PDA

View Full Version : Follow te Arrows


hcap
07-23-2011, 05:43 AM
So how did we get so far into debt?
And who is primarily responsible?

According to the CBO......

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6YIyfQBk1qQ/TioIFARl_9I/AAAAAAAAGVc/_KZKxZfsX4Q/s1600/800px-CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

So how come no Tea Parties during Bush??

hcap
07-23-2011, 06:03 AM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/debt-and-forgetfulness/

Debt and Forgetfulness

I keep seeing comments along the lines of “Keynesianism doesn’t work, because liberals keep running deficits even when times are good, and never pay debt down.”

Guys, how about http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

Between 1993 and 2001, federal debt held by the public fell from 49.2 percent of GDP to 32.5 percent of GDP. What stopped the paydown of debt wasn’t liberal big spending; it was demands from conservatives that the surplus be used to cut taxes. George Bush said that a surplus means that the government is collecting too much money; Alan Greenspan warned that we were paying off our debt too fast.

Oh, and I was very much against those tax cuts, arguing that we should pay down the debt to prepare for future needs. As a reward, I now get accused of inconsistency, for saying that deficits were bad under Bush but good now.

Anyway, get your history straight before making claims about who’s fiscally responsible.

Tom
07-23-2011, 10:49 AM
So one would assume, from the arrows, that Obama was completely irresponsible by failing to immediately fo the job he promised and fix the economy.

ArlJim78
07-23-2011, 11:25 AM
which of Bush's blunders has Obama not adopted with abandon? on top of that adding his own damaging agenda.

Bush was made the scapegoat for problems that had festered and grew for a long long time. the maddening part is that people on the left and in the media(now I'm being redundant), thought that the smart new direction that we should take would be to cast our lot with a know nothing arrogant cult leader who wants nothing more than to guide America down serveral pegs because he despises the very cornerstones that built this country up into a world power like no other.

HUSKER55
07-23-2011, 11:36 AM
remember Whitewater? The Clintons know how to hide facts, money and anything else not tied down.

ElKabong
07-23-2011, 12:02 PM
Let's review.

-Hcap and Libs are hard at work trying to find charts that bend towards blaming Bush for anything and everthing.

-Independants and Cons are more interested in "is Obama going to keep his promise and "fix it", or was he full of hot air? Unemployment is soaring ever higher. The deficit is higher than ever, and the entire economic picture hasn't been improved one iota since Obama was sworn in".

If this nonsense plays out another 12 months, Obama has no shot at being re-elected. The nation wanted Change, not Worse.

mostpost
07-23-2011, 12:49 PM
So one would assume, from the arrows, that Obama was completely irresponsible by failing to immediately fo the job he promised and fix the economy.
This is like me asking why you aren't draining the swimming pool when you have a cup and I have a fire hose going full blast into the pool.

mostpost
07-23-2011, 12:54 PM
remember Whitewater? The Clintons know how to hide facts, money and anything else not tied down.
Whitewater? Was that the one where the special Prosecutor found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons? Was that the one where the Clintons lost over one hundred thousand dollars?

I eagerly await the responses where you say. They covered it up. I know they were guilty because I know. They must be guilty because they are Clintons. Blah...Blah ,,,,,,Blah

mostpost
07-23-2011, 01:04 PM
Let's review.

-Hcap and Libs are hard at work trying to find charts that bend towards blaming Bush for anything and everthing.

Hcap and Libs present charts and facts that prove Bush is responsible for everything.

-Independants and Cons are more interested in "is Obama going to keep his promise and "fix it", or was he full of hot air? Unemployment is soaring ever higher. The deficit is higher than ever, and the entire economic picture hasn't been improved one iota since Obama was sworn in".
Independents are interested in being wimps and never standing for anything.
Cons are more interested in making sure Obama has no chance to "fix it."

If this nonsense plays out another 12 months, Obama has no shot at being re-elected. The nation wanted Change, not Worse.

What do you mean if? The whole plan of the Tea Party and its puppet masters is to make sure it does last another twelve months. There are only two parts to the Tea Party. The greedy bastards behind the scenes and the fools who do their bidding in Congress.

hcap
07-23-2011, 01:04 PM
Let's review.

-Hcap and Libs are hard at work trying to find charts that bend towards blaming Bush for anything and everthing.

-Independants and Cons are more interested in "is Obama going to keep his promise and "fix it", or was he full of hot air? Unemployment is soaring ever higher. The deficit is higher than ever, and the entire economic picture hasn't been improved one iota since Obama was sworn in".
The first chart posted above clearly shows that Bush is overwhelmingly responsible for the larger share of debt than Obama. If you checked out the PDF linkin my first post, you will also see Dems in recent US history run the economy substantially better than you gentlemen.

And as far as "the entire economic picture hasn't been improved one iota since Obama was sworn in"

Duh!.......

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2011/07/liberal-total-private-jobs-worldview-june-data.jpg

mostpost
07-23-2011, 01:17 PM
The first chart posted above clearly shows that Bush is overwhelmingly responsible for the larger share of debt than Obama. If you checked out the PDF linkin my first post, you will also see Dems in recent US history run the economy substantially better than you gentlemen.

And as far as "the entire economic picture hasn't been improved one iota since Obama was sworn in"

Duh!.......

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2011/07/liberal-total-private-jobs-worldview-june-data.jpg
You've posted that graph several times. I predict it will have as little effect among the unenlightened this time as it did previously.

rastajenk
07-23-2011, 01:24 PM
What does that graph look like from about 2002-2008?

chrisl
07-23-2011, 01:27 PM
Hey Mosty: The Clinton's actions proved they are guilty, right. Must I explain everything. I am using your defended thoughts.

hcap
07-23-2011, 01:53 PM
What does that graph look like from about 2002-2008?
I don't kbow. Why don't r you post it? However be warned. Bush's dismal performance late in his presidency pretty much wiped out earlier gains.

Indeed, from February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs.

As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. Bush’s supply-side economics “fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,” along with “sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth”

hcap
07-23-2011, 02:00 PM
Ok, here is Clinton vs Bush.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/cbemp.png

I don't think the Bush administration would want a graph. Maybe that's why I can't find one of Bush only?


Presidents compared


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6Zvl-nui8I/AAAAAAAAACQ/3j0wUSj78mk/s640/Job+growth+graph.jpg

ElKabong
07-23-2011, 02:09 PM
Post up the deficit #'s from both administrations.

Post 1, the deficit $ #'s from GWB's reign before the dems took the House in 2007

Post 2, the deficit (in $) the past 2 yrs when Dems owned the House, Senate, WH.

Go on. Post it. We'll wait.

Then I'll laugh at your charts even harder.

Oh yeah. Krugman's an idiot.

That is all

rastajenk
07-23-2011, 02:53 PM
James Taranto, who does the Best of the Web daily roundup for the Wall St Journal, always introduces Krugman as "former Enron advisor Paul Krugman..."

:eek:

:faint:

mostpost
07-23-2011, 02:56 PM
Post up the deficit #'s from both administrations.

Post 1, the deficit $ #'s from GWB's reign before the dems took the House in 2007

Post 2, the deficit (in $) the past 2 yrs when Dems owned the House, Senate, WH.

Go on. Post it. We'll wait.

Then I'll laugh at your charts even harder.

Oh yeah. Krugman's an idiot.

That is all

As you requested. Sorry I don't have a graph to make it simple for you.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html
Table 1.1
2000 2,025,457 1,789,216 236,241
Clinton's last year.
2001 1,991,426 1,863,190 128,236
Even Bush couldn't screw things up this fast.
2002 1,853,395 2,011,153 -157,758
First round of tax cuts
2003 1,782,532 2,160,117 -377,585
Another round of Tax cuts and Iraq war ramps up.
2004 1,880,279 2,293,006 -412,727
Fourth straight year of falling surplus or increase in deficit.
2005 2,153,859 2,472,205 -318,346
Some improvement but still the third worst deficit in US history to that point.
2006 2,407,254 2,655,435 -248,181
The lull before the storm.
2007 2,568,239 2,728,940 -160,701
Is this what you are talking about? Where the Democrats took control of Congress and the deficit picture improved by $88B?
2008 2,524,326 2,982,881 -458,555
Deficit soars caused by Republican failures too numerous to mention and falling revenues.
2009 estimate 2,156,654 3,997,842 -1,841,188
Stimulus (To fix Bush errors) TARP (To fix Bush lack of oversight and Regulation. Auto company bailout. (To try to fix auto company stupidity.)
And another 15% drop in revenue due to the recession.

2010 estimate 2,332,645 3,591,076 -1,258,431
Definitely not great, but 31% better than the previous year.

2011 estimate 2,685,358 3,614,774 -929,416
Another 25% improvement.

Paul Krugman is an idiot??? You are not competent to pick gum out of the gutter in back of the building where Paul Krugman has his office.

BenDiesel26
07-23-2011, 03:11 PM
When the debt ceiling is increased, the Obama administration will have added more to the national debt in 4 years than the Bush administration did in 8. This is an easily provable fact. Look it up.

lsbets
07-23-2011, 03:41 PM
When you try to spin those numbers to make the Dems look good mosty, you do not cast yourself in a very good light.

hcap
07-23-2011, 05:09 PM
James Taranto, who does the Best of the Web daily roundup for the Wall St Journal, always introduces Krugman as "former Enron advisor Paul Krugman..."

:eek:

:faint:Questionable. Unlike Enron CEO Ken Lays' former buddy George W Bush :bang:

bigmack
07-23-2011, 05:14 PM
It's official; BO is a bigger putz than JimmyC.

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2011/07/carter-vs-obama-unemployment.jpg

ElKabong
07-24-2011, 02:53 AM
When the debt ceiling is increased, the Obama administration will have added more to the national debt in 4 years than the Bush administration did in 8. This is an easily provable fact. Look it up.

Indeed.

If anyone cares, listen to Steve Winn's audio where he said "everybody is scared of the government right now", and reminded the interviewers he's a "Democrat businessman". Then went off on Obama for his redistribution talk. Said it stops hiring in its tracks, busineeses don't know the future tax rates given the current DC rhetoric, or the HC rate increases brought on by the govt in addition to normal HC increases they already deal with.

With businesses not hiring for the reasons above, the tax base will continue to shrink more than necessary. Obama will have a tremendously difficult time defending his results a yr from now

HUSKER55
07-24-2011, 08:18 AM
remember a while back when BO's idea of job creation included McDonalds.

But then again, I suppose we could add a buck and pay the debt off one burger and fries at a time.

that would give new meaning to billions and billions served. I mean hell yes. Ship them suckers everywhere.

Our economy is a mess and there is no way BO graduated Harvard as dumb as he is.

He is a paper lion.

elysiantraveller
07-24-2011, 09:12 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6Zvl-nui8I/AAAAAAAAACQ/3j0wUSj78mk/s640/Job+growth+graph.jpg

You can't just post graphs like these and expect them to prove your point especially when you take them completely out of context.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

During Bush's entire presidency unemployment hovered at or around 5%... What most economists believe to be the Natural Unemployment Rate. How much job growth do you expect to have when everyone capable of working is already on the job?... Clinton on the other hand started at 8% and trended down to the natural rate.

Like I said, graphs are nice but, when taken out of context can be very misleading.

hcap
07-24-2011, 10:50 AM
These are the unemployment rates by year of Bill Clinton

1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4

Ave 5.2


Just about "full employment" according to you. Yet during the same period Clinton had the greatest job growth of any president in modern US history.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6Zvl-nui8I/AAAAAAAAACQ/3j0wUSj78mk/s640/Job+growth+graph.jpg

And Bush-also scored around there at least in the early years- managed nada.

Of course we won't mention the later years, out of concern that the graph would extend past and below what would fit on this page

hcap
07-24-2011, 11:01 AM
And here is the aggregate time series of Clinton and Bush. Overall if one averages each year they look in total about the same. Both averaging your "Natural or full" employment concept.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_100097_1311519384474.gif

elysiantraveller
07-24-2011, 11:12 AM
And here is the aggregate time series of Clinton and Bush. Overall if one averages each year they look in total about the same. Both averaging your "Natural or full" employment concept.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_100097_1311519384474.gif

Exactly... so whats your point? Other than partisan shots?

One had booming new job sectors and a downward trend as more and more people went to work, the other suffered a recession then recovered both did fine in this area you just present data attempting to "prove" one did much better...

Again, point please? Just curious...

elysiantraveller
07-24-2011, 11:28 AM
Here! I too can post a meaningless graph to make a invalid point.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2cpui9w.gif

Since Barack Obama took office in 2008 when unemployment skyrocketted I can infer that he is solely to blame for the high level of unemployment we have today! Its solely his responsibility...

There...

See how stupid that looks...?

hcap
07-24-2011, 11:32 AM
Your natural employment theory leaves much to be desired.

The implication you are drawing is that Bush could not create jobs for anyone because everyone who could and wanted to work was already working.

And the so-called recession he inherited also included a budgetary surplus and of course Bush and his supply siders thinking that the government had collected way too much money, cut taxes on mostly the wealthy providing the watering grounds for the economy to implode in his second term

porchy44
07-24-2011, 11:39 AM
that thinks both parties are responsible for the deficit.

hcap
07-24-2011, 11:39 AM
Here! I too can post a meaningless graph to make a invalid point.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2cpui9w.gif

Since Barack Obama took office in 2008 when unemployment skyrocketted I can infer that he is solely to blame for the high level of unemployment we have today! Its solely his responsibility...

There...

See how stupid that looks...?Of course it looks stupid. Particularly when you look again at my original graphs that pinned the tail on the pachyderm.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6YIyfQBk1qQ/TioIFARl_9I/AAAAAAAAGVc/_KZKxZfsX4Q/s1600/800px-CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png


http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2011/07/liberal-total-private-jobs-worldview-june-data.jpg

elysiantraveller
07-24-2011, 04:33 PM
that thinks both parties are responsible for the deficit.

Yes.

elysiantraveller
07-24-2011, 06:39 PM
Your natural employment theory leaves much to be desired.

The implication you are drawing is that Bush could not create jobs for anyone because everyone who could and wanted to work was already working.

And the so-called recession he inherited also included a budgetary surplus and of course Bush and his supply siders thinking that the government had collected way too much money, cut taxes on mostly the wealthy providing the watering grounds for the economy to implode in his second term

So it was just partisan shots... okay...

Secondly, if you don't know what a natural unemployment rate is you have no business being in a discussion about job creation/loss/wages/etc. you belong in a macroeconomics class.

The BLS calculates unemployment based on the number of people available in the workforce against those currently unemployed. These include people that are incarcerated so thats 1.5% of the workforce right there. It also includes involuntary retirees, people with disabilities seeking work, and to a greater or lesser extent independent contractors.

So, if 1.5 people out of 100 can't work because they are locked up is it reasonable to believe that 1 can't because he was forced into retirement early, 1 because they are disabled and can't find a job that will suit them, and 1 that just started selling Cutco Knives?... with that we get a 5.5/100 people or a natural unemployment rate 5.5%... that being people who would like to work but just simply can't. Most economists believe depending on the society that number will be between somewhere between 2-15% and in the U.S. 5% is generally accepted.

The point I am making is you can't simply post a graph, draw a conclusion from it, and think you have the whole picture. You compare Bush and Clinton's job creation rates as if you are proving something... here is the dot-com bubble:

http://i51.tinypic.com/2ee8z12.png

That graph, which Clinton had nothing to do with, explains a decent part of the job surge in the 90's. Not all of it but a decent part. It also explains the recession that George Bush suffered early in his tenure.

The graphs you put up here don't support the sweeping generalizations you place under them.

dartman51
07-24-2011, 06:55 PM
So it was just partisan shots... okay...

Secondly, if you don't know what a natural unemployment rate is you have no business being in a discussion about job creation/loss/wages/etc. you belong in a macroeconomics class.

The BLS calculates unemployment based on the number of people available in the workforce against those currently unemployed. These include people that are incarcerated so thats 1.5% of the workforce right there. It also includes involuntary retirees, people with disabilities seeking work, and to a greater or lesser extent independent contractors.

So, if 1.5 people out of 100 can't work because they are locked up is it reasonable to believe that 1 can't because he was forced into retirement early, 1 because they are disabled and can't find a job that will suit them, and 1 that just started selling Cutco Knives?... with that we get a 5.5/100 people or a natural unemployment rate 5.5%... that being people who would like to work but just simply can't. Most economists believe depending on the society that number will be between somewhere between 2-15% and in the U.S. 5% is generally accepted.

The point I am making is you can't simply post a graph, draw a conclusion from it, and think you have the whole picture. You compare Bush and Clinton's job creation rates as if you are proving something... here is the dot-com bubble:

http://i51.tinypic.com/2ee8z12.png

That graph, which Clinton had nothing to do with, explains a decent part of the job surge in the 90's. Not all of it but a decent part. It also explains the recession that George Bush suffered early in his tenure.

The graphs you put up here don't support the sweeping generalizations you place under them.


Sorry, ET, but you are in way over your head here. Haven't you heard, Hcap, Mostie and friends, know everything there is to know about economics. Which just goes to prove that Obama is not serious about fixing the problem, or he would have THIS group, instead of the Gang of 6, fixing the problem. :ThmbUp:

elysiantraveller
07-24-2011, 07:21 PM
Your natural employment theory leaves much to be desired.

The implication you are drawing is that Bush could not create jobs for anyone because everyone who could and wanted to work was already working.

And the so-called recession he inherited also included a budgetary surplus and of course Bush and his supply siders thinking that the government had collected way too much money, cut taxes on mostly the wealthy providing the watering grounds for the economy to implode in his second term

Also, while we are on the subject explain to me how tax cuts for the wealthy created the sub-prime mortgage crises and the devaluing of the real estate market...? Thats quite a jump. :lol:

I'm looking forward to the graph... :rolleyes:

fast4522
07-24-2011, 07:25 PM
What some see as intelligent discussion in good faith on this subject with people who post this and that still does not distract from the fact that the Obama administration did the following: 1. hired pinheads who in turn hired more pinheads. 2. gave these pinheads the McGovern direction as the only course or face job loss. In short the intention was not to cure our current problems but to enable change so the new world order could be ushered in while our United States Constitution and our precious Bill of rights can be pushed aside for the World Court to be more prominent. Hey who needs the War Powers Act, were taking directives from the UN right? Be real people and understand the people that you are debating in good faith with are not worthy of scraping the gum off your shoes. When graphs do not tell the whole picture it is because the design is to not tell the whole picture. There is simply not enough money that can be printed to sustain this socialist administration.

mostpost
07-25-2011, 12:21 AM
Indeed.

If anyone cares, listen to Steve Winn's audio where he said "everybody is scared of the government right now", and reminded the interviewers he's a "Democrat businessman". Then went off on Obama for his redistribution talk. Said it stops hiring in its tracks, busineeses don't know the future tax rates given the current DC rhetoric, or the HC rate increases brought on by the govt in addition to normal HC increases they already deal with.

With businesses not hiring for the reasons above, the tax base will continue to shrink more than necessary. Obama will have a tremendously difficult time defending his results a yr from now

Steve Wynn-not Winn is a so called Democratic businessman who in 2010 contributed over $37K to Republican candidates and $1K to a Democratic candidate. He's a Democratic businessman who spouts Republican rhetoric about redistribution of wealth and the evils of taxes. He also makes unsubstantiated claims about the effects of the Health Care bill.

Steve Wynn wants you to believe that he the government is treating him unfairly because he wants to make even more money. He knows that you are conditioned to believe him.

mostpost
07-25-2011, 12:44 AM
During Bush's entire presidency unemployment hovered at or around 5%... What most economists believe to be the Natural Unemployment Rate.
That might be true, depending on how liberally you interpret "around." Maybe some economists believe that 5% in the natural unemployment rate, but some do not. Some economists do not believe there is a natural employment rate. Since 1948 we have had many times when the unemployment rate was well below 5%. Those were usually considered prosperous times. So what is it that determines the natural unemployment rate?

PaceAdvantage
07-25-2011, 04:16 AM
Here! I too can post a meaningless graph to make a invalid point.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2cpui9w.gif

Since Barack Obama took office in 2008 when unemployment skyrocketted I can infer that he is solely to blame for the high level of unemployment we have today! Its solely his responsibility...

There...

See how stupid that looks...?Actually, he took office in January of 2009.

More than half of that "skyrocket" was under Bush.

lamboguy
07-25-2011, 05:32 AM
you can look at all these bullshit charts you want. you can make anything up you want with charts. its high time all you folks get with the program and look at the only charts they shiver with every time some one looks at them. there is no fooling anyone with these RICE and GOLD.

get your heads wrapped around these 2 charts and you will have more clarity.

elysiantraveller
07-25-2011, 10:28 AM
Actually, he took office in January of 2009.

More than half of that "skyrocket" was under Bush.

That entire post was sarcasm.

maddog42
07-25-2011, 01:47 PM
Questionable. Unlike Enron CEO Ken Lays' former buddy George W Bush :bang:

Remember when Bush said he didn't know Ken Lay ?There were numerous pictures that were posted online with Lay and they were quite close.

elysiantraveller
07-25-2011, 01:53 PM
That might be true, depending on how liberally you interpret "around." Maybe some economists believe that 5% in the natural unemployment rate, but some do not. Some economists do not believe there is a natural employment rate. Since 1948 we have had many times when the unemployment rate was well below 5%. Those were usually considered prosperous times. So what is it that determines the natural unemployment rate?

5.3% for Bush and 5.2% for Clinton. I said around 5% for both, thats not too "liberal" for you is it?

As for the natural unemployment rate it was completely explained in a post here that you neglected to read. The issue isn't so much that 1/20 people can't work but in how you, or in this case the BLS, compiles the data. Full employment or 0% is impossible based on how we report it so a natural rate of unemployment in this country is somewhere around 5%. You can continue to play semantics all the while saying nothing but I've laid it out as cut and dry as you can.

mostpost
07-25-2011, 02:55 PM
5.3% for Bush and 5.2% for Clinton. I said around 5% for both, thats not too "liberal" for you is it?

As for the natural unemployment rate it was completely explained in a post here that you neglected to read. The issue isn't so much that 1/20 people can't work but in how you, or in this case the BLS, compiles the data. Full employment or 0% is impossible based on how we report it so a natural rate of unemployment in this country is somewhere around 5%. You can continue to play semantics all the while saying nothing but I've laid it out as cut and dry as you can.

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
So it was just partisan shots... okay...

Secondly, if you don't know what a natural unemployment rate is you have no business being in a discussion about job creation/loss/wages/etc. you belong in a macroeconomics class.

The BLS calculates unemployment based on the number of people available in the workforce against those currently unemployed. These include people that are incarcerated so thats 1.5% of the workforce right there. It also includes involuntary retirees, people with disabilities seeking work, and to a greater or lesser extent independent contractors.

So, if 1.5 people out of 100 can't work because they are locked up is it reasonable to believe that 1 can't because he was forced into retirement early, 1 because they are disabled and can't find a job that will suit them, and 1 that just started selling Cutco Knives?... with that we get a 5.5/100 people or a natural unemployment rate 5.5%... that being people who would like to work but just simply can't. Most economists believe depending on the society that number will be between somewhere between 2-15% and in the U.S. 5% is generally accepted.

In red is the explanation you posted which I did read, but did not refer to because it is not an explanation of the natural rate of unemployment. None of the people in your example would be included in a survey of unemployment.

BLS calculates unemployment by taking the number of people who are unemployed and actively looking for work, and dividing it by the total workforce. A person who is in prison is not looking for work. If you are disabled or you are retired and not seeking a job you would not be included. If you are selling Cutco knives, then you have a job (good or bad) and would not be among the unemployed.

It seems that what you call the natural rate of unemployment is that some people are hard to employ and we shouldn't waste time on them. My thought is we should spend more time on them.

Now there is an actual "Normal rate of Unemployment." I read an explanation which I did not completely understand, but it seems the essential idea was that the free market will determine the incidence of unemployment.

A nice theory; if there was a free market. What there is are dominant companies manipulating the market for their profit. Using the law of supply and demand, if you have a large supply (workers looking for jobs) and limited demand (jobs to be filled), then you have a situation where the value of the worker is less. It is obviously in the best interest of business to keep the number of unemployed high.

elysiantraveller
07-25-2011, 03:31 PM
Now there is an actual "Normal rate of Unemployment." I read an explanation which I did not completely understand, but it seems the essential idea was that the free market will determine the incidence of unemployment.

A nice theory; if there was a free market. What there is are dominant companies manipulating the market for their profit. Using the law of supply and demand, if you have a large supply (workers looking for jobs) and limited demand (jobs to be filled), then you have a situation where the value of the worker is less. It is obviously in the best interest of business to keep the number of unemployed high.

So you don't understand it but you are going to argue it?...

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

mostpost
07-25-2011, 04:31 PM
So you don't understand it but you are going to argue it?...

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

I understand the principle. the technical details are what I don't get. You were arguing about the natural rate of unemployment when your definition wasn't even close to the actual definition. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

hcap
07-26-2011, 04:05 AM
that thinks both parties are responsible for the deficit.No. Absolutely not.




http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_deficit_bush_obama.jpg


http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/whats-behind-deficit-kabuki



What's Behind the Deficit Kabuki

— By Kevin Drum


This chart is from the New York Times, and shows in lovely, vibrant colors that George Bush was responsible for far more of our current deficit than Barack Obama has been. It's pretty dramatic, and in any case, probably understates the difference since the vast majority of Obama's contributions were specifically designed to be temporary reactions to the recession. Take out temporary recession spending from both sides and the tally is something like $4,000 billion for Bush and $300 billion for Obama. So now you know the facts.

...Republicans have never really cared about the deficit except as a partisan tool to use against Democratic presidents, and all the charts in the world aren't going to change that. They'll just keep pointing out that the 2011 deficit is bigger than anything Bush ran up — which is true, thanks to the recession he bequeathed to Obama — and then move on. It's enough for a TV soundbite, and that's all that matters. The Pete Petersons and Standard & Poor's of the world will play along for their own reasons, and the nation's editorial pages will mostly cheer them on. (And then, quite possibly in an editorial on the same page, wail about all the jobless and wonder why they've been forgotten.)

BenDiesel26
07-26-2011, 08:04 AM
That chart does not explain how once the debt ceiling is raised, Obama will have managed to add more to the national debt in 4 years than George Bush did in 8. Fact. Try again.

lamboguy
07-26-2011, 08:55 AM
That chart does not explain how once the debt ceiling is raised, Obama will have managed to add more to the national debt in 4 years than George Bush did in 8. Fact. Try again.by the time he is out of office in 17 months the debt will probably double from here. not only does the united states owe money all over, but the rest of the world does too incuding china. the only thing different between united states and china is the us buys treasury paper with the money they borrow and china buys gold. who is right?

time will tell

hcap
07-26-2011, 02:39 PM
That chart does not explain how once the debt ceiling is raised, Obama will have managed to add more to the national debt in 4 years than George Bush did in 8. Fact. Try again.

"It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts."

Also the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

BenDiesel26
07-26-2011, 05:00 PM
"It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts."

Also the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

hcap, This administration has added more to the national debt in 4 years than the previous one did in 8. If you take out tarp and stimulus, they have spent about the same in 4 years than the previous admin did in 8. These are facts. He already holds the record for most added to the debt in a single year, a single term, and of any president ever. And his first term is incomplete. Explain.

dartman51
07-26-2011, 05:43 PM
hcap, This administration has added more to the national debt in 4 years than the previous one did in 8. If you take out tarp and stimulus, they have spent about the same in 4 years than the previous admin did in 8. These are facts. He already holds the record for most added to the debt in a single year, a single term, and of any president ever. And his first term is incomplete. Explain.


Wait for it.........here comes another chart. :ThmbUp:

ElKabong
07-26-2011, 11:20 PM
i think hcap is ken lay's former gopher from finance. every chart shows how great "our team" is doing. nevermind record deficits, 9.2% unemployment, record hi # of food stamp recipients. it's all good....the charts tell you so

NJ Stinks
07-27-2011, 02:44 AM
Just wanted to say I'm bound for England in the morning and will be there a couple months. But I expect to have a computer to use again in about 10 days.

Meanwhile, lean forward, my friends. :cool:

hcap
07-27-2011, 06:31 AM
i think hcap is ken lay's former gopher from finance. every chart shows how great "our team" is doing. nevermind record deficits, 9.2% unemployment, record hi # of food stamp recipients. it's all good....the charts tell you so
I guess the CBO and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, both non-partisan is not as good as Rush or Faux? Where do you guys get your WRONG info?

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/DeficitChart.png

I assume the sheep can't just can't change the channel.

http://www.federaljack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/UNCLE-JACK-SHEEP-FOXNEWS.jpg

lamboguy
07-27-2011, 06:49 AM
in the whole scope of things there are many other countries in the world other than the united states. like it or not, the united states taxes their corporations at the 2nd highest tax rate in the world. what is going on is that these company's are making record profits from sales. apple comuter got 62% of its sales from overseas. that is where the growth is, overseas. apple and other large united states company's do not take their money home with them to get taxed at a higher rate, they leave it in the places that they made the money to begin with. all this really means is that there are less jobs and growth in this country, while other countries are expanding their economy's. other countries in the world give breaks to business that create jobs for them, in the united states we scare them away.

BenDiesel26
07-27-2011, 10:42 AM
I guess the CBO and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, both non-partisan is not as good as Rush or Faux? Where do you guys get your WRONG info?

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/DeficitChart.png

I assume the sheep can't just can't change the channel.

http://www.federaljack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/UNCLE-JACK-SHEEP-FOXNEWS.jpg

hcap,

Comment 1: What website did that chart come from? As in, copy and paste the link.

Comment 2: My comments are fact, based on the debt when Bush left office, and what the debt will be once Obama raises the debt ceiling. The Obama administration already holds the all-time record for national debt in a year, national debt in a single term, and national debt for a president all time once the debt ceiling is raised. Once again I state, he has added more to the national debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8. Facts. Explain.

National Debt:

Bush Enters Office (2001): $5.73 trillion
Bush Leaves Office (2009): $10.63 trillion

Obama Enters Office (2009): $10.63 trillion
Projected After Debt Ceiling Increase: $16.3 trillion

elysiantraveller
07-27-2011, 01:01 PM
Wasn't it also the Obama Administration that recently extended the Bush tax cuts as well as raising the ceiling on the Estate Tax?

ArlJim78
07-27-2011, 01:50 PM
yes it was, they had total control of government for two years and did not raise taxes. now a mere 7 months after reupping the Bush tax rates, they demand higher taxes in the interest of fairness, and this after having presided over the biggest ever spending increases. they have spent like drunken democrats (sailors are frugal in comparison)

ArlJim78
07-27-2011, 01:52 PM
also, there are no Bush policies that aren't also Obama policies. you can't point out how bad it was under Bush and give the current moron a pass.

HUSKER55
07-27-2011, 02:24 PM
yes they can and they do....every chart they make.

hcap
07-28-2011, 01:22 PM
hcap, This administration has added more to the national debt in 4 years than the previous one did in 8. If you take out tarp and stimulus, they have spent about the same in 4 years than the previous admin did in 8. These are facts. He already holds the record for most added to the debt in a single year, a single term, and of any president ever. And his first term is incomplete. Explain.The chart I postred was from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Here are a few more

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph1/24editorial_graph1-popup.gif

And here is the original again

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_deficit_bush_obama.jpg

BenDiesel26
07-28-2011, 01:31 PM
The other chart hcap. The line graph. What website is it from? Notice the huge deficits in your chart below from Obama, about double or more than all of the Bush deficits, continuing to this day despite the fact that the stimulus was passed in 2009 and tarp at the end of 2008. I'm still waiting for the explanation on why he will have already increased the debt more than any president ever in just a single term.

The chart I postred was from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Here are a few more

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph1/24editorial_graph1-popup.gif

And here is the original again

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_deficit_bush_obama.jpg

hcap
07-28-2011, 02:12 PM
The graph clearly shows your wrong
Look at the last red Bush year note at the bottom to the left

"Obama added $187 billion to the 2009 deficit"

elysiantraveller
07-28-2011, 04:58 PM
The graph clearly shows your wrong
Look at the last red Bush year note at the bottom to the left

"Obama added $187 billion to the 2009 deficit"

Those polls are completely biased... unless I missed something and we aren't still in Afghanistan and Iraq...

hcap
07-28-2011, 05:10 PM
What you missed is that the bulk of the deficit is due to your buddy "Dead or Alive" Georgie :bang:

elysiantraveller
07-28-2011, 05:32 PM
I don't even know where you get off thinking I'm a huge fan of Bush.

I said your graphs are biased and they are. Wars count for one President but not the other, thats a pretty biased presentation of data.

Secondly, who the hell cares whose fault the debt is? Does it really matter? If you want to be really picky about it we can look back at policies of HUD in the 90's that truly are the root cause of it all but what good does that really do?

The country needs entitlement reform badly... everyday now for the next decade 10,000 Americans are going to be enrolling in SS and Medicare, everyday. We also need a broader and simpler tax code that closes loopholes and limits deductions.

How long do you want to continue to blame Bush? I've seen graph after graph out of you continuing to slam him and not a single proposal that makes sense in addressing the issue. I've posted one on here countless times, your President ordered the commission that drafted it, then ignored it. The American people don't like the Democrat plan and the Republican party is to fractured to be effective. He failed to take the lead and here we are now... T-minus 5 days to default.

BenDiesel26
07-28-2011, 05:51 PM
hcap, 2009 contains money from tarp and stimulus. Once done, Obama kept spending at historic levels. Explain. Why is he still adding on average more than twice the deficit per year than Bush ever did in any year without tarp. Has he passed a $787 billion stimulus every year so far? You would think based on your chart.

You still have yet to answer how he has managed to add $5.7 trillion to the national debt in one term (once the ceiling is raised) to Bush's $4.9 trillion over two terms. Already a record. Obviously, you have no answer.

I'm also still waiting for you to post which website your blue and orange line graph came from.

Valuist
07-28-2011, 06:00 PM
The Obama stimulus added a lot more than $187 billion to the deficit. And yes, Hcap, Bush was in office for what, 3 weeks in 2009?

And yes Mosty, Paul Krugman IS an idiot.

hcap
07-28-2011, 08:49 PM
I posted graphs based on CBO numbers published by NYT that puts the blame where it belongs

And this graph from THE ATLANTIC and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities backs it up.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/DeficitChart.png

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/


Sorry but I think the facts speak for themselves

elysiantraveller
07-28-2011, 09:03 PM
Well then lets raise taxes for everyone...

Since the Bush tax cuts are so evil and affected everyone time to raise them. Welcome back to the 15% club lower-income America! :)

BenDiesel26
07-28-2011, 09:13 PM
Sorry but I think the facts speak for themselves

No doubt about it. $6 trillion added to the national debt in a single term (compared to $4.9 trillion for Obama-Lite over his two terms). Fact. No projections or interpretations, the numbers are what they are. Unprecedented, and you can't explain it.

elysiantraveller
07-28-2011, 09:19 PM
No doubt about it. $6 trillion added to the national debt in a single term. Fact. No projections or interpretations, the numbers are what they are. Unprecedented, and you can't explain it.

He won't answer questions when challenged just keeps posting the same biased data over and over again.