Obama stimulus is failed

[The Rabbi]

1. The economy has not added 2M private sector jobs. Total Private Employment when Obama took office was 110,981K. In the May jobs report, it was 108,916. That is a LOSS of 2M private sector jobs. Private sector employment was 107,936 when the recession officiall ended. 1M private sector jobs have been created over 23 months. This averages less than 45K per month, which is 25% the level we need JUST TO KEEP UP WITH POPULATION GROWTH.

Oh, I'm sorry, FIRST you wanted to talk about the period since the end of the recession, when it was useful for you to do so, and NOW you want to talk about the period since Obama took office.

2. You might find people being out of work sexually arousing, but that is not a Conservative Kink. Get help.

People being out of work in the public sector is in fact a sexual kink of conservatives. You people cream in your pants just thinking about firing federal workers.



Translation: Cut taxes.



Translation: Cut spending, cut public sector jobs.



Translation: Let corporations do whatever they want, as long as they're not breaking pre-existing consumer and investor protection laws.



Translation: More defense spending.

- Get rid of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

Translation: Make sure poor people can't get homes.

- Reform SS and Medicare towards a fully privatized system over time (thus resolving the budget solvency issue and getting rid of Congress' ability to borrow the funds).

And finally, Translation: kill old people.

Well, I think that about sums it up. Tell me, how is that different from what I said?

Translation: I am losing this argument so I will post bumper sticker statements to get out of it.

 

[boedicca]

1. The economy has not added 2M private sector jobs. Total Private Employment when Obama took office was 110,981K. In the May jobs report, it was 108,916. That is a LOSS of 2M private sector jobs. Private sector employment was 107,936 when the recession officiall ended. 1M private sector jobs have been created over 23 months. This averages less than 45K per month, which is 25% the level we need JUST TO KEEP UP WITH POPULATION GROWTH.

Oh, I'm sorry, FIRST you wanted to talk about the period since the end of the recession, when it was useful for you to do so, and NOW you want to talk about the period since Obama took office.

I included both, you nattering nabob of nonsense. 45K average jobs per month since the recession ended is an EPIC FAIL.


You are such an Economic Illiterate.

Read a book.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307306240&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics (9780517548233): Henry Hazlitt: Books[/ame]


It will do you good.

 

[Vast LWC]

How old are you?
The graph suggests that revenue is down because the economy is down. That is not related to tax levels at all.
Interestingly it also shows that the issue is spending. The difference is roughly $400B less. Yet the deficit is much much larger than that. So lower tax revenues don't account for the huge deficit.

Does it now?

Wow, that would mean that the economy contracted!

Say, when was it that GDP went down from 2009 to 2010 again?

 

[Polk]

The private sector is growing while the public sector is shrinking. Isn't this exactly the kind of jobs numbers conservatives want to see?

 

[Vast LWC]

I included both, you nattering nabob of nonsense. 45K average jobs per month since the recession ended is an EPIC FAIL.


You are such an Economic Illiterate.

Read a book.

Amazon.com: Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics (9780517548233): Henry Hazlitt: Books


It will do you good.

Wow, neg rep for calling you on bullshit, really?

And then a link to some cliff notes on economics? Is that where you learned? That would make sense.

 

[Trajan]

Every picture tells a story...

And what do we have to show for those deficits: The New Meme that 9% Unemployment is the New Normal.

Thanks Obama!

Most of the Obama deficit was the 450 billion deficit he inherited from Bush plus lower tax revenues in 2009, 2010.

Wait so according to you, 450 Billion constitutes most of a 1.5 Trillion dollar Deficit?

Interesting math.

thats why I gave him the Moonbat option, he cannot even read a simple bar graph.

 

[boedicca]

The private sector is growing while the public sector is shrinking. Isn't this exactly the kind of jobs numbers conservatives want to see?

The private sector is not growing enough to keep up with population growth, bub. That's why under and unemployment levels remain appallingly high.

 

[Polk]

Every picture tells a story...

And what do we have to show for those deficits: The New Meme that 9% Unemployment is the New Normal.

Thanks Obama!

You do realize that first red bar on the graph is actually the last year of the Bush administration, right?

 

[Vast LWC]

Translation: I am losing this argument so I will post bumper sticker statements to get out of it.

Funny that you don't actually have an argument, just a dismissal.

 

[Polk]

The private sector is growing while the public sector is shrinking. Isn't this exactly the kind of jobs numbers conservatives want to see?

The private sector is not growing enough to keep up with population growth, bub. That's why under and unemployment levels remain appallingly high.

You're right. You know what'll really help that? Driving aggregate demand even lower by slashing government to the bone. O wait...

 

[The Rabbi]

How old are you?
The graph suggests that revenue is down because the economy is down. That is not related to tax levels at all.
Interestingly it also shows that the issue is spending. The difference is roughly $400B less. Yet the deficit is much much larger than that. So lower tax revenues don't account for the huge deficit.

Does it now?

Wow, that would mean that the economy contracted!

Say, when was it that GDP went down from 2009 to 2010 again?

GDP expanded due to increased gov't spending. Increased gov't spending does not produce tax revenue. The opposite.
You are grasping at straws here.

 

[boedicca]

Every picture tells a story...

And what do we have to show for those deficits: The New Meme that 9% Unemployment is the New Normal.

Thanks Obama!

You do realize that first red bar on the graph is actually the last year of the Bush administration, right?

Not completely. It does include TARP funds due to the cash outlays. Given that much of this has been repaid - it would be more revealing to see those credits reversed against the 2009 instead of future years. Obama's deficits would be even worse without those credits - or to see the entire thing restated excluding TARP.

 

[Polk]

Every picture tells a story...

And what do we have to show for those deficits: The New Meme that 9% Unemployment is the New Normal.

Thanks Obama!

You do realize that first red bar on the graph is actually the last year of the Bush administration, right?

Not completely. It does include TARP funds due to the cash outlays. Given that much of this has been repaid - it would be more revealing to see those credits reversed against the 2009 instead of future years. Obama's deficits would be even worse without those credits - or to see the entire thing restated excluding TARP.

Much of it has been repaid about liberals insisted repayment provisions be placed in the bill. The Bush administration wanted to hand the banks a bundle of cash, no strings attached.

 

[Vast LWC]

GDP expanded due to increased gov't spending. Increased gov't spending does not produce tax revenue. The opposite.
You are grasping at straws here.

WHAT?

Government spending accounted for a change in GDP from a -2.7% average in 2009, to an average of +3.25% in 2010?

United States GDP Growth Rate

So, if the GDP grows, tax revenue grows. That's what Reagan's entire tax cut theory is based on, is it not?

Since tax revenue went DOWN and GDP went UP, what does that tell us?

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, and another neg rep from Rabbi for calling Boedicca on her BS neg repping!

Well done people!

You should both be glad I'm not a whiny little bitch too, or I'd neg rep you both for useless neg repping.

 

[Vast LWC]

The private sector is not growing enough to keep up with population growth, bub. That's why under and unemployment levels remain appallingly high.

Oh, and let me answer this too.

Is population rising enough to keep up with rate of retirement?

 

[boedicca]

The private sector is not growing enough to keep up with population growth, bub. That's why under and unemployment levels remain appallingly high.

Oh, and let me answer this too.

Is population rising enough to keep up with rate of retirement?

If you are asking if the demographics of the U.S. is changing, yes, it is. When SS was started, there were over 40 payees per beneficiary. We now have a ratio of 3:1.

Within the next decade or two, that ratio will fall to 2:1.

That has nothing to do with the need for the economy to create approx 140K jobs per month to keep up with population growth. We have high unemployment among those who are nowhere near retirement age. The rate of retirement is not freeing up enough jobs to reduce unemployment for younger workers.

Please, learn some economic principles. Trying to discuss these subjects with you is like trying to explain the sun to a blind fish at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you are asking if the demographics of the U.S. is changing, yes, it is. When SS was started, there were over 40 payees per beneficiary. We now have a ratio of 3:1.

Within the next decade or two, that ratio will fall to 2:1.

That has nothing to do with the need for the economy to create approx 140K jobs per month to keep up with population growth. We have high unemployment among those who are nowhere near retirement age. The rate of retirement is not freeing up enough jobs to reduce unemployment for younger workers.

Please, learn some economic principles. Trying to discuss these subjects with you is like trying to explain the sun to a blind fish at the bottom of the ocean.

What?

You have been referring to total job creation throughout this thread, correct?

If you have 100 workers, and 10 of them retire, and then 8 new workers are hired, that's negative 2 jobs created.

Or are you working on some system that I am unaware of?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you are asking if the demographics of the U.S. is changing, yes, it is. When SS was started, there were over 40 payees per beneficiary. We now have a ratio of 3:1.

Within the next decade or two, that ratio will fall to 2:1.

That has nothing to do with the need for the economy to create approx 140K jobs per month to keep up with population growth. We have high unemployment among those who are nowhere near retirement age. The rate of retirement is not freeing up enough jobs to reduce unemployment for younger workers.

Please, learn some economic principles. Trying to discuss these subjects with you is like trying to explain the sun to a blind fish at the bottom of the ocean.

What?

You have been referring to total job creation throughout this thread, correct?

If you have 100 workers, and 10 of them retire, and then 8 new workers are hired, that's negative 2 jobs created.

Or are you working on some system that I am unaware of?

Then you pass a stimulus program that leaves all 10 further in debt but now only 7 are employed.

 

[boedicca]

If you are asking if the demographics of the U.S. is changing, yes, it is. When SS was started, there were over 40 payees per beneficiary. We now have a ratio of 3:1.

Within the next decade or two, that ratio will fall to 2:1.

That has nothing to do with the need for the economy to create approx 140K jobs per month to keep up with population growth. We have high unemployment among those who are nowhere near retirement age. The rate of retirement is not freeing up enough jobs to reduce unemployment for younger workers.

Please, learn some economic principles. Trying to discuss these subjects with you is like trying to explain the sun to a blind fish at the bottom of the ocean.

What?

You have been referring to total job creation throughout this thread, correct?

If you have 100 workers, and 10 of them retire, and then 8 new workers are hired, that's negative 2 jobs created.

Or are you working on some system that I am unaware of?

That's not what is happening in the economy now.

We have high unemployment in prime working age citizen. You can't explain it away by claiming we have a SHRINKING workforce due to retirement.