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.
A few, actually, not even counting real life experience.
According to who and based on what data? If you listen to the White House's pet economists, they use "projections" in order to judge the effects of the stimulus packages. In other words, they make a semi-educated guess about what might have happened, compare that to what actually happened, and conclude that the stimulus averted catastrophic results. Never mind the fact that those catastrophic results a) may have been averted by any of a dozen other factors and b) may have been a necessary part of market stabilization which by being averted resulted in longer term economic problems.
If this is the only problem you see with the stimulus injections, you need to look deeper. However, at least you are somewhat admitting that the stimulus packages had a downside. It's a step in the right direction, anyhow.
That is what all economic stimulus plans do. There is never a guaranteed outcome. They can only rely on trends and what history has shown us. Tax cuts (which was a large chunk of Obama's stimulus) are also not guaranteed to create jobs. All one has to do is look at the private sector during Bush or Obama's first presidency to see that. They did appear to work for Reagan though. Increases in government spending have also shown a trend in the past of improving economic conditions. Look at all the banks and our auto industry that would have failed without the stimulus?
You are a not an oracle when it comes to economic stimulus either. You can't say for certain that the stimulus plan did nothing. Past examples tell us that without it our economy "probably" would have continued free falling. Your own personal speculation goes against the trend however.
but most of the tax cuts were for the poor and middleclass
ALL of the tax credit adjustments of the 'bush' tax cuts : (ie child care credit, child credit, retirment account credit, eductaion credit, health care credit) ALL phase out on incomes over 180k
Umm. What about those tax cuts that he gave to the rich during his first term as president? Those same tax cuts that Obama allowed to continue for his first term as president and finally allowed them to die at the beginning of his second term?
Obama hasn't touched any of the other taxes. He has even championed more middle class tax deductions but Republicans won't sign any of them into law unless they also favor the rich who don't need them.
The payroll tax increase that most of us experienced at the beginning of last year was given to us by Obama. Tax cuts are not and should not be designed to last forever.
If someone drops out of the labor force, is it due to retirement? Afterall, babyboomers are hitting retirerment. Also, does it mean these people are no longer collecting unemployment?
Maybe, and maybe.
When someone "gives up" looking for work (because they feel it's hopeless, or for any number of other reasons, and they have run out of UI benefits, they are no longer considered part of the labor force even if they would take a job if they found one. This means that they are no longer counted in the official "unemployment figures." So, while they are still "unemployed", and though they would take a job if they found one, to the BLS, they no longer 'count,' which has the effect of artificially making the unemployment rate look much better.
Some have started drawing SS if they are old enough to do so, simply in order to have something coming in. It's a matter of survival. But, many of those would still return to work if a job came along.
Approximately 25% of the workforce is made up of baby boomers. Yet, your contention - and that of others who are trying to spin this toward the baby boomers - is that a minority of the work force reaching retirement age results in a net workforce participation loss? Give that some thought for a second. Especially considering that baby boomers are now staying in the workforce longer.
The links provided already show that 75% of the reduction in work place participation are due to demographic changes associated with an aging population. That's a fact even if you choose to ignore it. Yes, virtually all of the reductions are due to baby boomers retiring. FACT.
The links provided already show that 75% of the reduction in work place participation are due to demographic changes associated with an aging population. That's a fact even if you choose to ignore it. Yes, virtually all of the reductions are due to baby boomers retiring. FACT.
According to BLS data, the biggest changes did not occur in that older demographic, but younger. Also the trend showing and being predicted is that same older demographic working longer.
The biggest declines by far are in 16-54 group. Certain young groups losing rapidly. The other trends show that 54+ will be working more not less in future. These are projections.
Umm. What about those tax cuts that he gave to the rich during his first term as president? Those same tax cuts that Obama allowed to continue for his first term as president and finally allowed them to die at the beginning of his second term?
Obama hasn't touched any of the other taxes. He has even championed more middle class tax deductions but Republicans won't sign any of them into law unless they also favor the rich who don't need them.
The payroll tax increase that most of us experienced at the beginning of last year was given to us by Obama. Tax cuts are not and should not be designed to last forever.
uhm..most of the tax cuts were towards the poor and middleclass
saying 'tax cuts for the rich' is a lie
Obama 's tax 'cut' was cutting the already underfunder social security tax....not exactly a smart move
The links provided already show that 75% of the reduction in work place participation are due to demographic changes associated with an aging population. That's a fact even if you choose to ignore it. Yes, virtually all of the reductions are due to baby boomers retiring. FACT.
your facts are fiction
fact number of americans turning 65 daily.....10,000
number of americans turning 18 daily.......13,500
fact number of americans turning 65 daily.....10,000
number of americans turning 18 daily.......13,500
the math doesn't support your lies
You've been debunked on this before.
Here's my post from last September.
Quote:
Here is a 2012 BLS prediction to 2020. Looking at '00-'10, the 16-24 yr old group grew by 1%, but the 55+ grew by 2.6%. The 18-24 yr old group is associated with higher learning though, so if we look at the 25-54 age group the growth rate was only .4%. From '00-' 10 the 55+ population grew by 17K and the under 55 group grew by 8K, in thousands of course, and if you look at the 25-54 cohort that group only grew by 5K.
America is getting older at a faster rate than we have young people entering their best working years.
The aging of the baby-boom generation and its movement from
the prime-age to the older labor force will decrease the overall
labor force participation rate.
The age composition of the population and labor force is changing due to the increasing share of older age groups. The older age groups have significantly lower participation rates than the prime age groups, those between the ages of 25 and 54, which have strong attachments to the labor market. Once the baby boomers exit the last years of the prime age group and enter the 55-and-older age group, with participation rates roughly half that of the prime age group, the overall labor force participation rate will decline significantly. The lower participation rate of the 55-and-older age group, coupled with the larger share of the older population in the future, is projected to decrease the overall participation rate.
"The labor force participation rate is currently at levels not seen since 1979, grabbing the attention of economists and investors alike. Nearly 70% of the decline since the end of the most recent recession can be explained by the aging population and more people receiving social security disability benefits."
"It is also possible that a period of faster economic growth could provide a cyclical bump to participation, but demographic and structural trends appear to be the dominant driver of participation and are likely to persist in the coming years, which will continue to put downward pressure on the participation rate."
FACT: number of americans turning 65 daily.....10,000
number of americans turning 18 daily...... 13,500
you cant debunk those facts
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.
