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  
•       •       •

1196 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 01:58:44 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: WhyteRaven74: 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?

Interesting that you would respond to a statement of fact with an attempt to shift blame. I have not said a word about "Fault"

I am simply stating the fact that Obama has not generated a sunstantial change in the unemployment rate during his term. He said he would. He has not.

Do YOU consider the current unemployment rate to be a 'success story' for Obama?


Compared to what Bush did from start to finish, it is a more successful story.

Bush
1/20/2001: 4.2%
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 83.33% increase

Obama
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Currently: 8.1%
Unemployment Rate Change: 5.19% increase 

and... it is trending down.
i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-09-07 01:58:48 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: BojanglesPaladin: 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.

The labor participation percentage is the lowest in 30 years.
So it is worse, a lot worse.


Sorry, I was wrong.
It is the lowest in over 60 years.
 
2012-09-07 01:58:56 PM  

DamnYankees: Mrtraveler01: how would have these people be unemployed instead be any better for the economy?

It wouldn't. We're saying the opposite.


It was directed at Matt mostly.
 
2012-09-07 01:59:14 PM  

MattStafford: 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.


This is such a trip. This is the most well spoken intelligent sounding derp I have ever read. I mean, if you turn your brain off and just read, it really sounds like you know what you're talking about. But if someone were to even for a moment actually think about what you post it is just so clearly and fundamentally retarded. I love it. I really do.
 
2012-09-07 01:59:41 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: BojanglesPaladin: 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.

The labor participation percentage is the lowest in 30 years.
So it is worse, a lot worse.


I don't understand why Obama doesn't just spend the money he needs to stimulate the economy and create jobs? It's almost like he can't just spend money but has to ask permission from somebody else.
 
2012-09-07 02:00:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: The labor participation percentage is the lowest in 30 years.
So it is worse, a lot worse.


As a single data point it is meaningless. It does not indicate that things are better or worse. You are not as smart as you think you are.
 
2012-09-07 02:00:30 PM  

MattStafford: 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.

You are an idiot.

How can so many seemingly otherwise intelligent people think that going into debt and spending that money on something unproductive is good. It is mind boggling.


No one feels that way. We just don't agree building bridges and roads is unproductive. You see, I drove on a road to get to work today and under a bridge (which had train tracks on it). These things don't build themselves you know.*

*you didnt know, did you?
 
2012-09-07 02:01:05 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: tenpoundsofcheese: BojanglesPaladin: 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.

The labor participation percentage is the lowest in 30 years.
So it is worse, a lot worse.

Sorry, I was wrong.
It is the lowest in over 60 years.


Maybe because it's a downward slope because more and more people are retiring dumbass?
 
2012-09-07 02:01:34 PM  

DamnYankees: I seriously don't know what you're objection is anymore.


Let me try and spell it out for you.

China lends the government one billion dollars. Government builds a military base in the middle of nowhere. Military base creates a ton of jobs. Government has to pay China back. Government can either (A) shut down the military base and raise taxes, (B) shut down the military base and cut spending elsewhere (job losses), (C) massively raise taxes and keep the base open (job losses elsewhere), (D) print money and devalue the currency (devalued currency means less demand, which means job losses), or (E) take out another loan and pay China back with that.

We have been doing (E) for a long time, and we're reaching the breaking point. Eventually China will say no, and we will be forced to do one of the other options. Politically, (D) is most likely.

And yes, I know that China only holds about a trillion dollars of our debt, and far more is held internally. But that same process applies to everyone that holds our debt. (E) cannot work forever, despite what you would like to believe.
 
2012-09-07 02:02:52 PM  

MattStafford: Government can either (A) shut down the military base and raise taxes, (B) shut down the military base and cut spending elsewhere (job losses), (C) massively raise taxes and keep the base open (job losses elsewhere), (D) print money and devalue the currency (devalued currency means less demand, which means job losses), or (E) take out another loan and pay China back with that.


I like how you missed the most obvious option:

(F) Economy grows, and we use the growth to pay back the loan.
 
2012-09-07 02:03:09 PM  

jst3p: tenpoundsofcheese: The labor participation percentage is the lowest in 30 years.
So it is worse, a lot worse.

As a single data point it is meaningless. It does not indicate that things are better or worse. You are not as smart as you think you are.


Considering that the downward trend of the labor participation percentage started under Bush. He has no room to talk really.

asianconservatives.com

I guess this means that Bush was an "anti-Business" and an "anti-Success" president too huh?
 
2012-09-07 02:03:18 PM  

MattStafford: 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.

You are an idiot.

How can so many seemingly otherwise intelligent people think that going into debt and spending that money on something unproductive is good. It is mind boggling.


Perhaps we do not attach extreme negative moral weight to debt. And/or we see the difference between personal and national debt.

It's tough to see what other people are thinking when some of their key axioms/values are different, even if they're otherwise using sound reasoning.
 
2012-09-07 02:03:38 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: 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.

Take it up with the AP. That is how they are reporting the news.

The average for that same period is 143,00 for 2011.
So face it, 0bama has failed.

Got a citation?

Sorry that I don't take your word for it but I need a citation.


Cheese is either purposefully misunderstanding the question, or he just does not get it.
research.stlouisfed.org

Look at the downward slope in unemployment during the previous growth periods, 1994 to 2000 and 2003-2007. The recovery under Obama 2010-current has a steeper downward slope. Unemployment is actually dropping faster under Obama than it did during the last two expansions. He says that means Obama has "failed" when actually the results are better than we had during the last two expansions. You can see it with your eye, no need to cherry pick numbers or anything.
 
2012-09-07 02:03:49 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: Government can either (A) shut down the military base and raise taxes, (B) shut down the military base and cut spending elsewhere (job losses), (C) massively raise taxes and keep the base open (job losses elsewhere), (D) print money and devalue the currency (devalued currency means less demand, which means job losses), or (E) take out another loan and pay China back with that.

I like how you missed the most obvious option:

(F) Economy grows, and we use the growth to pay back the loan.


What an absurd idea!
 
2012-09-07 02:04:29 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I seriously don't know what you're objection is anymore.

Let me try and spell it out for you.

China lends the government one billion dollars. Government builds a military base in the middle of nowhere. Military base creates a ton of jobs. Government has to pay China back. Government can either (A) shut down the military base and raise taxes, (B) shut down the military base and cut spending elsewhere (job losses), (C) massively raise taxes and keep the base open (job losses elsewhere), (D) print money and devalue the currency (devalued currency means less demand, which means job losses), or (E) take out another loan and pay China back with that.

We have been doing (E) for a long time, and we're reaching the breaking point. Eventually China will say no, and we will be forced to do one of the other options. Politically, (D) is most likely.

And yes, I know that China only holds about a trillion dollars of our debt, and far more is held internally. But that same process applies to everyone that holds our debt. (E) cannot work forever, despite what you would like to believe.


I don't think you understand how treasuries work.
 
2012-09-07 02:04:50 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...

Yes, we elected 0bama.

Average number of jobs created per month in 2011: 153,000
Average number of jobs created per month in 2012: 139,000

Conclusion: but, but, but, bbbbuush!

Whatever 0bama thinks he is doing to create jobs has failed.


Which GOP President in history has done more in terms of job creation?
 
2012-09-07 02:04:57 PM  

MattStafford: (E) cannot work forever, despite what you would like to believe.


That's why during the housing bubble there shouldn't have been 5 trillion dollars added to the debt. We should have had surpluses. So now during a recession we could do that spending without going into dangerous debt ratio land.
 
2012-09-07 02:05:08 PM  

Highroller48: Unfortunately, all efforts to actually get these moving have been blocked by partisan chicanery in Congress. The Republicans have had numerous opportunities to put Americans to work, but they'd rather sacrifice them all just to try and put ONE guy out of a job.


QTF - can't be said often enough.
 
2012-09-07 02:05:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.


Am I living in crazy world? You guys think that going massively into debt and wasting all of that money is good for the economy. It is completely insane!

If I went to a bank and took out a million dollar loan, and blew it all on creating a fabulously great lifestyle for myself, you would think I was an idiot.
If a company went to a bank and took out a billion dollar loan, and spent it all on employee trips and upgrading their buildings and executive bonuses, you would think they we're being idiots (or gutted by Bain).
But if a state goes to the bank and takes out a trillion dollar loan, and spends it on a massive military industrial complex and gigantic safety net, full steam ahead. That's just economics, baby!

What the fark is wrong with you people.
 
2012-09-07 02:06:36 PM  

MattStafford: Eventually China will say no


China can't say no and they never will be able to so long as their currency is tied to ours at a fixed rate. And as soon as they untie it, the let loose an inflation genie that they'll have no ability to control. They are just as much over the barrel as we are.
 
2012-09-07 02:06:39 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I seriously don't know what you're objection is anymore.

Let me try and spell it out for you.

China lends the government one billion dollars. Government builds a military base in the middle of nowhere. Military base creates a ton of jobs. Government has to pay China back. Government can either (A) shut down the military base and raise taxes, (B) shut down the military base and cut spending elsewhere (job losses), (C) massively raise taxes and keep the base open (job losses elsewhere), (D) print money and devalue the currency (devalued currency means less demand, which means job losses), or (E) take out another loan and pay China back with that.

We have been doing (E) for a long time, and we're reaching the breaking point. Eventually China will say no, and we will be forced to do one of the other options. Politically, (D) is most likely.

And yes, I know that China only holds about a trillion dollars of our debt, and far more is held internally. But that same process applies to everyone that holds our debt. (E) cannot work forever, despite what you would like to believe.


You are correct. There are logical limits to our ability to borrow and endless deficit spending is not what we want to be doing. However, in slow times, deficit spending on domestic projects injects money into the economy in the near term. As this money trickles through the economy it is multiplied, stimulating aggregate demand along the way. Eventually, this stimulated demand will lead to more hiring which takes the place of the deficit spending and the economy continues to grow on its own even though the project is finished due to that kickstart. Growing economy means more jobs and increasing wages which leads to more tax revenues.
 
2012-09-07 02:07:06 PM  

MattStafford: What the fark is wrong with you people.


Yes, it's us. All of us. Not one of you. This is much more likely.
 
2012-09-07 02:07:31 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: 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).


You are correct, however the problem with Romney's plan is that he has not provided any details on how those $5T in taxes will be brought in. Will he gut the deduction that middle class uses such as mortgage interest deduction and college loans interest deduction plus cutting countless other social programs? Or will he close loop holes that corporations use to keep their tax payments low? Will he cut the DOD budget or expand it?

I don't know as he hasn't provided any specifics as to how he will bring in the tax revenue. All he provided was a tax cut that heavily favors the rich without showing how he'll pay for it asking us to trust him because he has a plan that he can only reveal after he's elected.
 
2012-09-07 02:07:36 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: The labor participation percentage is the lowest in 30 years.
So it is worse, a lot worse.


People living longer is contrary to GOP goals.
 
2012-09-07 02:08:38 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Face it, the Dems had a majority in the House.

Not when the AJA was introduced. That was 2011.

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama's own party killed it, not the GOP.

N

here ya go.


You really are an idiot.

Reid changed his vote to prevent the bill from going into cloture (which was guaranteed had it passed), which means it would never pass. This allows them to bring the bill back around for a vote at a later date.
 
2012-09-07 02:09:50 PM  

WhyteRaven74: 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?


Explaining numbers is indeed spin, and there's nothing wrong it. My point was that even the White House recognizes that these are not good numbers. As to blaming the private sector, how would you go about doing that? What, it's those bad businessmen and women who aren't hiring enough people, even though they're not sure when the economy will improve and they can pay for all the new employees they hired? You, dear, have a cart and horse problem.
 
2012-09-07 02:10:03 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?


First, I'm not a republican.

Second, I've gone on the record saying I support going into debt for necessary infrastructure and education.

Third, I've gone on the record saying I'm fine with wealth redistribution.

Fourth, I'm not a huge fan of the military, but I understand there is a place for it.

What I am against, and the only thing I am against, is paying for unproductive expenditures via debt. If you want welfare, go for it, but don't put it on a credit card. If you want a big military, fine by me (not really, but whatever), just make sure you tax people to pay for it. Health care for the elderly? Pay for it. Education and infrastructure (should) pay for themselves, so going into debt for them isn't a big deal. Those other things do not pay for themselves. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept.

You should only go into debt for things that have an ROI greater than one! It isn't rocket science here people!
 
2012-09-07 02:10:15 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I seriously don't know what you're objection is anymore.

Let me try and spell it out for you.

China lends the government one billion dollars. Government builds a military base in the middle of nowhere. Military base creates a ton of jobs. Government has to pay China back. Government can either (A) shut down the military base and raise taxes, (B) shut down the military base and cut spending elsewhere (job losses), (C) massively raise taxes and keep the base open (job losses elsewhere), (D) print money and devalue the currency (devalued currency means less demand, which means job losses), or (E) take out another loan and pay China back with that.

We have been doing (E) for a long time, and we're reaching the breaking point. Eventually China will say no, and we will be forced to do one of the other options. Politically, (D) is most likely.

And yes, I know that China only holds about a trillion dollars of our debt, and far more is held internally. But that same process applies to everyone that holds our debt. (E) cannot work forever, despite what you would like to believe.


What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?

Or (F):

DamnYankees: (F) Economy grows, and we use the growth to pay back the loan.

 
2012-09-07 02:10:43 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I seriously don't know what you're objection is anymore.

Let me try and spell it out for you.

China lends the government one billion dollars. Government builds a military base in the middle of nowhere. Military base creates a ton of jobs. Government has to pay China back. Government can either (A) shut down the military base and raise taxes, (B) shut down the military base and cut spending elsewhere (job losses), (C) massively raise taxes and keep the base open (job losses elsewhere), (D) print money and devalue the currency (devalued currency means less demand, which means job losses), or (E) take out another loan and pay China back with that.

We have been doing (E) for a long time, and we're reaching the breaking point. Eventually China will say no, and we will be forced to do one of the other options. Politically, (D) is most likely.

And yes, I know that China only holds about a trillion dollars of our debt, and far more is held internally. But that same process applies to everyone that holds our debt. (E) cannot work forever, despite what you would like to believe.


Buying our bonds is the way that China keeps their currency low in value relative to the dollar, widening their trade surplus with us more so that it would "naturally" be. If China stops buying bonds, the remnibi goes up relative to the USD, Chinese imports become more expensive while American exports become cheaper, bringing some production and jobs back to the US.

(E) CAN work forever if the long-run growth rate of the debt is kept below the long-run growth rate of the economy.

Option A: Even after the military base closes, a town still exists there where one didn't before. It's impoverished, but the Wal-Mart workers, restraunteurs, strippers and tattoo artists keep some (smaller) economy going between themselves.
 
2012-09-07 02:10:55 PM  

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


If my taxes are increased, I spend less.
 
2012-09-07 02:11:41 PM  

MattStafford: What I am against, and the only thing I am against, is paying for unproductive expenditures via debt.


I can't see how anyone can disagree with this. If that's your point, you're correct. Spending money (derived from debt or revenues, doesn't matter) on useless shiat is stupid.

There's got to be more to what you've been saying than that though.
 
2012-09-07 02:12:23 PM  

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

If my taxes are increased, I spend less.


That depends on how much you earn
 
2012-09-07 02:12:47 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: 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?


It depends on what you did for Google, and how they paid you. If they paid you through debt, and you didn't do anything for them, it was bad. If they paid you through debt, and your production paid off that debt, than that is good. If they paid you from their pocket, who the fark cares, that's Google's problem.
 
2012-09-07 02:13:23 PM  
It's not "the economy", stupid. The economy is roaring. The stock market is in the stratosphere, and profits, productivity, and earnings are at all time highs. Inflation is at an all time low. By all the "free market" barometers, the economy is doing great.
There just aren't any jobs for the peasants, because "trickle down" doesn't work, and never did.
When we face that fact, we can maybe get somewhere. Until and unless we do, things won't get much better.
 
2012-09-07 02:13:25 PM  

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

If my taxes are increased, I spend less.


So you raise taxes on the wealthy. Whether Mitt Romney pays 14% or 20% isn't going to change his buying habits dude.
 
2012-09-07 02:14:20 PM  

MattStafford: Am I living in crazy world? You guys think that going massively into debt and wasting all of that money is good for the economy. It is completely insane!


Gross Federal Debt per GDP:
research.stlouisfed.org

Do you know what the US economy did following 1945?
 
2012-09-07 02:14:37 PM  

MattStafford: If they paid you through debt, and you didn't do anything for them, it was bad.


This makes no sense at all. How is the fact that its debt relevant at all? If Google borrows the money from Jim Smith, how is that relevant? The existence of debt is merely a contractual relationship between the borrower and lender. It's completely irrelevant to whether or not the underlying transaction is a good idea.
 
2012-09-07 02:14:39 PM  

MattStafford: What I am against, and the only thing I am against, is paying for unproductive expenditures via debt. If you want welfare, go for it, but don't put it on a credit card. If you want a big military, fine by me (not really, but whatever), just make sure you tax people to pay for it. Health care for the elderly? Pay for it. Education and infrastructure (should) pay for themselves, so going into debt for them isn't a big deal. Those other things do not pay for themselves. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept.

You should only go into debt for things that have an ROI greater than one! It isn't rocket science here people!


During a recession there's little alternative but to charge it. Ideally one would run a surplus in good times to counteract some of that. Temporal mechanics says that's not an option for this recession though.

You're also grossly overestimating how difficult it is to start a project with greater than one ROI when you have a buttload of unemployed people and idle capital sitting around producing jack shiat.
 
2012-09-07 02:14:55 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: BojanglesPaladin: 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.

The labor participation percentage is the lowest in 30 years.
So it is worse, a lot worse.



That's because of this. Old people, and more of 'em. And it is going to get worse. There is nothing that Obama or Romney can do about it.

www.agingstats.gov
 
2012-09-07 02:15:29 PM  

lennavan: What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?


Because you're stealing money from the job creators by gun point obviously.
 
2012-09-07 02:16:20 PM  

WhyteRaven74: AcneVulgaris: People giving up and dropping out of the workforce isn't bad?

Not all the people dropping out are giving up, some are retiring, some are giving up because they're going to school.


...quite often because they can't find work.

I'm not trying to defend or demonize any political group. That's just the way things are.
 
2012-09-07 02:16:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01: lennavan: What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?

Because you're stealing money from the job creators by gun point obviously.


Matt hasn't said anything remotely similar to that. You are much better than that, Mr T
 
2012-09-07 02:16:49 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.


Hey, ya know what, it sounds like your investment there has an ROI greater than one. I wonder if I have ever said anything about whether or not it is good to spend on things with an ROI greater than one. I just might have, but I can't remember.

Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you are 110K in debt (interest and all that). You have to fire all of your people. Government has to bail you out, and raises taxes by 110K. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and actually destroyed jobs.
 
2012-09-07 02:19:14 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%.

That's what known in financial terms as "reasonable".


6%? Where are you getting your numbers from? Isn't our debt roughly 8 times greater than our yearly revenue? And increasing rapidly?
 
2012-09-07 02:19:55 PM  

skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: lennavan: What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?

Because you're stealing money from the job creators by gun point obviously.

Matt hasn't said anything remotely similar to that. You are much better than that, Mr T


Sorry, I just get tired of that "Government can only hurt the economy" rhetoric that he seems to be peddling.
 
2012-09-07 02:20:09 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: 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.

Hey, ya know what, it sounds like your investment there has an ROI greater than one. I wonder if I have ever said anything about whether or not it is good to spend on things with an ROI greater than one. I just might have, but I can't remember.

Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you are 110K in debt (interest and all that). You have to fire all of your people. Government has to bail you out, and raises taxes by 110K. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and actually destroyed jobs.


Ok, so you support just taking out debt for, like, food stamps?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-07 02:20:20 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: 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.



I've said I support necessary infrastructure construction, funded by debt. Things that aren't productive and are funded by debt are destroying this country.
 
2012-09-07 02:21:13 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.



Right now, I certainly agree with you. Our entire global economy is funded by debt. The Mayans were right, we're farked.
 
2012-09-07 02:21:40 PM  

MattStafford: Things that aren't productive and are funded by debt are destroying this country.


Like tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
2012-09-07 02:22:25 PM  

WhyteRaven74: 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.


Remember, these are the same people who want government out of their medicare too.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report