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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Iriemon, Apr 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you stating that the post recession spending and tax cuts has directly led to these poor results you mention?

    Surely by your own arguments tax cuts have always caused growth both in gdp and consequent revenues. Yet the last round of such has led to the opposite.
     
  2. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That to you constitutes proof to you? Your own unsupported, baseless, opinionated say so?

    Noted. And I stand by every one of my posts based you your level of proof against any "argument" you made as to proof.

    Have a great day.
     
  3. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've sat there for five pages, and rather than engage in one serious substantive discussion about anything I wrote, have blathered on and on about what "death" means and your silly levels or "proof," and demdanding yes or no answers to inane questions, and you have the gall to lecture me about "honest debating"?

    Dude, honestly, you are a sad characterization of your own claim.

    "Have a great day."
     
  4. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And STILL you refuse to answer my simple 'true of false' question with a 'true or false' answer.

    Noted.


    Enjoy your 'Obama is a gwate Pwesident' tantrum and your cocoa.
     
  5. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again;why would anyone consider a "Gallup poll" on unemployment accurate?

    The very month they claimed all of the "great numbers" about has been revised to be the WORST job and growth numbers in over FIVE months:


    Hiring by American employers trailed forecasts in March, casting doubt on the vigor of the more than two-year-old economic expansion.

    The 120,000 increase in payrolls reported by the Labor Department in Washington today was the smallest in five months and less than the most pessimistic estimate in a Bloomberg News survey of economists. The unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent as people left the labor force.

    Stock futures, the dollar and Treasury yields all fell as the report highlighted Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s concern that stronger economic growth is needed to keep the nation’s jobs engine humming. Today’s data also showed that Americans worked fewer hours and earned less on average per week, boding ill for the consumer spending that makes up 70 percent of the world’s largest economy
    .


    http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-dot-trail-most-pessimistic-forecasts-economy


    The entire "recovery " itself is in question, at this point...as , in addition to the actually QUITE DISMAL JOB NUMBERS, manufacturing and home sales are BOTH also stagnating.




    WASHINGTON (AP) — Momentum in U.S. hiring and home sales appears to be slowing, according to fresh data.

    The average number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits over the past month is at a three-month high. And fewer Americans bought previously owned homes in March after mild weather boosted sales in the previous two months.

    A possible weakening in two critical elements of the U.S. economy suggests growth could stay modest this year.

    "We are in for a few more quarters of moderate growth before stronger gains might appear," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. More hiring is needed to drive up wages and salaries and fuel the recovery, he added.

    The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications dipped last week by 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 386,000. But that was only after the department revised up the previous week's data to show 8,000 more people applied for benefits than first estimated
    .


    http://news.yahoo.com/momentum-us-hiring-home-sales-appears-slow-163109678--finance.html

    This is NOT GOOD NEWS, for any of us, and trying to pretend it is for political reasons is just asinine...
     
  6. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Post recession deficit spending? Yes (See the 1920/21 Depression).


    Tax cuts?

    Depends which tax cut; but generally - no.

    But tax cuts that increase the deficit are NEVER a good idea (imo) - except during a major declared war.
     
  7. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And your still playing your silly little grade school games as opposed to discussing the issues.

    Noted.
     
  8. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BS. "Factually prove" that post recession deficit spending directly led to these poor results you mentioned.
     
  9. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A number of our conservative friends have cited Gallup as a reliable alternative to the Government. Consmike immediately comes to mind but several others have as well.

    That has nothing to do with Gallup.

    120,000 new jobs created isn't great, but I wouldn't call it "dismal." "Dismal" might be the 700,000+ job that were being lost every month when Obama took office.
    This is NOT GOOD NEWS, for any of us, and trying to pretend it is for political reasons is just asinine...[/QUOTE]
     
  10. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And STILL he refuses to answer my simple 'true of false' question with either a 'true' or a 'false'.

    I give up...obviously (for some bizarre reason) he never will.

    So be it.
     
  11. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You refuse to answer my simple 'true or false' question with either a 'true' or a 'false' (yet claim you have) and I am supposed to answer your questions anyway?

    Okaaay.

    But I will anyway - it is impossible to factually prove what you ask.


    Have a more mature day.
     
  12. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So are you going to continue writing lies about me? Simple yes or no only please.

    Quite being such a child.
     
  13. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed? How? By what means?

    Wasnt this 20/21 example involving a housing crash or post some enormous war and triggered by the need to rein in inflation?

    So..you like tax cuts but not all tax cuts. Which ones?

    Have there ever been tax cuts that increased the deficit? Surely tax cuts release businesses and people to spend more and thus lead to increased revenues down the line? Isnt that what Reagan and Bush 2 taught us?
     
  14. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I do not wish to seem rude, but I have discussed this subject over and over and over since I started posting here.

    And I do not wish to get into it yet again...especially when it is not the specific topic of the thread.


    besides, I am not big on discussing theories.

    I AM big on posting/reading unbiased facts.

    And my basic point here is:

    Saddling Americans with over $7.5 trillion in extra debt over 4 years with the result being:

    - the work force is smaller
    - average home prices are lower
    - and more people are starving (on their own) then ever before?

    Do I consider that successful?


    Well, if the goal was to make most Americans worse off and more broke - then it was a raging success.

    But considering the goal (I assume) was the opposite; then my answer is 'no' - I do not personally consider all these trillions of dollars in debt spent to be 'successful'.



    Now if you have links to facts that prove anything I typed above is wrong (or right), I would be most interested in seeing them (as I am always looking to learn more about economics).

    But if a philosophical debate is what you wish, there are others on here that seemingly are far more interested in that angle (I only pursued the above with Iriemon due to our 'history'...one which I am seriously tiring of).


    For the record, I think both parties suck and every President since at least Nixon were gigantic overall failures because (among MANY other reasons) none of them could balance the budgets during their term. And the one that sort-of could - Clinton - was a colossal coward for letting 800,000 Rwandans hack each other to death while he sat back and watched).
     
  15. theunbubba

    theunbubba Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    17,889
    Likes Received:
    307
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Don't worry Iriemon, the new wave of foreclosures will bring the rate back up before the election. The base can come in and vote for Americas destruction.

    America is resilient. President Romney will be able to fix it well enough to survive.
     
  16. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LMAO! Now that is cute. You run around demanding "factual proof" from others at to what they argue, but when your opinionated, unsupported so-called "facts" are challenged, instead of proving your own claims by "factual proof," you demand factual proof from others that your own statement is wrong!

    It's easy to "win" arguments when you can apply completely different standards to others than you apply to yourself. :D
     
  17. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Been hearing that for a couple years no, so 'scuze me if I don't hold my breath.
     
  18. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,626
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you're asking about graduates under 35 that about 80% for Obama.

    Ouch!
     
  19. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe before; that was THEN and THIS is NOW....
     
  20. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was Bush who signed the bill authorizing huge death benefits for the families of slain soldiers, as well as the Hubbard Act. They made it more expensive to lose troops than to keep them alive.

    The war is immoral, but it seems to me that you'd have more reason to cheer the death of soldiers, since it leads to the release of funds which families then spend, thus benefiting, according to your voodoo economics, the economy.
     
  21. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fallacies in your position, from just a quick read, is a) your assertion that saving jobs is automatically good for the economy, and b) that it's a rational argument to declare that the problem is people acting irrationally out of an unmeasurable component of "fear". Business owners react rationally to uncertainty by taking the steps necessary to eliminate undue risk. Your "death spiral" nonsense is just voodoo economics intended to get more government intervention and is otherwise meaningless.
     
  22. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0


    This is an interesting post DA60 that deserves some attention. Further you may be mistaken but your view and comments are reasonable and well put.

    The trouble with your comments is the premise that there is a direct relation between the extra debt and the lack of work, low prices for homes and increased starvation.

    For example, the extra debt may well have been a vital factor in preventing the things you mention getting much worse such as by ensuring that states could continue to run basic services and individuals could receive tax holidays to help their consuming in tougher times.

    By that we would have to conclude that it was indeed successful. Moreover since you obviously like tax cuts you surely would approve of the basic unbiased fact of the stimulus tax cuts would you not?


    Indeed, I think ill just stick with the basic unbaised fact that Mr Obama is a tax cutter not a tax raiser.

    My apologies if my comments seemed 'philosophical', I assumed they were simple historical analysis.


    Hmm by that I would guess your favourite president was Eisenhower. Then of course Clinton, you really shouldnt get so hyped about rwandans, every president in office has presided over massacres going on somewhere in the world - and we euros didnt do much either, it was all a bit too fast.
     
  23. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    a/ Whats wrong with saving jobs?

    b/ Indeed business owners act rationally to poor environments by not investing. However, the psychology os crowds is not necessarily rational. Much as a stampede is irrational.

    c/ The death spiral refers to the mass panic of a crash, this has happened numerous times every business cycle to varying degrees. It is not voodoo economics.

    d/ Voodoo economics refers to supply side nonsense most right wingers today aspire to and was so named by none other than G H W Bush.
     
  24. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have no favorite POTUS - they were all (that I mentioned) wastes of time while in office.

    And BS that Rwanda happened 'a bit too fast'.

    'Bill Clinton and his administration allowed the genocide of 500,000 to 800,000 people in Rwanda in 1994. In a clear effort to avoid responsibility and embarrassment, the Clinton administration has refused to acknowledge its role in failing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. This allegation comes from the recent report released in July by a panel affiliated with the Organization for African Unity (OAU).'

    http://www.projectcensored.org/top-...-blames-us-and-others-for-genocide-in-rwanda/




    'UNITED NATIONS (AP) - In a scathing indictment of the failure to halt the worst genocide since World War II, an international panel on Friday blamed the U.N. Security Council, the United States, France and the Catholic Church for failing to prevent the slaughter of more than 500,000 Rwandans.

    The seven-member panel created by the Organization of African Unity called for the international community - especially those countries that failed to prevent or help stop the 1994 genocide - to pay reparations to Rwanda "in the name of both justice and accountability."

    The 90-day genocide, orchestrated by a small group of Hutu extremists against the Tutsi minority, followed a mysterious plane crash that killed Rwanda's President Juvenal Habyari-mana. More than half a million Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus were killed in the slaughter, which ended when Tutsi-led rebels defeated the Hutu extremists in July 1994.

    The OAU report is harsh in assessing blame, repudiating France's contention that it bears no responsibility for the genocide and President Clinton's insistence that the United States failed to act because of ignorance.

    "A small number of major actors could directly have prevented, halted, or reduced the slaughter. They include France in Rwanda itself; the U.S. at the Security Council; Belgium, whose soldiers knew they could save countless lives if they were allowed to remain in the country; and Rwanda's church leaders," the report said.

    At a news conference launching the 318-page report, former Canadian ambassador and panel member Stephen Lewis said the United States knew exactly what was going on - but blocked the Security Council from deploying an effective U.N. force because it had lost 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia five months earlier and didn't want to become embroiled in Africa again.

    "It's simply beyond belief that because of Somalia hundreds of thousands of Rwandans needlessly lost their lives," he said. "I don't know how Madeleine Albright lives with it." At the time, the U.S. secretary of state was America's ambassador to the United Nations.'

    http://amarillo.com/stories/070800/usn_LA0684.shtml



    Clinton is a scumbag for what he let happen.

    Not maybe, not possibly, not probably...100% for certain.

    PERIOD.

    Now back to the topic...
     
  25. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    We can guess until the cows come home what the economy would look like without the trillions spent.


    All I know (on this) is that over the last roughly 4 years, $7.5 trillion in debt burden were added to Americans. And most of that debt was designed to directly assist the economy.

    And what is the economy like today compared to roughly 4 years ago?

    - the work force has shrank (despite the population growing by over 10 million people)
    - the average house is worth substantially less
    - and FAR more Americans are starving (on their own) then ever before

    That sounds like a failure to me.


    And I think if you had asked most Americans 4 years ago:

    'Hey, we want to give each of you $25,000 more federal debt. And in return for that money, we can guarantee you that in 4 years time that less people will be in the work force, your houses will be worth much less and way more of you will be on food stamps then ever before?

    Does that sound like money well spent to you?'

    I am guessing most would say 'no'.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page