If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   New Jobs report: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%. November's Jobs report: Mitt Romney still unemployed   (npr.org) divider line 714
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, Alan Krueger, a.m. ET, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

1195 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



714 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 01:26:57 PM  
What we really need are more restrictions on abortion.
 
2012-09-07 01:27:15 PM  

MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy.


Uh, actually that would be great for the economy. I dont think you understand how the economy works dude.
 
2012-09-07 01:27:16 PM  

Dog Welder: tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?

Link

It took all of 30 seconds on Google to find that. It's the same act that the GOP has been blocking in Congress for the past 365 days.


You mean the one that Reid, Tester and Nelson voted against in the Senate...oh those mean GOP members.
 
2012-09-07 01:27:21 PM  

skullkrusher: it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.


But there's no denying that it's better than a sharp stick in the eye.
 
2012-09-07 01:28:31 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the one that Reid, Tester and Nelson voted against in the Senate...oh those mean GOP members.


Reid's vote was procedural. Allows the bill to be brought back to the floor for another vote later.
 
2012-09-07 01:28:37 PM  

MattStafford: If the rich person put his money in a bank, and the bank loaned that money out to a poor person, no I would not have any issue with that. Assuming the poor person blows it, the end result is a transfer of money from the rich person to whereever that money went.


Hooray, we're on the same page so far.

MattStafford: What I am railing against is the creation of money through debt. Suppose the rich person puts 1000 bucks in a bank. Through fractional reserve lending, that 1000 bucks eventually turns into 10,000 bucks. Now if they blow all of that 10,000, then we're going to have some serious issues.


This is an entirely different issue than whether debt can help the economy and has NOTHING do with the government's incurrence of debt. I seriously don't know what you're objection is anymore.
 
2012-09-07 01:28:46 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?

Don't worry, he'll go over the details once you peons elect his as President.



So you don't have an answer about how the person in office who has been at this for almost 4 years plans to improve the job situation? Figures. Where is the 0bama job plan that ddam claims 0bama has?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-amer i can-jobs-act

as linked above by Dog Welder. The plan that is being blocked by the GOP. That is a huge reason why jobs reports are not as good as last year. But in whatever alternate universe you live in that hasn't happened.
 
2012-09-07 01:28:49 PM  

lennavan: MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy.

Uh, actually that would be great for the economy. I dont think you understand how the economy works dude.


I know, this guy is actually making me feel smarter about economics. Mainly because I can grasp basic economics concepts that he seem to be unable to.
 
2012-09-07 01:29:01 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?


Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.
 
2012-09-07 01:29:27 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-07 01:29:51 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: What I am railing against is the creation of money through debt. Suppose the rich person puts 1000 bucks in a bank. Through fractional reserve lending, that 1000 bucks eventually turns into 10,000 bucks. Now if they blow all of that 10,000, then we're going to have some serious issues.

This is an entirely different issue than whether debt can help the economy and has NOTHING do with the government's incurrence of debt. I seriously don't know what you're objection is anymore.


How the hell did you make any sense of that paragraph he wrote?
 
2012-09-07 01:30:42 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


How exactly does raising taxes destroy an equal number of jobs?
 
2012-09-07 01:31:04 PM  

MattStafford: Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


So...because you say so.
 
2012-09-07 01:31:24 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


Good lord, are all Republicans this retarded? Or do they really believe that everything done by government has no inherent value (infrastructure, education, defense, etc) strictly because it's funded by the government?
 
2012-09-07 01:32:01 PM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: A bunch of guys start running taco trucks to feed the diggers. The taco truck guys can now afford to see the doctor, who hires another nurse. The truck dealer can now send his kids to private school. Their teacher starts lunching at a taco truck because she's more overworked and it's convenient. A guy learns to fix machines at the shovel factory, later opening his own diesel garage.

Some of that does indeed persist once the spigot closes. Since most employment these days is in nontradable local services, it's not that hard to get a self-sustaining increase in employment.

Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.

No, none of that persists when the spigot is turned off, at least not in aggregate. If the government creates 1000 jobs by creating debt, they are going to destroy 1000 jobs when the pay that debt down.


So how is that not true of, say, Google? If I get hired by Google, work there a couple years and get laid off, no lasting value was created?
 
2012-09-07 01:32:07 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Good lord, are all Republicans this retarded? Or do they really believe that everything done by government has no inherent value (infrastructure, education, defense, etc) strictly because it's funded by the government?


Yes.
 
2012-09-07 01:32:24 PM  

DamnYankees: What are you talking about? You do realize the government only funds about 1/3 of its expenditures with debt, right? It has revenue.

The government put up far more 'equity' in relation to debt than any private individual does in the case of a mortgage. For a mortgage, you might put up 20% in equity and take out a mortgage for the other 80%. For the government's expenses, it puts up about $2.5T in equity (the money it has from taxes) and about $1.1T in debt.

You're simply wrong. You seem like a well spoken and earnest guy, but your facts simply don't make sense.


That would be true, if the federal budget was a one time purchase. It would be like a person buying a house every year with a two thirds down payment, but never making a payment on any principal.
 
2012-09-07 01:32:31 PM  

gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]


next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo
 
2012-09-07 01:32:44 PM  

lennavan: How exactly does raising taxes destroy an equal number of jobs?


I mean duh, remember the horrible 90s?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-07 01:32:50 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.

Good lord, are all Republicans this retarded? Or do they really believe that everything done by government has no inherent value (infrastructure, education, defense, etc) strictly because it's funded by the government?


That seems to be the main lesson I'm getting out of this idiot's ramblings as well.
 
2012-09-07 01:33:12 PM  

MattStafford: If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


This makes no sense.

Imagine I take out a loan of 100K. I hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of of 11K each. So after 1 year, I now have 10K more than I did last year. After 10 years I will have repaid all my debt and my guys all still have jobs.

This is basic, basic business stuff. I mean, seriously.
 
2012-09-07 01:35:07 PM  

MattStafford: That would be true, if the federal budget was a one time purchase. It would be like a person buying a house every year with a two thirds down payment, but never making a payment on any principal.


Yes, its possible to have this be a problem. What you need to watch out for is your debt-to-revenue ratio. Right now, in the US, that ratio is about 6%.

That's what known in financial terms as "reasonable".
 
2012-09-07 01:35:16 PM  

MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy. It is just that the government is far more likely to do that, because it is politically popular to hire people and spend money.


The government doesn't hire people to dig ditches and fill them back up. When the government employs people to build infrastructure (or hires contractors to do the hiring), something tangible (and of value to the commons) is left when the work is complete. The improvements to infrastructure encourage private business growth,and there are more jobs available for everyone.

Our infrastructure is in pitiful shape compared to the rest of the industrial world. Government spending isn't a zero-sum game.
 
2012-09-07 01:36:48 PM  

DamnYankees: I still have no idea what your definition of "distortion" is. It seems to consist off entirely of things the government does that the private sector also does, the government just does more of it.


Distortion is allocating the resources of an economy into unproductive areas via the use of debt. Government goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Google goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Government is far more likely to do this than Google is, however.

And note, the fact that it is funded by debt is key.
 
2012-09-07 01:36:50 PM  

WhyteRaven74: It's not that they all quit looking for work just because they gave up. Some quit looking because school started up, some retired.

cameroncrazy1984: Look at everyone trying to spin job growth as a BAD THING


When the White House's best spin is "Don't read to much into this", it's bad news.  Things are bad, and there's no clear sign things are getting better. That's a fact. Now, how we choose to deal with that, and which candidate is a better choice for dealing with it, is a separate question. Denying the obvious is a big turn-off to independents and undecideds.
 
2012-09-07 01:37:20 PM  

DamnYankees: Yes, its possible to have this be a problem. What you need to watch out for is your debt-to-revenue ratio. Right now, in the US, that ratio is about 6%.


are you referring to the US economy or the US government?
 
2012-09-07 01:38:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and a political system in paralysis and a fiscal policy on auto-pilot they don't hire.


The bond traders and raters told you this a year ago. You didn't listen then and now you feign outrage at the predictable macroeconomic effects hoping for partisan advantage. Cool story, bro.
 
2012-09-07 01:38:16 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: WhyteRaven74: It's not that they all quit looking for work just because they gave up. Some quit looking because school started up, some retired.
cameroncrazy1984: Look at everyone trying to spin job growth as a BAD THING

When the White House's best spin is "Don't read to much into this", it's bad news.  Things are bad, and there's no clear sign things are getting better. That's a fact. Now, how we choose to deal with that, and which candidate is a better choice for dealing with it, is a separate question. Denying the obvious is a big turn-off to independents and undecideds.


I don't think there's much danger of anyone listening to those two
 
2012-09-07 01:38:25 PM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.

Absolutely? Even though when the bank eventually cuts him off, he'll have to go from living the high life to living a shack? Wouldn't it be better advice for him to live within his means? You basically just said that it was a good idea for everyone who took subprime loans to take those loans, you do realize that, right?


If we're using microeconomic theory here, those people were rational self-interested agents participating in a voluntary arm's-length transaction, if it didn't create value for them they would not have done it. Likewise, they're generating value for the bank (or the bank wouldn't make the loan).

More seriously, note the "unsecured" in my response. For this hypothetical debtor, default is an option. There's a cost (ruined ability to get more credit) but that might be just fine with him, depending on his situation.

Also note this has no bearing on government borrowing whatsoever.
 
2012-09-07 01:38:42 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


WOW. Please stick to being bad at football, you're TERRIBLE at economics and logic.
 
2012-09-07 01:38:42 PM  

MattStafford: And note, the fact that it is funded by debt is key.


Almost all business is funded by debt.

And whether you think the government is worse or better than the private sector is irrelevant. It's just a matter of degree, and you're line of at what degree that investment becomes "distortion" is just arbitrary and prejudicial.
 
2012-09-07 01:39:19 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.

Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.

leave the spin to those running for office. You should be able to pull off objective analysis this close to an election.

the real possibility the election could bring us back to those good old days makes it part of the object

so you want dishonest analysis of data in light of that? Who am I kidding, of course you do.

And of course you want to remind people of the failure of your party, so bringing W is forbidden, amirite?

you're not even trying anymore. Seriously, if you aren't farking around you're an extra special sort of idiot


you: comparing job growth now to W's term is meaningless.
me: in the context of the bigger picture, an election 2 months away, it isn't.
you: of course you want to point that out.
me: troll for a troll
you: omg yer so stoopid
 
2012-09-07 01:39:28 PM  

KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.


154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.
 
2012-09-07 01:39:38 PM  

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: Yes, its possible to have this be a problem. What you need to watch out for is your debt-to-revenue ratio. Right now, in the US, that ratio is about 6%.

are you referring to the US economy or the US government?


The government.
 
2012-09-07 01:40:02 PM  

MattStafford: And note, the fact that it is funded by debt is key.


The debt is a concern, not a crisis. Unemployment is a crisis. Fix unemployment and you'll fix the debt, not the other way around. That's called austerity, and is part of the reason the US, relative to Europe, is kicking economic ass right now.

Or,

Talking about the deficit right now is like having your house on fire and saying "the most important issue right now is water usage."

- sethdmichaels (@sethdmichaels) September 7, 2012
 
2012-09-07 01:40:21 PM  

KarmicDisaster: DamnYankees: And we're back.

What happened, it was horrible. The whole universe blinked out for a minute.


All the right wing links finally overloaded the servers.
They had to derpfrag the hard drives.
 
2012-09-07 01:40:27 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: When the White House's best spin is "Don't read to much into this", it's bad news.


So explaining what numbers mean is now spin? And if things aren't good, how about putting the blame on the private sector?
 
2012-09-07 01:41:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.


What were Bush's month average during 2008?
 
2012-09-07 01:41:58 PM  

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]

next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo


Uh the stock market isnt high?

Oh this is where you derp away that because its 8% away from the record high it doesnt count.

Derp away!
 
2012-09-07 01:41:58 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the one that Reid, Tester and Nelson voted against in the Senate...oh those mean GOP members.

Reid's vote was procedural. Allows the bill to be brought back to the floor for another vote later.


So? GOP members have reasons for their vote too.

Face it, the Dems had a majority in the House. One GOP member votes yes.. The bill fails the vote by 50-49. Conclusion from the left: it is the GOPs fault.

0bama's own party killed it, not the GOP.
 
2012-09-07 01:42:00 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.


Blame the private sector, and at any rate isn't that different from similar situations in the past.
 
2012-09-07 01:42:05 PM  
Unemployment rate when Obama won the election: 6.7%
Unemployment rate when Obama took Office: 8.3%
Unemployment rate Today: 8.1%

That is not success. It's just not. For almost four years now, the administration has been saying be patient, we're working on it. It will get better.

It's not better. It's just not worse.
 
2012-09-07 01:42:44 PM  

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: Yes, its possible to have this be a problem. What you need to watch out for is your debt-to-revenue ratio. Right now, in the US, that ratio is about 6%.

are you referring to the US economy or the US government?

The government.


what numbers you using for that? US Debt to revs is over 100%. A far lower ratio than many major companies but certainly not 6%
 
2012-09-07 01:43:08 PM  

ddam: Gaseous Anomaly: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.

It's actually an interesting case for tax cuts. Because of these negative rates it currently costs the economy less in the long run for the government to borrow money than it does for the government to collect taxes. So a big-ass deficit-financed tax cut (a la Bush 2003) might be the long-run prudent thing to do.

So the best way to reduce the national debt is to add $5 trillion to it as Romney proposes? What kind of math are you using?


Spending $5T and collecting $5T in taxes right now will in fact add more to the long-run national debt more than spending $5T and collecting no taxes, yes. Welcome to the bizarro-land of negative interest rates. (In the short run of course it would go up, but that would be counteracted by us having to collect less than $5T in taxes later to pay back the bonds).
 
2012-09-07 01:43:21 PM  

impaler: Corporate profits, last 2 presidential terms:

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


So the trickle-down should be a thunderstorm apparently.
 
2012-09-07 01:43:25 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.


I have to ask. Are you only using the first 8 months of 2011 for that number or the whole year?

Because that would be an incredibly dishonest talking point to use if you were using 12 months in 2011 to compared to 8 months in 2012.
 
2012-09-07 01:43:30 PM  

adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


Considering the crash came in 2008, that would make sense.
 
2012-09-07 01:43:45 PM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]

next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo

Uh the stock market isnt high?

Oh this is where you derp away that because its 8% away from the record high it doesnt count.

Derp away!


man, I can't quit you
 
2012-09-07 01:43:45 PM  

skullkrusher: what numbers you using for that? US Debt to revs is over 100%. A far lower ratio than many major companies but certainly not 6%


Debt *payment*. Not total debt. I'm saying how much of our budget is spent on servicing debt. When people get mortgages, the important thing is whether you can make the monthly payments, not the actual total amount outstanding. That's how you judge whether you are in over your head.
 
2012-09-07 01:43:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: That is not success. It's just not. For almost four years now, the administration has been saying be patient, we're working on it. It will get better.


On the day Obama took office unemployment was rapidly increasing. And hey why not blame the private sector? Or is the private sector utterly blameless in everything?
 
Displayed 50 of 714 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report