Dismal Jobs Report Puts Policy Makers on the Spot

[ElNono]

Dismal Jobs Report Puts Policy Makers on the Spot (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/business/economy/united-states-showed-no-job-growth-in-august.html)

August brought no increase in the number of jobs in the United States, a signal that the economy has stalled and that inaction by policy makers carries substantial risk.

The government report on hiring, released on Friday, provided fresh evidence that the recovery has fizzled without gaining momentum, prompting another round in a relentless diminution of economic expectations. Signs of stasis abounded: the unemployment rate, at 9.1 percent, did not change last month, and the White House said it was expected to stay that high through at least 2012.

Keep reading (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/business/economy/united-states-showed-no-job-growth-in-august.html)

[Wild Cobra]

Yep.

There was economic growth until Obamacare was passed.

[ElNono]

Yep.

There was economic growth until Obamacare was passed.

Actually, there was job growth (as many as 458,000 in May 2010) after Obamacare passed.

Heck, job growth was much worse before Obamacare passed.

Feel free to find another scapegoat though.

[ElNono]

http://i56.tinypic.com/1h4h1t.png

[Wild Cobra]

http://i56.tinypic.com/1h4h1t.png
How does that compare with population growth?

[ElNono]

Evidently, the trickle down of the tax cuts never materialized. So we should do away with them for starters. Unfortunately, with Congress being basically locked down with petty shit, there's probably no outlook for things to get better.

[ElNono]

How does that compare with population growth?

It's not percentages, but actual job numbers. Next question?

[scott]

I haven't checked any facts yet, but maybe someone here is interested in doing so.

[ElNono]

Same period, private jobs only:

http://i52.tinypic.com/2ngvdzd.png

[ElNono]

I look forward to Congress topping 25% approval rating. Maybe they'll get something done then.

[Agloco]

Only WC can find a spurrious link between the passage of Obamacare and job creation.

[Wild Cobra]

Only WC can find a spurrious link between the passage of Obamacare and job creation.
It wasn't my original thought. It was the guest that Victoria Taft interviewed today on radio. He has a great deal of knowledge on the topic.

[ElNono]

Must be renowned enough that you can't even remember his name.

[Trainwreck2100]

Must be renowned enough that you can't even remember his name.

that would make him denowned?

[ElNono]

that would make him denowned?

:lol

:reading can't find that word over here

[4>0rings]

Yup, those policy makers are really, really scared.... seeing as how everyone accountable for the depression was punished.

[boutons_deux]

The Human-American factor of the Banksters' Great Depression is very definitely, so far and as far as anybody predicts, L-shaped:

http://cr4re.com/charts/chart-images/EmployRecessAug2011.jpg

Note the 2001/Brown line where the Repugs famously did nothing about jobs so that their 8 years Reign of Error was was worst for job creation in modern times, then was followed by the catastrophe of the Banksters.

So just when does the unregulated, free-market "self correct"? :lol

[Capt Bringdown]

What, cutting government spending doesn't create jobs?

[boutons_deux]

Ball-less Barry's gonna screw up with his jobs plan, although it will look 1000% better than the Repugs anti-jobs plan.

[DarrinS]

Boutons' graph is a better representation of the current reality.

[DarrinS]

Note the 2001/Brown line where the Repugs famously did nothing about jobs so that their 8 years Reign of Error was was worst for job creation in modern times, then was followed by the catastrophe of the Banksters.

So just when does the unregulated, free-market "self correct"? :lol

I think any sane person would take the brown line over the red one.

[Th'Pusher]

I think any sane person would take the brown line over the red one.

Same team responsible for both.

[Bartleby]

Same team responsible for both.

Actually, the same team occupied the WH during every one of those after the 1960 one.

[Agloco]

lol obama care being why there are no jobs

Lol jobless recovery

[boutons_deux]

I think any sane person would take the brown line over the red one.

of course, but dubya didn't have Clintion tripling the national debt (dubya was handed a budget surplus of $200B+) and dubya didn't start his fiasco regime with the worst depression since the 1930s.

[Wild Cobra]

of course, but dubya didn't have Clintion tripling the national debt (dubya was handed a budget surplus of $200B+) and dubya didn't start his fiasco regime with the worst depression since the 1930s.
Lying again...

To be clear, surplus = positive cash flow.

Why did the national debt increase every year?

[ElNono]

Lying again...

To be clear, surplus = positive cash flow.

Why did the national debt increase every year?

Because the national debt is split in two types of debt:
- public debt
- intragovernment debt

The budget can only offset the public debt, which did go down during that period.

So, not a lie, and your ignorance of how the national debt works is no excuse.

[Wild Cobra]

Because the national debt is split in two types of debt:
- public debt
- intragovernment debt

The budget can only offset the public debt, which did go down during that period.

So, not a lie, and your ignorance of how the national debt works is no excuse.
In the end, the debt never decreased during those surplus years, so calling them that is cheap marketing.

Did the gross national debt go up or down?

[Th'Pusher]

In the end, the debt never decreased during those surplus years, so calling them that is cheap marketing.

Did the gross national debt go up or down?

Do you know what a budget surplus is?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you know what a budget surplus is?
Yes.

What about off budget spending?

If we had an actual surplus, the debt would have decreased. Why did it increase?

What happens if I budget to spend 90% of my income, but then spend 105%?

I had a budget surplus, right?

[ElNono]

In the end, the debt never decreased during those surplus years, so calling them that is cheap marketing.

Did the gross national debt go up or down?

Let me explain again for the 2nd time: The budget can only affect the public debt. Which DID go down during the surplus.

Intragovernment debt (debt accrued through Treasury securities issued, for example, for future Social Security payments) is unaffected by it.

[ElNono]

Yes.

What about off budget spending?

If we had an actual surplus, the debt would have decreased. Why did it increase?

It did decrease.


What happens if I budget to spend 90% of my income, but then spend 105%?

I had a budget surplus, right?

But you didn't spend 105%. You spent 90% and had a 10% surplus. The thing is, you also have a mortgage for $150,000 that you're paying down in 30 years. So you do have a 10% surplus, but you still owe $150,000.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry kids.

The bottom line is the gross national debt increased. There was no decrease.

[Th'Pusher]

WC, how could the gross national debt have been decreased with a budget surplus? Honest question.

[scott]

Lying again...

To be clear, surplus = positive cash flow.

Why did the national debt increase every year?

Strangely, you actually have a valid point to make, however surplus doesn't mean positive cash flow at all. Accrual accounting is a relatively new concept I know (compared with, say, the age of the earth) but try to keep up with recent developments.

[ElNono]

The only way for the national debt not to increase is for the budget surplus to outdo the interest that would need to be paid on the various intragovernment trust funds in the future. If anything, the point to be made is that a balanced budget alone won't fix the debt problem, but it will also require working out mandatory debt obligations like Social Security.

[ElNono]

Sorry kids.

The bottom line is the gross national debt increased. There was no degrease.

Math is hard. Grammar is harder?

But sorry kiddo, ankle biter didn't say the debt decreased. He said Clinton handed a budget surplus to Bush. He didn't lie.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, how could the gross national debt have been decreased with a budget surplus? Honest question.
That's my point. Their was no surplus!

[Wild Cobra]

The only way for the national debt not to increase is for the budget surplus to outdo the interest that would need to be paid on the various intragovernment trust funds in the future. If anything, the point to be made is that a balanced budget alone won't fix the debt problem, but it will also require working out mandatory debt obligations like Social Security.
Yep, keep two books like the mafia does.

Why can you accept not taking this into account?

Bottom line is the debt did not decrease since 1969.

See table 7.1:

Historical tables: Budget of the U.S. government (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf)

[Vici]

I'm confused. There was no surplus right? So then what was the lockbox all about that gore was talking about? And Didn't Bush JR say that we should give tax cuts to offset the surplus?

[Vici]

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/159048-1

Bush talks about the surplus in this speach lol

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/159048-1

Bush talks about the surplus in this speach lol
You mean the "projected" surplus? You mean the surplus that the Clinton administration lied about, that once the budget was audited, didn't exist?

[boutons_deux]

"tax cuts to offset the surplus"

annual budget surplus/deficit is different from national debt.

The surplus was a budgetary (annual) surplus, not a national deficit in the black.

In 2001, the Repugs didn't think the deficit was a problem (they thought it so inconsequential that they went on to double the debt in the next 8 years) so the TEMPORARY budget surplus was to be "spent" with PERMANENT tax cuts, favoring above all the UCA and wealthy, with some crummy tax cuts for everybody else.

When dubya arrived, deficit was about $5.6T, when he left, it was $10T+.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

the Repug/VRWC strategy is starve the beast (with unfunded wars and tax cuts), then drown the beast, then come back for more tax cuts.

Repug presidentail contenders are talking about ZERO corporate taxes and ZERO capital taxes, aka, just more "starve the beast".

[Vici]

Hmm. Looks like an actual surplus and reduction of federal debt.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6982/12-15-LongTermOutlook.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

Hmm. Looks like an actual surplus and reduction of federal debt.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6982/12-15-LongTermOutlook.pdf
Compare that with table 7.1 of my link.

[boutons_deux]

Hmm. Looks like an actual surplus and reduction of federal debt.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6982/12-15-LongTermOutlook.pdf

In Fig 1-1, you see light blue line(in's) sneaking above the dark blue (out's) about 2000-2001. That's the temporary surplus that fucktard dubya ( "It's Your Money" ) used as pretext for permanent tax cuts, which Repugs rammed through in 2001 with Senate reconciliation (which is cheating, unAmerican when Dems do it).

[ElNono]

Yep, keep two books like the mafia does.

Why can you accept not taking this into account?

Bottom line is the debt did not decrease since 1969.

See table 7.1:

Historical tables: Budget of the U.S. government (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf)

See table 1.1. Are you this dumb?

And no, the government doesn't have an option. Under the law they are mandated to turn the various contributions to trust funds into debt (via US Treasury securities).

They don't keep two books, BTW. At some point you need to realize you're too stupid to understand the numbers.

[Wild Cobra]

See table 1.1. Are you this dumb?

And no, the government doesn't have an option. Under the law they are mandated to turn the various contributions to trust funds into debt (via US Treasury securities).

They don't keep two books, BTW. At some point you need to realize you're too stupid to understand the numbers.
The two book thing was a joke since you insist they has a surplus when the end of year reconciliation shows more debt added, i.e. deficit.

Don't you get it?

It doesn't matter how they juggled the numbers to make it appear good. The bottom line is the national debt increased during those years of surplus.

The budget says they will spend "X" dollars. What about legislation the rest of the year that impacts spending?

If my monthly household budget has me saving $100, but then during the month, I had some car repairs totaling $250, do I still have a surplus of $100?

I can only speculate as to why they show two different numbers. Still, they don't jive, and we all know the debt increased. If the debt actually decreased, that would be really big news.

[ElNono]

The two book thing was a joke since you insist they has a surplus when the end of year reconciliation shows more debt added, i.e. deficit.

It doesn't. It shows a surplus in public debt, which is the only affected by the budget.


Don't you get it?

crofl


It doesn't matter how they juggled the numbers to make it appear good. The bottom line is the national debt increased during those years of surplus.

Of course it did. It had nothing to do with the budget though.


The budget says they will spend "X" dollars. What about legislation the rest of the year that impacts spending?

Trust funds do not impact spending. They're simply mandated debt issuing by the US. They have nothing to do with spending.


If my monthly household budget has me saving $100, but then during the month, I had some car repairs totaling $250, do I still have a surplus of $100?

Well, no. But that's not an analogy to this situation either.
An analogy would be that you're required to return 10% of your salary with interest in 50 years. You just acquired debt now, but you won't be on the hook for it for another 50 years (where you'll need to pay that 10% + interest + adjustment for inflation). That still counts as debt. Notice you would be mandated to take on it. You get no option.


I can only speculate as to why they show two different numbers. Still, they don't jive, and we all know the debt increased. If the debt actually decreased, that would be really big news.

It's really not that complicated and it's not a secret either. It did go down and it was big news at the time.

[Jacob1983]

Obama will just blame it on Bush.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It wasn't my original thought. It was the guest that Victoria Taft interviewed today on radio. He has a great deal of knowledge on the topic.

You didn't come up with that and just are parroting the thoughts of others? Who would have thought it?

[boutons_deux]

seems that Barry's going "small", only $300B.

Too small, bound to fail, if it gets past the Repugs.

[Wild Cobra]

You didn't come up with that and just are parroting the thoughts of others? Who would have thought it?
Listen Fussy Woosie.

I develop my own thought from information I receive from others.

[clambake]

Listen Fussy Woosie.

I develop my own thought from information I receive from others.

and they "thank you" for listening.