PDA

View Full Version : Lower taxes equal more jobs.



Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:06 PM
Then what happened under Bush, he forced the largest tax cut in history on the nation and job creation totally collapsed.

There goes that theory. We just went through that experiment.

EVERYTIME the GOP come to office they cut taxes, and job creation collapses. This is a fact.

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:07 PM
Then what happened under Bush, he forced the largest tax cut in history on the nation and job creation totally collapsed.

There goes that theory. We just went through that experiment.

EVERYTIME the GOP come to office they cut taxes, and job creation collapses. This is a fact.

Show us some source material on that.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:08 PM
Show us some source material on that.

You JUST posted in the thread with the bureau of labor stats. Next time try reading, and if you can't read, I posted pictures.

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:08 PM
Show us some source material on that.

he won't because he can't. He is unable to produce any kind of factual evidence to support his claims. HELL I'm willing to wager that he can't even produce pubes yet.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:11 PM
he won't because he can't. He is unable to produce any kind of factual evidence to support his claims. HELL I'm willing to wager that he can't even produce pubes yet.

I posted the Bureau of Labor stats that are on their website.

Are those numbers accurate ? ...or should I call Glen Beck ?

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:14 PM
he won't because he can't. He is unable to produce any kind of factual evidence to support his claims. HELL I'm willing to wager that he can't even produce pubes yet.

One of those....hokay. I know what to do with them.

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:15 PM
I posted the Bureau of Labor stats that are on their website.

Are those numbers accurate ? ...or should I call Glen Beck ?


Oh lovely - so instead of posting evidence to support your claim you'd rather engage in logical fallacies? No one mentioned Glenn Beck and no one is using him to back up their claims - introducing him into the argument as you have is a combination of a red herring with a strawman as well as a twist of argument by ridicule. Instead of behaving like a child, why not post evidence to support your false claims?

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:16 PM
Oh lovely - so instead of posting evidence to support your claim you'd rather engage in logical fallacies? No one mentioned Glenn Beck and no one is using him to back up their claims - introducing him into the argument as you have is a combination of a red herring with a strawman as well as a twist of argument by ridicule. Instead of behaving like a child, why not post evidence to support your false claims?

So you reject the Bureau of Labor Stats ?

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:17 PM
If lower taxes mean more jobs.

Then what happened under Bush ?

Anybody ?

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:19 PM
So you reject the Bureau of Labor Stats ?

Depends on their claims and what evidence they use to support their claims. Post a like and lets take a look.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:23 PM
Depends on their claims and what evidence they use to support their claims. Post a like and lets take a look.

More like if their numbers fit your reality.

They have been around for more than a week. If you haven't taken a look at them by now, then you cannot be helped.

You are debating job creation and have never looked at the Bureau of Labor statistics ? ...LOL , What a hoot.

Then to demand I hold your hand and walk you through how job creation is calculated is totally laughable.

Go infomr yourself and get back to me.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:25 PM
I see that nobody has an answer.

If lower taxes mean more jobs, then what happened under Bush ?

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 01:26 PM
omally and policon:

http://www.americaforpurchase.com/wp-content/uploads/job_creation.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mupm2BmIjtc/S7ZwZRn4mFI/AAAAAAAALQY/9adN70fVUAU/s1600/chart+jobs.jpg

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:27 PM
More like if their numbers fit your reality.

They have been around for more than a week. If you haven't taken a look at them by now, then you cannot be helped.

You are debating job creation and have never looked at the Bureau of Labor statistics ? ...LOL , What a hoot.

Then to demand I hold your hand and walk you through how job creation is calculated is totally laughable.

Go infomr yourself and get back to me.

Been around where? You made an OP and even the most wet behind the ears n00b knows that when you make an OP and make a claim in you offer evidence to support your claim IN THE OP. Make your claim and we'll discuss it. I will NOT do your work for you.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:28 PM
They saw that. And now they reject the Bureau of Labor Stats and the US Treasury.

Talk about a brainwash.

That guy larcernut told me job creation has gotten worse since Obama took office. The facts clearly show us this isn't true, yet they 'stay the course' and hold onto these lies. Can you explain this ?

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:29 PM
omally and policon:

http://www.americaforpurchase.com/wp-content/uploads/job_creation.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mupm2BmIjtc/S7ZwZRn4mFI/AAAAAAAALQY/9adN70fVUAU/s1600/chart+jobs.jpg

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf


And what is the source of these graphs? I'm just supposed to accept these graphs because they say that they are based on the Bureau of Labor statistics? :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 01:30 PM
And what is the source of these graphs? I'm just supposed to accept these graphs because they say that they are based on the Bureau of Labor statistics? :rolleyes:

there's a link there.

haha you're going to literally play dumb no matter what is shown

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:31 PM
there's a link there.

haha you're going to literally play dumb no matter what is shown

Those graphs are not from that link. That link is a PDF. You cannot lift graphs directly from a PDF. So I ask again - what is the source of those graphs?

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:32 PM
And what is the source of these graphs? I'm just supposed to accept these graphs because they say that they are based on the Bureau of Labor statistics? :rolleyes:

That second graph is accurate. The economy is no longer bleeding jobs.

It's merely in a coma with no end in sight.

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 01:33 PM
Those graphs are not from that link.

they are from data that the link reconfirms.

visit the Bureau of labor website, all the data is widely available for anyone.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:33 PM
haha you're going to literally play dumb no matter what is shown

Oh ...she's not playing , this shit is for real.

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:38 PM
they are from data that the link reconfirms.

visit the Bureau of labor website, all the data is widely available for anyone.

That does not answer my question. What is the source of the graphs posted? I'm not doing your work for you. If you want to have an argument, it is on YOU to make your claims and prove them - not me. It is on me to challenge your claims, your sources, etc as you attempt to make your case.

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:42 PM
The lower 47% of wage earners pay no Federal income taxes at all. What more do you want?

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 01:42 PM
That does not answer my question. What is the source of the graphs posted? I'm not doing your work for you. If you want to have an argument, it is on YOU to make your claims and prove them - not me. It is on me to challenge your claims, your sources, etc as you attempt to make your case.

the source is listed on the graph fool.

just because you're not being spoon-fed pages of data statistics (as i've done before, which you ignore), doesn't change it.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:44 PM
the source is listed on the graph fool.

just because you're not being spoon-fed pages of data statistics (as i've done before, which you ignore), doesn't change it.

Why would you continue to do that.

This isn't debate. Debate is laying on the floor next to logic, they have been shot in the face by the CU

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:45 PM
Why would you continue to do that.

This isn't debate. Debate is laying on the floor next to logic, they have been shot in the face by the CU

Why are you here?

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:46 PM
the source is listed on the graph fool.

just because you're not being spoon-fed pages of data statistics (as i've done before, which you ignore), doesn't change it.


No actually it's not. The graphs claim that the source of their INFO is the Bureau of Labor Statistics - but that is not who MADE THE GRAPHS. Who made the graphs wee wee? Moveon.org? The DNC? Who made the graphs??

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:46 PM
Why are you here?

Mommy grounded him from Xbox live.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:48 PM
Mommy grounded him from Xbox live.

How about answering the question ?

If lower taxes mean more jobs then what happened under Bush ?

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:50 PM
How about answering the question ?

If lower taxes mean more jobs then what happened under Bush ?I'll start answering your questions when you meet the burden of proof and start supporting your claims with some sort of verifiable evidence.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 03:08 PM
I'll start answering your questions when you meet the burden of proof and start supporting your claims with some sort of verifiable evidence.

The proof ?

The Bush administration cut taxes , we agree on that.

The job market collapsed, we can also agree on that.

So what should I prove ?

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 03:10 PM
The proof ?

The Bush administration cut taxes , we agree on that.

The job market collapsed, we can also agree on that.

So what should I prove ?

What caused the job market to collapse? Seems to me that everything was going well until the dems took control of congress.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 03:14 PM
What caused the job market to collapse? Seems to me that everything was going well until the dems took control of congress.

What did the dems make Bush do that he didn't want to ?

I dare you to answer.

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 03:16 PM
What did the dems make Bush do that he didn't want to ?

I dare you to answer.


You seem to be operating under the assumption that the president is akin to a king. He's not.

Lager
07-16-2010, 03:26 PM
The proof ?

The Bush administration cut taxes , we agree on that.

The job market collapsed, we can also agree on that.



Okay genius, explain the connection between those two statements. Explain with your brilliance how the first, caused the second. I will wait long enough for you to scour your bookmarked lefty websites for the appropriate talking points, quotes, opinions etc. Hopefully one of them have discussed it before, so you won't be at a loss for words.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 03:35 PM
Okay genius, explain the connection between those two statements. Explain with your brilliance how the first, caused the second. I will wait long enough for you to scour your bookmarked lefty websites for the appropriate talking points, quotes, opinions etc. Hopefully one of them have discussed it before, so you won't be at a loss for words.


The claim by the right wing, and the topic of this thread is ..

If lower taxes means more jobs(like the GOP claim) ...then what happened under Bush ?

He forced through the largest tax cut in the history of the planet earth.

And what happened to the job market ?

http://www.perrspectives.com/images/bush_job_growth_record.JPG

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 03:37 PM
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the president is akin to a king. He's not.

I guess I will ask again.

What did the dems do to make the economy crash ?

Like you would ever answer. Don't answer this and we are done.

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 03:45 PM
Don't answer this and we are done.:eek: PROMISE???? You expect me to answer based on the threat that you will stop talking to me?? :rolleyes: If you care to change you stance and ask politely - we can continue.

Zathras
07-16-2010, 03:50 PM
I guess I will ask again.

What did the dems do to make the economy crash ?

Like you would ever answer. Don't answer this and we are done.

Yes, you are done...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Molon Labe
07-16-2010, 04:00 PM
Government Jobs Don't Cure Depression (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10063)
by Jim Powell



I have very much enjoyed participating in these debates with Conrad Black. He expresses his views forcefully and with conviction, so our exchanges are always lively. They help call attention to ideas that seem to drive Obama-administration policies. I'm surprised at some of the positions he takes and expect that there must be more common ground than appears to be the case.

Black's most important claim is that FDR got America out of the Great Depression. High unemployment is the main reason that period is referred to as the Great Depression, and Black claims that FDR eliminated unemployment by putting as many people as possible in government jobs. (FDR probably emphasized government jobs over outright welfare to make recipients feel better about themselves, and to make taxpayers feel less resentful that welfare spending was a key reason that the New Deal tripled taxes.)

Constitutionally Speaking
07-16-2010, 04:15 PM
I guess I will ask again.

What did the dems do to make the economy crash ?

Like you would ever answer. Don't answer this and we are done.

They prevented a sane energy policy, they prevented oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, - shall I continue???

Molon Labe
07-16-2010, 04:16 PM
They prevented a sane energy policy, they prevented oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, - shall I continue???

Sure..

They just continued the pain by passing health care which will help continue the bankruptcy.

malloc
07-16-2010, 04:24 PM
I've posted this before in the other retarded thread these moonbats started, but I'll just reiterate it here.

Your assumption that the Bush tax cuts didn't spur employment growth is a lie.




Real GDP Growth
From the first quarter of 2001 through the fourth quarter of 2005, the U.S. economy expanded at an average annualized rate of 2.6 percent. The United States ranked first among its peer group in real GDP growth.


Investment in Fixed Assets
From 2001 to 2005, gross investment in fixed assets as a percent of GDP rose in Canada and the United States, but fell in the European Union and Japan. Overall, the United States ranked second in the increase in gross investment in fixed assets as a percent of GDP. In the United States, gross investment in fixed assets as percent of GDP was trending down through the first quarter of 2003. However, this trend reversed after policymakers lowered the maximum federal tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15 percent in May 2003.


Employment and Unemployment
From January 2001 through December 2005, the United States ranked second in employment growth in both absolute and percentage terms. In the United States, employment grew by 5.165 million or 3.8 percent. Canada ranked first in percentage growth at 9.3 percent (total increase 1.383 million) while the European Union-15 ranked first in total increase at 5.715 million (3.4 percent). In Japan, however, total employment fell by 1.210 million or 1.9 percent.
In December 2005, the U.S. had an unemployment rate of 4.9 percent, the second lowest among its peer group. Japan’s unemployment rate was slightly lower at 4.4 percent, but the European Union-25’s unemployment rate was significantly higher at 8.5 percent.

The Full Report. (http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf)


Then there's this, Ten Myths About The Bush Tax Cuts (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts)



Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.


Wow, the OP and wee wee are really out in the stupid today aren't they?

Constitutionally Speaking
07-16-2010, 04:37 PM
Sure..

They just continued the pain by passing health care which will help continue the bankruptcy.

Oh trust me, I could go on for days on how the Democrats have destroyed this economy.

Increasing the CAFE standards is a very recent example.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 04:40 PM
They prevented a sane energy policy, they prevented oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, - shall I continue???

The energy policy happened before they took power, it was created in the 'Cheney task force'

Are you now implying the GOP was 'overseeing fannie and freddy and the Dems prevented them from doing it ?

Thats a hoot.

malloc
07-16-2010, 04:46 PM
The energy policy happened before they took power, it was created in the 'Cheney task force'

Are you now implying the GOP was 'overseeing fannie and freddy and the Dems prevented them from doing it ?

Thats a hoot.

That's exactly what happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Molon Labe
07-16-2010, 04:46 PM
The energy policy happened before they took power, it was created in the 'Cheney task force'

Are you now implying the GOP was 'overseeing fannie and freddy and the Dems prevented them from doing it ?

Thats a hoot.

You're a "trees" type person aren't you? Try focusing on the Forest... I.E. The System.

It's the system that's rotten.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-16-2010, 05:01 PM
The energy policy happened before they took power, it was created in the 'Cheney task force'

IT WAS BLOCKED from DAY ONE of the Bush administration! Liberal Republicans and the Democrats prevented us from drilling where we should, refining as much as we needed, insisted on "botique fuels" and teamed up with liberal environmentalists to stall and block various energy sources via the court system.



Are you now implying the GOP was 'overseeing fannie and freddy and the Dems prevented them from doing it ?

Thats a hoot.


It is also the truth.

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 05:38 PM
You're a "trees" type person aren't you? Try focusing on the Forest... I.E. The System.

It's the system that's rotten.

nah - he's a weeds type person. He's too busy smoking it to see either the trees or the forest. ;)

lacarnut
07-16-2010, 05:53 PM
The energy policy happened before they took power, it was created in the 'Cheney task force'

Are you now implying the GOP was 'overseeing fannie and freddy and the Dems prevented them from doing it ?

Thats a hoot.

What is a hoot is that you lie just like Obummer.

Democrats initiated and stole, pillaged and robbed the Social Security Trust fund by transferring withholding taxes into the general fund which were then spent. Repubs did not stop it when they came to power either. If these funds had been invested, we would not have entitlement programs taking such a big bite out of the budget. Once again, the Democrats started this stupidity. That is a fact which you can not deny, barr none.

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 06:12 PM
No actually it's not. The graphs claim that the source of their INFO is the Bureau of Labor Statistics - but that is not who MADE THE GRAPHS. Who made the graphs wee wee? Moveon.org? The DNC? Who made the graphs??

The data is from the Bureau of Labor statistics, literally anyone can get on the site and see the data for themselves.

Also literally anyone can get that data, which is easily verifiable, and plug it into Excel and get a graph that's easy to analyze.

Even if Adolf Satan Stalin Fidel Vader was the person to make the graph, as long as the data is accurate according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, then the graph is fine.

Data is data, do you really believe that the secondary source of valid data invalidates the data? Even if all the data is kept the same? Just because you dislike who reports the data?

WHO MADE THE GRAPHS?!?!?

it doesn't matter fool.

What matters is:

What is the source of the data?

asdf2231
07-16-2010, 06:13 PM
The data is from the Bureau of Labor statistics, literally anyone can get on the site and see the data for themselves.

Also literally anyone can get that data, which is easily verifiable, and plug it into Excel and get a graph that's easy to analyze.

Even if Adolf Satan Stalin Fidel Vader was the person to make the graph, as long as the data is accurate according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, then the graph is fine.

Data is data, do you really believe that the secondary source of valid data invalidates the data? Even if all the data is kept the same? Just because you dislike who reports the data?

WHO MADE THE GRAPHS?!?!?

it doesn't matter fool.

What matters is:

What is the source of the data?

Garbage IN Garbage OUT. Jackass.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 06:14 PM
IT WAS BLOCKED from DAY ONE of the Bush administration! Liberal Republicans and the Democrats prevented us from drilling where we should,.

So, just because we couln't expand offshore drilling, the economy crashed ?

Not only do people like you think we can drill our way to energy independence, but we can also drill our way out of a recession ?

Is there anything drilling for oil can't do ?

Do you even understand that if it was blocked from day one, it was the GOP who was blocking it ? ...since the GOP owned congress ?

Jeeesh, learn some history and get back to me.

asdf2231
07-16-2010, 06:19 PM
So, just because we couln't expand offshore drilling, the economy crashed ?

Not only do people like you think we can drill our way to energy independence, but we can also drill our way out of a recession ?

Is there anything drilling for oil can't do ?

Do you even understand that if it was blocked from day one, it was the GOP who was blocking it ? ...since the GOP owned congress ?

Jeeesh, learn some history and get back to me.

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z44/c15k0/wharrgarbl.jpg

Hawkgirl
07-16-2010, 06:19 PM
The economy crashed because of of the Community Reinvestment act that was initiated by Carter. Look it up and see why we are seeing the results of that disaster now.

malloc
07-16-2010, 06:39 PM
What is the source of the data?


Therein lies the rub as they say. One must understand the data backing the graph.

Here's the graph.

http://www.perrspectives.com/images/bush_job_growth_record.JPG

Here's the relevant data backing the graph from Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1940 to date (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf)

Year Unemployment Rate
1999 4.2 <- IT Bubble
2000 4.0 <- IT Bubble Crash
2001 4.7 <- IT Bubble Aftermath
2002 5.8 <- IT Bubble Aftermath
2003 6.0 <- Bush Tax Cuts
2004 5.5 <- Recovery Begins After Tax Break
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8 <-- Finanical Crisis
2009 9.3

What this shows is that Bush inherited a unemployment rate lower than it had been since the '40's. This is what economists call full employment. Meaning workers that wants jobs can find them. How then is a President supposed to "create jobs", which governments can't do in reality, when full employment is already reached?

Then the dot-com bubble, and associated aftermath happened, and unemployment began to rise. The Bush Tax cuts went into effect dropping unemployment back to near full-employment levels. So, despite the financial meltdown, Bush did O.K. at putting people back to work after a crisis. Obama on the other hand is still in the hole with -3.5% employment growth. Obama would be below the line on that graph.

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 08:05 PM
What this shows is that Bush inherited a unemployment rate lower than it had been since the '40's. This is what economists call full employment. Meaning workers that wants jobs can find them. How then is a President supposed to "create jobs", which governments can't do in reality, when full employment is already reached?

So we have to take into consideration the state of the economy that they inherited? Makes sense. I suppose since the government can't "create jobs" in reality, and Obama took office with over 700 thousand jobs per month being lost, this slowing job loss and current slight gains sounds like a pretty great recovery so far, givin that it still has a while to go after such a economic crisis.




Then the dot-com bubble, and associated aftermath happened, and unemployment began to rise.

Could you elaborate on your interpretation of the dot com bubble and it's effects?


The Bush Tax cuts went into effect dropping unemployment back to near full-employment levels. So, despite the financial meltdown, Bush did O.K. at putting people back to work after a crisis.

Yes, despite the meltdown. Let's just not consider that we nearly ended up in great depression II. The entire time Bush was in office, especially towards the very end, the top 5% and 1% especially saw sharp increases.

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 08:10 PM
Therein lies the rub as they say. One must understand the data backing the graph.

Here's the graph.

http://www.perrspectives.com/images/bush_job_growth_record.JPG

Here's the relevant data backing the graph from Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1940 to date (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf)

Year Unemployment Rate
1999 4.2 <- IT Bubble
2000 4.0 <- IT Bubble Crash
2001 4.7 <- IT Bubble Aftermath
2002 5.8 <- IT Bubble Aftermath
2003 6.0 <- Bush Tax Cuts
2004 5.5 <- Recovery Begins After Tax Break
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8 <-- Finanical Crisis
2009 9.3

What this shows is that Bush inherited a unemployment rate lower than it had been since the '40's. This is what economists call full employment. Meaning workers that wants jobs can find them. How then is a President supposed to "create jobs", which governments can't do in reality, when full employment is already reached?

Then the dot-com bubble, and associated aftermath happened, and unemployment began to rise. The Bush Tax cuts went into effect dropping unemployment back to near full-employment levels. So, despite the financial meltdown, Bush did O.K. at putting people back to work after a crisis. Obama on the other hand is still in the hole with -3.5% employment growth. Obama would be below the line on that graph.

You left 9/11 and Katrina out of your time line. Correct for 9/11 and Katrina and you find a totally different picture.

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 08:14 PM
The data is from the Bureau of Labor statistics, literally anyone can get on the site and see the data for themselves.

Also literally anyone can get that data, which is easily verifiable, and plug it into Excel and get a graph that's easy to analyze.
if you make the claim - the burden of proof is on Y. O. U. - YOU. I'm not about to do your work for you. You lefties are all the same. You're lazy in life and want to take from other peoples hard earned incomes and appropriated money to yourselves through entitlements - and now you want the same thing in debates? Sorry. Not gonna happen. You do you own damn work.




Even if Adolf Satan Stalin Fidel Vader was the person to make the graph, as long as the data is accurate according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, then the graph is fine. rotfl! So in your world - the BLS is infallible? :rolleyes:


Data is data, do you really believe that the secondary source of valid data invalidates the data? Even if all the data is kept the same? Just because you dislike who reports the data?Data is easily manipulated as your graphs show.




WHO MADE THE GRAPHS?!?!?

it doesn't matter fool.

What matters is:

What is the source of the data?Sure it matters - if it didn't matter you would have supplied the source by now. :rolleyes:

Lager
07-16-2010, 08:21 PM
The dot.com bubble is a period of economic activity during the mid nineties to around 2001. The ascension and development of the internet opened up a multitude of new business and investment opportunities. Technological innovations were happening so fast, that a fierce demand was created for the latest electronics. An increase in productivity meant that companies could keep prices low on products and still make profits. Unemployment was low and spending was rising. If I recall correctly, interest rates were still fairly low as well.

Speculation caused prices of stocks of internet or internet related companies like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay etc to rise to unprecedented, and some would say, unjustified levels. The paper value of investment portfolios, and 401ks caused a sense of wealth which fueled consumer spending even higher. The baby boomers were pouring taxes into the general fund for Social Security, which led to brief surpluses. The fact that there were no major wars, and that the cold war was over probably helped a bit as well. The Y2K scare that foretold massive problems when the calender clicked over was also a factor in the employment picture as many computer experts were hired by companies worried about their systems crashing.

Like all bubbles though, this one had to pop. Stocks could not sustain their remarkable levels and toward the end of Clinton's term, sharply fell back to more reasonable valuations. Spending began to slow, and pretty soon....Bob's your uncle.... everything that usually happens when these bubbles burst began to ensue.

malloc
07-16-2010, 08:23 PM
So we have to take into consideration the state of the economy that they inherited? Makes sense. I suppose since the government can't "create jobs" in reality, and Obama took office with over 700 thousand jobs per month being lost, this slowing job loss and current slight gains sounds like a pretty great recovery so far, givin that it still has a while to go after such a economic crisis.

Believing Obama, his Administration or Congress are the cause of the job loss rate slowing is a logical fallacy in and of itself. This belief asserts that because A happened before B, then A caused B, which simply isn't true. One must look at specific policies and their impacts on the data. For instance, there is a steady chain of events from the Bush Tax Cuts after the IT Bust that directly links a growing economy to lower unemployment.

Yes, the state of the economy when it is inherited, boom or bust in the business cycle, must be taken into account. I don't think anyone here is blaming the Obama administration for the economy he inherited. The accusations stem from policies that are slowing or preventing recovery. The slowdown in the unemployment rate is not an indicator of recovery, it's an indicator of bottoming out. Where we go after we bottom out will be the test of Obama.






Could you elaborate on your interpretation of the dot com bubble and it's effects?


Not really much to say. There are a billion papers on it on the internet. Simply put it's a pretty simple boom to bust cycle under ABCT. Cheap, easy credit leads to malinvestment, etc. etc.



Yes, despite the meltdown. Let's just not consider that we nearly ended up in great depression II.


This statement has been and still is nothing more than an Appeal to Fear. We can only speculate what might had happened had it not been for TARP, To Big To Fail, etc. To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that had Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations taken a more laissez-faire approach, and let failing entities fail, the recovery would be well underway today, instead of beginning to bottom out.



The entire time Bush was in office, especially towards the very end, the top 5% and 1% especially saw sharp increases.

I don't really care what kind of "increases" the wealth saw. I care more about the historical reasons for these increases in the hopes that I can emulate them within my own portfolio.

malloc
07-16-2010, 08:24 PM
You left 9/11 and Katrina out of your time line. Correct for 9/11 and Katrina and you find a totally different picture.

DOH! And I said I'd never forget.....

Really, I was just looking at the raw data and cross referencing it with purely financial knowns, not events. How un-Austrian of me! :eek:

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 08:48 PM
if you make the claim - the burden of proof is on Y. O. U. - YOU. I'm not about to do your work for you.

It's not my job to teach you. No one is negotiating with you either. Some people post facts and also sources to use by anyone to verify facts. These aren't opinions or arguments, they are just data trends, there's nothing to justify with anything more than a source.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.


You lefties are all the same.

Here comes the pep rally....


You're lazy in life and want to take from other peoples hard earned incomes and appropriated money to yourselves through entitlements - and now you want the same thing in debates? Sorry. Not gonna happen. You do you own damn work.
rotfl! So in your world - the BLS is infallible? :rolleyes:
Data is easily manipulated as your graphs show.

Sure it matters - if it didn't matter you would have supplied the source by now. :rolleyes:

Yes I want to take allll youur monneyyy. that's exactly what I want oh man just think of many cool things i could buy..

That chart has been shown in many articles on the internet and also on cable news networks, and the source cited backs it up with the numbers.

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 09:01 PM
Believing Obama, his Administration or Congress are the cause of the job loss rate slowing is a logical fallacy in and of itself. This belief asserts that because A happened before B, then A caused B, which simply isn't true. One must look at specific policies and their impacts on the data. For instance, there is a steady chain of events from the Bush Tax Cuts after the IT Bust that directly links a growing economy to lower unemployment.

Yes that's exactly right, correlation does not imply causation. So congress passed stimulus bills and economic reform bills, and the economy got better. Are they related? Well we can never know for sure.

The same applies for Bush's policies and the events that followed.


Yes, the state of the economy when it is inherited, boom or bust in the business cycle, must be taken into account. I don't think anyone here is blaming the Obama administration for the economy he inherited. The accusations stem from policies that are slowing or preventing recovery. The slowdown in the unemployment rate is not an indicator of recovery, it's an indicator of bottoming out. Where we go after we bottom out will be the test of Obama.

So Obama and Congress pass legislation when they enter office and a couple more times later on. The job losses slow down considerably, and eventually even out towards small growth. The relationship between Obama's actions and the economy can be either:

A. The policies helped cause and/or expedite the recovery. (net positive value)
B. The policies had no effect on the recovery. (or neutral effect)
C. The policies have slowed or minimized the recovery. (net negative value)

Hmm...

For what reason are we to think C is the most likely, with that reason also being able to consistently apply to Bush's evaluation?



Not really much to say. There are a billion papers on it on the internet. Simply put it's a pretty simple boom to bust cycle under ABCT. Cheap, easy credit leads to malinvestment, etc. etc.

Oh I was just curious to see you describe what aspects of the dot com bubble affected the economy and in what way.



This statement has been and still is nothing more than an Appeal to Fear. We can only speculate what might had happened had it not been for TARP, To Big To Fail, etc. To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that had Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations taken a more laissez-faire approach, and let failing entities fail, the recovery would be well underway today, instead of beginning to bottom out.

Lol okay fair enough we can't say for sure what might have happened.

I'm curious though, how might those major financial institutions failing have lead to increased jobs today?




I don't really care what kind of "increases" the wealth saw. I care more about the historical reasons for these increases in the hopes that I can emulate them within my own portfolio.

Bahahaha. Okay go buy yourself a few senators, shift your assets overseas to avoid taxes, and gamble on the failure of assets that you control (consequences for everyone else be damned).

Good luck man hope you make it big.

malloc
07-16-2010, 09:52 PM
Yes that's exactly right, correlation does not imply causation. So congress passed stimulus bills and economic reform bills, and the economy got better. Are they related? Well we can never know for sure.

The same applies for Bush's policies and the events that followed.


We can know for sure. Simply look at a compilation of key economic indicators from 2004 until 2007, before the financial crisis. This data clearly trends 3 important things that happened after the tax cut. First, and most obvious, personal disposable income per house hold increased. Second, consumption increased driving market demand. Third, savings increased, providing market capital. So the money the government didn't take in the form of tax breaks was either used to purchase goods or put into savings. Seems obvious doesn't it? That's because it is obvious. From here, we can see how this extra demand and capital effected private business.

Now, the not so obvious. At this same time, the data shows corporate profits increased substantially, but at the same time, so did undistributed profits. This can mean one of two things. Corporations are expecting to incur risk, so they are saving for a rainy day, or corporations are expanding or reinvesting. So, we go to unemployment data. During this same time period, unemployment rates were falling. That indicates businesses were using the undistributed profits to expand.

Fast forward to the middle of '07, and we can see that corporate profits, as well as personal income was way up. Unemployment still wasn't at 2000 levels, but it was low enough to almost be considered full employment. Business were still investing in expansion, and even government revenues were up 25% or so due to increased salaries, full employment, high corporate profits, and tariffs on imports.

From this data, we can conclude that the lower tax rates led to an expansion of capital and demand, which drove an expansion of industry, which in turn led to more government revenues and positive economic growth. However at this same time, we had the real estate bubble forming and the inflation of this bubble helps to increase the aggregate trend, but it did not create the trend. The trend would have existed with smaller monetary amounts had the housing bubble not been inflating. We know this because we can map this same trend with real estate and hosing sectors removed, and the upturn survives.

By the way here (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/indicators/index.html) is a great one stop shop for this sort of data.



So Obama and Congress pass legislation when they enter office and a couple more times later on. The job losses slow down considerably, and eventually even out towards small growth. The relationship between Obama's actions and the economy can be either:

A. The policies helped cause and/or expedite the recovery. (net positive value)
B. The policies had no effect on the recovery. (or neutral effect)
C. The policies have slowed or minimized the recovery. (net negative value)

Hmm...

For what reason are we to think C is the most likely, with that reason also being able to consistently apply to Bush's evaluation?


One of the main reasons is because corporate profits are actually higher now than '08 (post-crash) levels. They've been trending upward steadily since the 1st Quarter of '09. Undistributed profits are proportionately higher than '08 as well. However, unemployment continues to be a problem, and even though job losses are slowing businesses aren't expanding or reinvesting. If they were we would see a job growth rate increase. However, the undistributed profits figures tell us that they have the capital on the books to do so. That means they are saving for a rainy day. Furthermore, consumer demand is fairly stagnant, but personal savings are growing. That means consumers are saving for a rainy day.

These two indicators add up to one common cause. That cause is uncertainty. The health care bill, cap & trade, the financial overhaul bill, caused this uncertainty. I'm not necessary getting into an argument on the merits of any of these pieces of legislation, I'm simply pointing out the market response to these pieces of legislation. Investors and private businesses don't know where to put their money, so they are holding on to it. Consumers don't know if they are going to see increased taxes, fuel bills, medical insurance bills, etc., so they are squirreling away capital. This is just scratching the surface, but to say that the Obama Administration and Congress are making the private sector nervous isn't an exaggeration, it's a fairly normal reaction.

I'm going to steer clear of digging too deeply into the financial sector in this post. That's an entire discussion in and of itself, and would make this post painfully long. Let it just be said that they are also uncertain and therefore not lending their excess reserves. It also might be true that there aren't enough qualified borrowers who wish to borrow because no one wants more debt during an uncertain time. Either way, that's a debate for economists on another day.



I'm curious though, how might those major financial institutions failing have lead to increased jobs today?


Through the not-so-magical process of bankruptcy and liquidation of course. A failed institution is like a corpse, and there's plenty to pick from the bones. Of those bone pickers, those who buy up assets at pennies on the dollar, just might learn the lessons the previous carcass did not, and make valuable use out of those assets. For example, if a lender went under, those "toxic assets" would not have been bought up by the Federal Reserve on our dime. Instead they would have been auctioned off, probably for pennies on the dollar. However value still exists because the house is still there right? So the purchasing bank, since it's not so invested in the risk because it paid such a low price for it, could then have more leeway in negotiating a restructure of the mortgage, or a sale of the property.

In the end, the investors who risked their money in these troubled assets would have taken the hit, and rightly so, there is no free lunch and they should have known the risk when they invested. However, the taxpayer wouldn't be on the hook for a bailout that did nothing to stop foreclosures or bring about financial security.

Would it have led to more jobs today? I can't say that with certainty. I can say it would have led to much healthier economic outlook today.




Bahahaha. Okay go buy yourself a few senators, shift your assets overseas to avoid taxes, and gamble on the failure of assets that you control (consequences for everyone else be damned).

Good luck man hope you make it big.

I really don't understand this illogical hatred for wealthy people and corporations.

NJCardFan
07-16-2010, 11:54 PM
I posted the Bureau of Labor stats that are on their website.

Are those numbers accurate ? ...or should I call Glen Beck ?

Oh please call Glen. He would leave you balled up in a corner whimpering for your mommy.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-17-2010, 08:21 AM
Yes that's exactly right, correlation does not imply causation. So congress passed stimulus bills and economic reform bills, and the economy got better. Are they related? Well we can never know for sure.

The same applies for Bush's policies and the events that followed.
.

Of course correlation does not mean causation, however, by statistically isolating the variables, you CAN determine causation to a very high degree of probability. This is the basis of what I do for a living. The recession we currently are suffering under was set off by high oil prices back in 2007. It slowed the economy enough that an ever increasing number of households began to have trouble making ends meet. Unfortunately, an unprecedentedly high percentage of these people also had loans - loans they NEVER would have had if the banks were not forced, by law, to grant. As the economy slowed down (and the general price level of goods and services rose due to the price of oil) these marginal mortgage holders began to default on their loans. This kept repeating itself over and over - until things finally crashed in the fall of 2008. Those high oil prices that touched things off, were a direct result of a lack of supply and the instability that put into the oil markets. It all could have been alleviated with a mere production increase (relative to demand increases) of roughly 2 million barrels of oil per day. There exists, RIGHT HERE in AMERICA, the capacity to increase oil production by that amount - but the Democrats prevented it.

The mortgage crisis that exploded was ALSO a result of liberals meddling in the free markets - FORCING banks to make loans they NEVER would have made without the coercion from govt. and "community activists". The deriviatives etc. were ALL designed to help offset the risks that those bad loans created.

Liberals were at the heart of the causes and multipliers of this recession.

What then caused the slight improvements we have seen??? Again, we look to the price of oil. After peaking in the $140/barrel range, they dropped to the range they are at now. After the appropriate lag, the economy rebounded - but of course there was still the damage caused by the housing collapse so it has not been complete. In addition, we are now burdening our economy with the prospect and reality of new taxes that are sapping the money that would otherwise be used to create long term jobs.

Now let's look at the Bush tax cuts. You will notice that the first cut didn't change things much and this is because the only significant provision that went into immediate effect was the rebate check - you know the kind of "tax cut" that Democrats like. The tax cut of 2003, however accellerated the jobs producing provisions of the first tax cut and gave additional incentives for the job creation activities of investment and it allowed for accelerated depreciation schedules. It also sped up the phase-in of the rate cuts on personal income. THIS tax cut turned the economy around exactly as it was predicted and exactly WHEN it was predicted. Those are simply the facts. EVERY BIT of the above was predicted by me in advance.


Anyone who has followed my economic postings knows that while you liberals were screaming about 2 million jobs lost under President Bush back in late 2002 and early 2003, KNOWS that after the 2003 cut was signed, I predicted a DRAMATIC recovery that would begin in the late first quarter/early second quarter of 2004 - one that would erase those 2 million jobs lost and Bush would have a positive jobs count around the end of his first term. I was correct.

I also predicted the economic slowdown that the increasing oil prices would set off - and I also predicted the timing of that - and in addition, I predicted the timing of the mini - recovery we are seeing now. However, I also predicted that it would end near the end of this year or early next year. Let's see if that one holds. As it stands now, I am pretty confident.

Why was I able to predict those events??? I simply applied sound economic theory to those changed variables, isolated them, accounted for the proper lag time and then made public what effect those changes (if nothing drastic happened to change the picture) meant.

That brings me back to the original statement I made: Of course correlation does not mean causation, however, by statistically isolating the variables, you CAN determine causation to a very high degree of probability. This is the basis of what I do for a living.

djones520
07-17-2010, 08:33 AM
While your dead on track, I wouldn't expect our resident idiots to actually listen to reality. It's so much easier to play ostrich.

lacarnut
07-17-2010, 08:46 AM
Yes I want to take allll youur monneyyy. that's exactly what I want oh man just think of many cool things i could buy..



You are a lazy pathetic pile of shit that is a leech on society. .

Constitutionally Speaking
07-17-2010, 09:13 AM
More like if their numbers fit your reality.

They have been around for more than a week. If you haven't taken a look at them by now, then you cannot be helped.

You are debating job creation and have never looked at the Bureau of Labor statistics ? ...LOL , What a hoot.

Then to demand I hold your hand and walk you through how job creation is calculated is totally laughable.

Go infomr yourself and get back to me.


HEY ASSHOLE. Why don't you look at the numbers yourself!!!!!! Also, why don't you take into account the FACT that EVERY Republican on your chart INHERITED economic conditions that were on a downtrend, and every Democrat President on your graph inherited a GROWING economy!!!!!

I would think that an intelligent person would come to the realization that EVERY Democrat left the economy in a shambles and that hurt the Republican jobs creation record for the first year or so of their terms. A thinking person would also realize that EVERY Republican left the country with a growing economy and that helped the Democrat job creation record.

In FACT, the majority of job losses occur near the end of Democrat terms and at the beginning of Republican terms - while Democrat policies were in effect. Also, in FACT, the majority of job gains occur near the end of Republican terms and at the beginning of Democrat terms - while the Republican policies were still in effect.


A more accurate measurement would track those jobs to policies in place not the term in office.

Just as Obama's PRESIDENTIAL*** policies were not at fault for the economy in February of 2009, neither were Reagan's policies responsible for the economy he inherited.




*** you could make a strong (very strong) case that the economy Obama inherited was due to liberal domination of Washington in the years leading up to his term in office - one that he indeed did vote for and help put in place.
Dumbass.

BadCat
07-17-2010, 09:21 AM
You're arguing with two people who do NOT PAY TAXES. They simply want more of our money. Both of them are worthless to our society, and at the base level, nothing but thieves.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-17-2010, 09:28 AM
You're arguing with two people who do NOT PAY TAXES. They simply want more of our money. Both of them are worthless to our society, and at the base level, nothing but thieves.


Yeah, I know. I can't help it - it's a curse!!


Wait a minute!

Maybe I can qualify for some liberal victim status and compensation for this disability I have!! :rolleyes:

lacarnut
07-17-2010, 09:43 AM
You're arguing with two people who do NOT PAY TAXES. They simply want more of our money. Both of them are worthless to our society, and at the base level, nothing but thieves.

If we could only eliminate worthless POS like these two, the economy would get cranking again.

Apocalypse
07-17-2010, 10:21 AM
Then what happened under Bush, he forced the largest tax cut in history on the nation and job creation totally collapsed.

There goes that theory. We just went through that experiment.

EVERYTIME the GOP come to office they cut taxes, and job creation collapses. This is a fact.

The recession began under Clinton's last term.

The economy began to weaken a year before the tax cuts were enacted. According to Commerce Dep. Statistics, the economy began to decline beginning thin the last three months of '00 while Clinton was still in office. Well in advance of the Bush tax cuts.

The massive tech bubble that popped had a significant negative impact on the economy

The third quarter of '03 economic statistics showed the tax cuts worked. The result was a 7.2% growth, the fastest since '84, consumer spending increased by 6.6%, and business spending increased by 11.1%, exports went up 9.3%. Unemployment was down with an average of 4.5% resulting in 23 consecutive quarters of economic growth.