fund will collapse in 2023-2024 under current laws.
And a low Labor Force Participation Rate is one of the reasons, as are flat/declining wages.
You can bury your head in the sand and keep screaming that the economy is getting better, but that defies both Truth and Reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Laughing...at you
|
Since you claim to be a real estate agent, it's rather bizarre that you don't see how a lower Labor Force Participation Rate can negatively impact your ability to sell homes.
As I said, you can save Social Security and Medicare, but there will be an heavy price to pay and that price will be a lower standard of living, a toned-down life-style and more unemployed people.
We'll see who gets the last laugh.
Laughing at the superior intellect...
Mircea