Gallup: Unemployment drops down to 8.1%, lowest level yet.

It didnt want to become embroiled in africa. you said it.

Youve called him a scumbag despite all the lives America DID save. Thats just unreasonable.

Have a nice day.

 

childlike notions that saving jobs improves the economy, and provides efficiency

 

And, in your opinion, that justifies deliberately stopping the U.N. (in the Security Council) from doing anything to stop hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be hacked to death?

Your morals are, imo, pathetic.


Have a nice day.


Sorry all for going off topic.

 

Well of course there is no proving definitively the alternative was depression but look at the facts, the entire western world has continued on a extremely slow growth since 2008.

But what the hell are you talking about? The unemployment rate did double, its gone from a decade average of 4- 5 % to nearly 9% as no doubt youre keen to remind us again and again. No doubt youd even like to complain to us about those no longer looking for work too right?

So..do you think americans each given the choice would have said yes or no?

 

Lets summariize what Obama inherited from Bush:
Stock Market Collapse
Housing Collapse
Financial collapse.
An entire economic Holocaust. By 2009 unemployment was at 10% the Fallout of the Bush Holocuast.
So 8.1 looks good after Bush wiped out the U.S. economically

Lets Summarize who the Republicans are offering:
Romney.
His state was 47th in Job creation when governor
He lies about all major issues including abortion, Envirenment, Economic issues, Health care, immigration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...te-transcript/2012/01/07/gIQAk2AAiP_blog.html
JAN 7 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/01/09/so-did-romney-create-100000-jobs-or-not/

http://finance.townhall.com/news/po.../08/fact_check_romney_struggles_on_jobs_claim

FACT CHECK: Promising gain without pain

 

Why do you keep saying that? Whats so inefficient about putting money directly into the economy and keeping families together? What else would you like?

Tax cuts?

Interest rate cuts?

And where does this 'child like' thingy really mean? Is it hyperbole?

 

The bad news for America is that Dwemocracy has been bought and sold by giving large numbers of voters something for nothing.

For instance, the 5.1% increase in Soc Sec Disabilities is really part of the unemployment numbers wherein a few doctors notes and and a little limping for a while extends the 3 years of Unemployment Insurance to forever.

The Left now has everything in plac for a take over that will be permanent.
Since 50% of all families are now Single mothers that constituency is in stone.
Add the Unions which are really part of the Government, the civil servants in the Police, Fireman, Trash Collecter, School Teachers, Transportation, TSA, and the governing agencies, the tax payers are right back there with King George and the hanger on Aristocracy.

 

the childlike belief in simple painless answers.

 

Well your welcome to your opinion but you forget all he did do to save lives and the fact that any real UNSC resolution would have made pressure on the US to get involved. Moreover the US regularly involved in shenanigans but Clinton is the scumbag?....whatever.

And you should be sorry, you brought it up, not me. You wanted to divert the topic to make some extraaneous point about Clinton.

 

even in California they are wising up

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012...n-march-lawmaker-calls-for-end-to-false-data/

I don't think fake figures are going to get the vote anyway. Seen the polling numbers on how much faith people have in Obama vs Romney on economic matters

 

ok, but its you who is implying anyone thinks the option to save jobs is simple and painless.

And youve still not told us why your other efficient options are not so childish.

So how about you either now do so or change your view or stop replying to me ?

 

No, because I would hope Americans would ask for further clarification from that ridiculously vague question before they agreed to anything.

'recent unemployment rate and much higher debts'.

Recent?

Much higher?

That could mean anything.



So - you admit there is ZERO factual proof that America would have gone into a Depression without all the massive deficit spending.

Thank you.

 

diverting capital to inefficient companies and expecting efficieny is stupidity at its finest.

 

So jobs don't really do anything, it's just spending money that people need. So, why bother with saving jobs when it would be easier and less time consuming to just give people checks?

Money isn't wealth, thus saving a job that produces nothing does not add to the economy, even when the worker spends the money he gets from the job. If money were wealth, we could just print unlimited amounts of it.

Is it immoral to have a desire to earn a profit? Of course business owners and managers base their decisions on what is likely to return a profit in the short and long term. For a small business, it's vital to survival. For a big business, it's a duty to their shareholders, who are the laborers and teachers and other workers who put their money into 401ks and pension funds and the like. Those people must be immorally greedy as well, as they want a return on their investments to help them in their old age and perhaps a legacy for their children. How selfish!

"Irrational fear" is sophistry. It's impossible to measure fear, and it makes no sense to say that business owners and managers are irrational. Everything they do has a purpose and they act on the information that they have as well as the uncertainty that they see.

In other words, given that there has just been a major period of malinvestment that leads to a crash in a market bubble that spreads across the economy, they determine that investments may be uncertain. In response, they hold back their investment dollars into safer instruments like cash, and they seek to lower costs in case current operations become less desirable and change is needed. Why is that irrational?

More spending doesn't create wealth. In order to consume, first there must be production. Debt is not production.

OK fair enough.

He used it in his 1980 campaign in attempt to defeat Ronald Reagan. He coined the phrase, but I like the rhetoric anyway for other uses. Maybe I should stick with "tooth fairy" economics, which applies to the idea that government spending leads to wealth production, or that jobs lead to prosperity by virtue of giving people incomes.

 

Well, I think that people learn this idea that jobs=prosperity and demand creates supply in their 12 years of government indoctrination (really, why wouldn't government schools teach that the government is the savior of the economy?) and much of their basic economics lessons in college. Politicians sell the idea all the time, and the media is always talking about the need to "create jobs" and for politicians to "save jobs." The thinking behind it is flawed, but most people never give it much thought. A "job" is just a contract between parties to exchange labor for title. Labor is a commodity and it is consumed and subject to the law of supply and demand like anything else. In order for their to be consumption, including consumption of labor, there must be production.

 

those "jobs" that need "saved" existed before the economy turned south, yet didn't prevent it from turning south. Funny how that happens.

 

I see you missed Rapunzel's post (#285).

The ONLY reason the unemployment rate is dropping is because people are giving up looking for work.

In December 2008, the civilian labor force participation rate was 65.6%. Today it is 63.8%.

So, if the participation rate was the same - the unemployment rate would be 10.7%!!!

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps09adj.pdf

- Multiply the current civilian noninstitutional population 242,604 (all figures in 000's) by the participation rate of Dec. '08 (65.6%) and you get a total civilian labor force of 159,148.

- Take that number (159,148 ) and minus the present number of employed (142,034) and that leaves you with 17,114 unemployed.

- 17,114 is 10.7% of 159,148.

The unemployment rate would be 10.7%.


PLUS - despite the fact that there are over 8 million more Americans now then there was on Jan.1, 2009 - there are over 1.6 million less people employed.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/12/31/us-population-2009-305-million-and-counting

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html


Obama has not gotten America back to work.

All he has done is gotten more Americans to give up looking for work.

 

That's because at the slightest sign of danger, business people run around like chickens with their heads cutoff and only Superman Bernanke and his Masters of the Universe can save us.

 

It's happening while we type:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/1141...-pain-in-the-short-term-after-settlement.html

And housing starts have fallen even though permits are up. They got the permits and stopped short of starting them.:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/17/real_estate/housing-starts/index.htm

People don't know what to do under your wunderkind Comrade Obama.

 

Clarification like what? Would you prefer projections from the various statistical agencies or would you rather actually go into a depression so you could be sure?

Well the only real way to prove it is to have one, would you prefer that? That said there are a few stats that demonstrate the perilousness of our situation in 2008 that I could go into however its pretty clear that in fact since 2008 weve been across the world pretty near continuous negative growth territory for some time.

But perhaps we should just conclude that its finally been proven that tax cuts dont bring growth as the stimulus bill proved...right?

 

General motors are a fine car producer that deserves to be saved. And its you that expects efficiency, the government just wants to save jobs and american industry.

 

Because cheques arent guaranteed to be mostly spent, incomes are. Plus it keeps production facilities and supply chains in operation in readyness for increases in demand.

Saving jobs keeps production, the workers still work at doing what they do. Teachers still teach, builders still build, farmers farm. Money is wealth.

Moreover we are not discussing adding to the economy were discussing keeping it going.

Um no, of course not. Were not talking of morality, business outlooks may be irrational or wrong but it doesnt mean theres something wrong with the profit motive. Ive already explained that individually each business may be rational in pulling out of production while collectively businesses act with the same forethought as a stampede (how do stampedes usually work out?), but instead of hoarding cash they could be getting ready for the next upturn in order to make their shareholders real returns.

OK fair enough, nobody ever said it was, except the GOP who told us that increased deficits due to tax cuts would be ok because the tax cuts would cause growth. So what do you want then to get to production?

Indeed Ive just told you guys that he coined it. Whatever.

Could you please get the idea out of your head that government spending is meant to run an economy?

John Maynard Keynes advocated recession deficits only in order to keep the economy afloat while it works out its excess inventories and gets ready for more investment. He didnt mean, and libs dont mean and Obama doesnt mean for deficit spending to be engine of growth. Its only as a kickstart or like the small amount of power your engine needs to keep running while the car idles at the traffic lights before it accelerates again.

 

Huh?

You are proposing that workers keep building products that the public does not want?

What if the public never wants those products again?

You will have had millions/billions of taxpayer dollars going to propping up a company that is building things that no one will ever buy.


Yet, instead, those taxpayer dollars could go towards taxpayers buying what they wish, causing production of those items to grow, which causes more hiring's and so on.


It's funny how SO many people love the benefits of free enterprise when economies are booming - but go running to socialistic economies when things go bad.

It's like the masses are children that love to go out and play with there friends and don't want their parents around when they do...but when they fall and hurt themselves they go running home to Mommy as fast as they can.

 

Now where is your proof that had GM gone bankrupt that they would not just have been broken up and had the more profitable parts bought up by other Americans and ran at a profit.


You do realize that two of it's divisions - Pontiac and Saturn - had offers from Americans to buy them up and run them...but the government-owned GM said 'no'...so those divisions died and their thousands of jobs died with them.?

Plus - you also realize that the whole GM mess will cost American taxpayers well over $19 billion dollars practically no matter what?

'American taxpayers will lose about $14 billion on the $82 billion investment to restructure General Motors, Chrysler and Ally Financial, former auto czar Steven Rattner told the Detroit Economic Club....

...In addition, Rattner acknowledged in a recently published epilogue to his 2010 book, Overhaul, that about $19.4 billion that the government put into GM before the 2009 bankruptcy is "lost money."'

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...rysler-auto-bailout-loss-obama/1#.T5UN37POWSo


That is the money that the government simply gave to GM (without obligation to be re-paid) just to keep it afloat while bankruptcy proceedings were worked out.

Since there are now only about 68,000 U.S. GM employees now - that means the government lost $279,000 per employee.

And you call that a good deal for American taxpayers (I am quite sure you do)?

I don't.

 

And what factual evidence do you have that a depression would have resulted had the government not intervened?

obviously none.

And until you (and the other Keynesians get some) you can NEVER rightly claim that there would have been a depression.

All you can say is you think their would have - but you can NEVER know.

I don't give a rat's buttocks about tax cuts...I care ONLY about balancing the budget.

And the only proper way to do that is through cutting spending.

You only cut taxs once the budget has been balanced (imo).

I am NOT a believer in trickle down economics (reducing deficits through lowering taxs and expected growth to increase the government tax income).

It's been done to death...it doesn't work (usually).


The ONLY time I EVER agree with tax cuts without a corresponding decrease in spending is when it is an across the board tax cut that effects ALL classes to the same extent (if that is possible).