• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

Don't let the facts get in your way.



What facts ?

The FACT that Full time positions dropped by 150 thousand ?

Or that the Household survey only shows a seasonally adjusted increase of just 4000 new Americans employed ?

Or that orders from US manufacturers has fallen 3 consecutive months in a row ?

Hey how about that Housing market ? Hit or miss for 6 years running. Must be Bush's fault.

The reality is if you use an ounce of effort to look past the propaganda you will find that the economy is still on life support.

All it needs to drive it into the ground is the the Business mandates from ObamaCare to kick in.
 
We simply don't know how many were created or saved, and will never know.

That’s a convenient excuse to avoid accountability. It sounds like something a politician would say when the results are detrimental or negative.
Quick to claim credit for positive news… obfuscation when it’s bad.

In response… I’ll just use your retort… “I guess you can try to rationalize and marginalize all the … economic news that you desire to, when it proves your ideology wrong, but maybe it would be wiser to modify your ideology.”

But do you really believe that if we had elected a different president, that any other president would have failed to attempt some sort of economic stimulous? I don’t.

Of course any other candidate would have done something. Duh!
But… would he have made the same mistakes? Taken actions based on the same false assumptions? Made the same missteps? Would the economy have turned the corner sooner?

In my opinion… the economy has finally started to show signs of life in spite of this Administration’s actions, not because of their actions.


Our lfpr has stopped declining. So I can only assume that the increasing jobs numbers is a result of economic growth.

Once again, the Labor Force Participation Rate has stopped it’s free fall in spite of this Administration’s actions, not because of their actions.

In fact, it is my opinion that specific policies of this Administration has stimulated and fostered the trend in the Labor Force Participation and they are clearly to blame for the fact that it Remains at 36-Year Low.

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2004_2014_all_period_M11_data.gif
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
All it needs to drive it into the ground is the the Business mandates from ObamaCare to kick in.

Open enrollment for 2015 (the year of the dreaded "business mandates"!) would've been well underway in most companies by November. In other words, the health plans companies will be providing under the employer mandate next year were already being offered--they just likely won't go into effect for another three weeks--to employees during the time period this job report covers.
 
What facts ?

The FACT that Full time positions dropped by 150 thousand ?

Or that the Household survey only shows a seasonally adjusted increase of just 4000 new Americans employed ?

Or that orders from US manufacturers has fallen 3 consecutive months in a row ?

Hey how about that Housing market ? Hit or miss for 6 years running. Must be Bush's fault.

The reality is if you use an ounce of effort to look past the propaganda you will find that the economy is still on life support.

All it needs to drive it into the ground is the the Business mandates from ObamaCare to kick in.


I agree with everything you posted here. Allow me to add my 2 cents...


IMO, everyone is looking at the myopic view. Why isn't anyone asking; "What actions and initiatives are being taken to address the long term problems that we are facing in this uncertain world?"

Unsustainable debt is at the top of the list. What happens if the US is faced with one or more large scale natural disasters. Or maybe a nuke or a dirty bomb, or two. How about a major disruption of our utilities and infrastructure. What about another major war? When we are stretched to the limit, it makes it harder to recover.

Our foreign policies are in total disarray, we have lost our standing in the world order. We have lost and isolated our allies and emboldened our real enemies.

And whatever happen to the American Dream? Why is it now "uncool" to be a Proud American? We are now led to believe that America is an evil oppressor, and nothing is mentioned about all of the good America does throughout the world?

Why is this Administration intentionally pitting Americans against Americans? Black against White.

What happened to the euphemism "loyal opposition"? Now, if you don't agree with the Administration you are considered the enemy. Targeted by the IRS.

IMO, this Administration has done everything possible to endanger the long term survival of this once great nation.
 
Unsustainable debt is at the top of the list. What happens if the US is faced with one or more large scale natural disasters. Or maybe a nuke or a dirty bomb, or two. How about a major disruption of our utilities and infrastructure. What about another major war? When we are stretched to the limit, it makes it harder to recover.

What leads you to believe that our debt level is unstainable? Or that we are stretched to the limit?

As a percent of GDP, it's lower now than it was during WW2, and we won that war.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the rate of growth of our debt has been slowing for several years, as our GDP increases and the deficit falls. It's entirely possible, and likely, that the budget may be balanced within two or three years.
 
Open enrollment for 2015 (the year of the dreaded "business mandates"!) would've been well underway in most companies by November. In other words, the health plans companies will be providing under the employer mandate next year were already being offered--they just likely won't go into effect for another three weeks--to employees during the time period this job report covers.


Small businesses are responsible for the vast majority of job creation in America.

Bussinesses surveyed by the FED admitted that the ACA was causing them not only to cut hours, and do away with full time positions, but forcing them to outsource.

Instead of incentivizing more private sector investment into the economy that would lead to job creation, it throws a huge wet blanket on it.

Large Corporations are now motivated to automate, outsource and sit on stagnant off-shore capital. And they can get access to very cheap credit to pay for all of this thanks to the FEDs perpetual QE.

Small businesses cut hours and full time positions. 150,000 Full time positions were dropped in the latest jobs report.

The increase in cost due to ObamaCare AND the Tax increases are simply passed onto the American consumer, the Middle class, who now have to pay higher premiums for overpriced insurance with coverage they'll never need.

ObamaCare doesn't adversely affect the Rich or poor. The Rich can afford premium hikes and the poor qualify for Medicaid.

It by design targets the discretionary income of Middle class Americans and it does it in a variety of ways

Its a HORRIBLE law.

It strips the Insurance companies ability to price policies based on actuarial tables and individual needs.

The Democrats of-course tried to BS the American people into believing that this would lead to better and more affordable care.

Government intervention into the private sector especially when its based on empty platitudes and LIES never produces anything positive let alone affordable.

You think people would have learned that from Clintons " fair lending " initiative
 
What facts ?

The FACT that Full time positions dropped by 150 thousand ?
Yet they've increased by over 2.5 million in the past year. :shrug: A few on this forum seem to dwell on monthly swings and ignore rather obvious trends in the right direction for their own political benefit.
 
What facts ?

The FACT that Full time positions dropped by 150 thousand ?
month to month change for employed, usually work full time has a standard error of +/-408,859. At 90% confidence that gives us a margin of error of 1.645*408,859 = 672,572
So the actual change was somewhere beteen -822,572 and +522,572

Or that the Household survey only shows a seasonally adjusted increase of just 4000 new Americans employed ?
Standard error of 254,406, margin of error of +/-403,692 so actual change was between -399,692 and +407,692
Standard errors derived from Table 1-D

Compare to the headline change in Nonfarm Payroll employment of +321,000 which has a standard error of +/-57,494, margin of error at +/-94,578 so the actual change was between +226,422 and +415,578
Standard error from Table 3

Which data are more reliable?
 
What leads you to believe that our debt level is unattainable? Or that we are stretched to the limit?

You’re kidding. Right? If you can’t see where we are headed, then you are part of the problem.

Washington’s failure to contain entitlement spending is biting into the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook, the Congressional Budget Office warned in a Tuesday report that found the nation’s debt would jump to 106 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2039.

Just Google: “CBO says US deficit levels are unsustainable” and see what pops up. Or you can go to one of the latest CBO reports here:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45471

In part, it states:

“CBO has extrapolated its baseline projections through 2039 (and, with even greater uncertainty, through later decades) by producing an extended baseline that generally reflects current law. The extended baseline projections show a substantial imbalance in the federal budget over the long term, with revenues falling well short of spending (see the figure below). As a result, budget deficits are projected to rise steadily and, by 2039, to push federal debt held by the public up to a percentage of GDP seen only once before in U.S. history (just after World War II). The harm that such growing debt would cause to the economy is not factored into CBO’s detailed long-term projections but is considered in further analysis presented in this report.”​

45471-land-figure1a.png



Federal spending would increase to 26 percent of GDP by 2039 under the assumptions of the extended baseline, CBO projects, compared with 21 percent in 2013 and an average of 20½ percent over the past 40 years. That increase reflects the following projected paths for various types of federal spending if current laws remained generally unchanged (see the figure below):

  • • Federal spending for Social Security and the government’s major health care programs—Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act—would rise sharply, to a total of 14 percent of GDP by 2039, twice the 7 percent average seen over the past 40 years. That boost in spending is expected to occur because of the aging of the population, growth in per capita spending on health care, and an expansion of federal health care programs.
  • • The government’s net interest payments would grow to 4½ percent of GDP by 2039, compared with an average of 2 percent over the past four decades. Net interest payments would be larger than that average mainly because federal debt would be much larger.
  • • In contrast, total spending on everything other than Social Security, the major health care programs, and net interest payments would decline to 7 percent of GDP by 2039—well below the 11 percent average of the past 40 years and a smaller share of the economy than at any time since the late 1930s.

As a percent of GDP, it's lower now than it was during WW2, and we won that war.

The current level of debt held by the public is almost twice what it was in 2008, and matched in U.S. history only by a brief span around World War II.


Maybe you haven't noticed, but the rate of growth of our debt has been slowing for several years, as our GDP increases and the deficit falls. It's entirely possible, and likely, that the budget may be balanced within two or three years.

Maybe you haven't noticed, a year or two of non negative spending does not negate the 18 trillion debt. Right?

pbdebt10.jpg




Also See Debt Clock: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


Would you care to discus the “off the books” quantitative easing [QE] that Obama has been pumping since he took office? Obama is mortgaging our future to make his economy look good in the short term. When the pumping stops… the next Administration will be faced with the inevitable results… hyperinflation and market turmoil.
 
So the second biggest job creation industry was in retail and for this entire year, the biggest job creator was the fast food industry. I'd say that that isn't a good thing... at all. Toss in that the labor participation rate is still at a 36 year low (Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low | CNS News), you've got a problem on your hands.
 
So the second biggest job creation industry was in retail and for this entire year, the biggest job creator was the fast food industry. I'd say that that isn't a good thing... at all. Toss in that the labor participation rate is still at a 36 year low (Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low | CNS News), you've got a problem on your hands.

And what industry do you believe that job growth should be?

I think it should be in the industries that have the most demand. Seems to me that it is in the right industries. Long term, we will continue to manufacture more and more products with fewer and fewer people, so the growth ain't gonna be in manufacturing, even if our manufacturing sector continues to produce more. This trend didn't just start under Obama, it's been happening for decades. It's perfectly normal and natural that the most new jobs are created in the sectors with the most demand.

The lfpr has little to do with anything. The prosperity of a country isn't determined by it's lfpr, it's determined by it's GDP/citizen. The lfpr is what it is, and it's a flawed metric that is based on the expectation that my 99 year old grandmother should be working, and that all 16 year old high school kids should be working. This country existed for 202 years with a lower labor force participation rate than what we have now. It's a non-issue.
 
So the second biggest job creation industry was in retail and for this entire year, the biggest job creator was the fast food industry. I'd say that that isn't a good thing... at all. Toss in that the labor participation rate is still at a 36 year low (Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low | CNS News), you've got a problem on your hands.


Shhhh......we're not supposed to dig any deeper than knee jerk celebrations over superficial data.
 
You’re kidding. Right? If you can’t see where we are headed, then you are part of the problem.

Washington’s failure to contain entitlement spending is biting into the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook, the Congressional Budget Office warned in a Tuesday report that found the nation’s debt would jump to 106 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2039.

Just Google: “CBO says US deficit levels are unsustainable” and see what pops up. Or you can go to one of the latest CBO reports here:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45471

In part, it states:
“CBO has extrapolated its baseline projections through 2039 (and, with even greater uncertainty, through later decades) by producing an extended baseline that generally reflects current law. The extended baseline projections show a substantial imbalance in the federal budget over the long term, with revenues falling well short of spending (see the figure below). As a result, budget deficits are projected to rise steadily and, by 2039, to push federal debt held by the public up to a percentage of GDP seen only once before in U.S. history (just after World War II). The harm that such growing debt would cause to the economy is not factored into CBO’s detailed long-term projections but is considered in further analysis presented in this report.”​




Federal spending would increase to 26 percent of GDP by 2039 under the assumptions of the extended baseline, CBO projects, compared with 21 percent in 2013 and an average of 20½ percent over the past 40 years. That increase reflects the following projected paths for various types of federal spending if current laws remained generally unchanged (see the figure below):


  • • Federal spending for Social Security and the government’s major health care programs—Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act—would rise sharply, to a total of 14 percent of GDP by 2039, twice the 7 percent average seen over the past 40 years. That boost in spending is expected to occur because of the aging of the population, growth in per capita spending on health care, and an expansion of federal health care programs.
  • • The government’s net interest payments would grow to 4½ percent of GDP by 2039, compared with an average of 2 percent over the past four decades. Net interest payments would be larger than that average mainly because federal debt would be much larger.
  • • In contrast, total spending on everything other than Social Security, the major health care programs, and net interest payments would decline to 7 percent of GDP by 2039—well below the 11 percent average of the past 40 years and a smaller share of the economy than at any time since the late 1930s.



The current level of debt held by the public is almost twice what it was in 2008, and matched in U.S. history only by a brief span around World War II.




Maybe you haven't noticed, a year or two of non negative spending does not negate the 18 trillion debt. Right?




Also See Debt Clock: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

So can you show me exactly where the CBO claims that our debt is unsustainable or that it will become unsustainable? Nothing you said indicates that. And while you are at it, can you tell where the CBO recommends spending cuts or tax hikes during a weak economic recovery, could't seem to find that either (which are the only two options to having a lower deficit).

Would you care to discus the “off the books” quantitative easing [QE] that Obama has been pumping since he took office? Obama is mortgaging our future to make his economy look good in the short term. When the pumping stops… the next Administration will be faced with the inevitable results… hyperinflation and market turmoil.

QE was done by the Federal Reserve. The Fed operates fairly autonomously, and without intervention from the POTUS. The head of the fed during the time period that QE was going on was selected by Bush, not Obama. The Obama appointee tapered QE immediately and then ended it within a few months of taking office.

To whatever degree that the fed is part of our government, QE hasn't created more government debt, it's done the opposite of that. The fed does not borrow money, it lends money. I think you are confused as to what the fed is and how it operates.
 
Last edited:
Shhhh......we're not supposed to dig any deeper than knee jerk celebrations over superficial data.

Apparently, because that's all you guys ever do.
 
And what industry do you believe that job growth should be?

I think it should be in the industries that have the most demand. Seems to me that it is in the right industries. Long term, we will continue to manufacture more and more products with fewer and fewer people, so the growth ain't gonna be in manufacturing, even if our manufacturing sector continues to produce more. This trend didn't just start under Obama, it's been happening for decades. It's perfectly normal and natural that the most new jobs are created in the sectors with the most demand.

The lfpr has little to do with anything. The prosperity of a country isn't determined by it's lfpr, it's determined by it's GDP/citizen. The lfpr is what it is, and it's a flawed metric that is based on the expectation that my 99 year old grandmother should be working, and that all 16 year old high school kids should be working. This country existed for 202 years with a lower labor force participation rate than what we have now. It's a non-issue.

I think it should be in industries that are going to have good-paying jobs. Fast food is not one of those industries.

You bring up prosperity and what not, but the thing is that people aren't going to be considering themselves prosperous when they can't find a job. It really is an issue because it notes that the unemployment rate is actually larger than what is being stated and in a way shows some of the problems with the economy as it is so difficult to find a job that many people who have looked for over a year have just given up.
 
Shhhh......we're not supposed to dig any deeper than knee jerk celebrations over superficial data.

I didn't know that! Oh no! I guess the men in black suits are coming for me!
 
I think it should be in industries that are going to have good-paying jobs. Fast food is not one of those industries.

So you think we need more government employees? Or that the government should take over private industry and tell them to pay more, instead of allowing the free market to make these decisions based upon supply and demand? I didn't realize that you were a socialist.

You bring up prosperity and what not, but the thing is that people aren't going to be considering themselves prosperous when they can't find a job. It really is an issue because it notes that the unemployment rate is actually larger than what is being stated and in a way shows some of the problems with the economy as it is so difficult to find a job that many people who have looked for over a year have just given up.

the unemployment rate is what it is. The way it is computed today is identical to the way it was computed under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc.
 
I didn't know that! Oh no! I guess the men in black suits are coming for me!

Nope. You are safe. You haven't even scratched the surface of reality. All you have done is to repeat the party line, and that's what those government men want you to do.
 
And what industry do you believe that job growth should be?

Small farming and food processing. The reason fast food is growing is because people are looking to eat faster and cheaper. Having more carry out, higher quality but still affordable choices would be a way to grow off that--drive through Applebees type places where people would not have to go in or wait. Likewise, when people do cook at home, having more competitively priced local grown foods would be nice for many. On the production side, we still produce a lot of the world's food so as the developing nations develop, we could see if we could have products with longer shelf life that we can export already processed.

I think it should be in the industries that have the most demand. Seems to me that it is in the right industries. Long term, we will continue to manufacture more and more products with fewer and fewer people, so the growth ain't gonna be in manufacturing, even if our manufacturing sector continues to produce more. This trend didn't just start under Obama, it's been happening for decades. It's perfectly normal and natural that the most new jobs are created in the sectors with the most demand.

Back to food production. Machines do a lot already, but machines need people to fill them, operate them, unclog them, product test/quality control, etc. They are decent paying jobs. No matter how you automate that industry, you still need workers.

The lfpr has little to do with anything. The prosperity of a country isn't determined by it's lfpr, it's determined by it's GDP/citizen. The lfpr is what it is, and it's a flawed metric that is based on the expectation that my 99 year old grandmother should be working, and that all 16 year old high school kids should be working. This country existed for 202 years with a lower labor force participation rate than what we have now. It's a non-issue.

GDP/citizen is not that important and for most of our nation's 225 year history, the lower labor participation rate was because people were raising their own food to survive and not needing the dollar menu to do it.
 
So can you show me exactly where the CBO claims that our debt is unsustainable or that it will become unsustainable? Nothing you said indicates that.
I can lead you to the information, but I can’t make you read.

Please note: In my previous post I suggested…
Just Google: “CBO says US deficit levels are unsustainable” and see what pops up. Or you can go to one of the latest CBO reports here:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45471

------------------------------------

And while you are at it, can you tell where the CBO recommends spending cuts or tax hikes during a weak economic recovery…

Now that’s a trick question. Everybody with any basic knowledge of how our system works knows that the CBO “DOES NOT” make recommendations.

Here is a quote from their website: https://www.cbo.gov/about/overview

Since 1975,*CBO*has produced independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process. Each year, the agency’s economists and budget analysts produce dozens of reports and hundreds of cost estimates for proposed legislation. CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely on the basis of professional competence without regard to political affiliation.*CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate summarizes the methodology underlying the analysis.
(Emphasis is mine)

And while you are at it, can you tell where the CBO recommends spending cuts or tax hikes during a weak economic recovery, could't seem to find that either (which are the only two options to having a lower deficit).
Your response typifies a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives do not believe that ‘Spending cuts and tax hikes are THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS’.

Most conservatives understand that tax cuts stimulate both revenue and growth in our economy.

In fact, every case over the last 60 years, major tax cuts have more than paid for themselves. In fact, every major tax cut since JFK has been followed by substantial increases in revenue, not to mention solid economic growth.* Moreover, total federal revenue rose at a faster rate after each of those tax cuts than it did before them. Anyone can confirm these basic facts for themselves by checking federal budget data and economic indicators before and after major tax cuts (see, for example, Federal Budget Data, Data 360 Unemployment U.S., and Total Economy Database).
 
...

Most conservatives understand that tax cuts stimulate both revenue and growth in our economy.

And most conservatives are wrong.

If you are familiar with the Laffer curve, then you are aware that tax cuts only increase tax revenue when the taxes are on the right side of the curve. I challenge you to find a statement made by any economists indicating that they believe any of our taxes are on the right hand side of the curve.

In fact, every case over the last 60 years, major tax cuts have more than paid for themselves.

Only if you assume that all economic growth is caused by tax cuts. Of course that would be a faulty assumption. If you look at the tax revenue for any year that taxes were cut, you will see a dip in inflation adjusted tax revenues.

So if cutting taxes creates more tax revenue, then why don't we just get rid of all taxes? We would have tons of revenue then wouldn't we?
 
QE was done by the Federal Reserve. The Fed operates fairly autonomously, and without intervention from the POTUS.
Much like federal judges, the President nominates and Congress approves members of the Fed for a specific time period. However, the POTUS has HUGE influence over policy shaping.

The head of the fed during the time period that QE was going on was selected by Bush, not Obama.
So let me see if I am hearing you correctly…

WRESBAL_Max_630_378.png



Are you saying this 4+ Trillion dollar pumping of money into our economy since Obama took office was Bush’s fault. Are you saying Obama is so weak that he, unlike every President since 1913, has no clout or leverage in the matter.


The Obama appointee tapered QE immediately and then ended it within a few months of taking office.

Oh Really. Is that because she has -all of a sudden- realized that all of her previous votes in favor of pumping were wrong? Or is it because she knows that QE has reached the danger level and now that the Obama Administration has made it through it’s last election cycle and the ill affects (stagflation) of backing off QE aren’t as big of a threat to his political party now?


To whatever degree that the fed is part of our government, QE hasn't created more government debt, it's done the opposite of that.

In some perverted way, I can see why a biased defender of this Administration’s economic policies would make such a fringe statement…

But let’s try and look at it without an agenda. Obviously, QE has a major effect on our economy. That’s the reason behind doing it in the first place. Right? Can we agree on that much?

While QE doesn’t show on the balance sheet as debt (that’s why my original post referred to as “off the books’) it most certainly impacts the economy in complex ways. Both good and bad. But where’s do you draw the line. When is enough enough.

Assets flowing from QE onto the Fed's balance sheet are now the equivalent of one-fifth of US GDP. Meaning, the FED is pumping money into the economy by buying bonds and treasuries to falsely prop it up, artificially stimulate it, and buy down inflation. This makes Obama look good. Provides a false sense of positive outlook. The average uninformed voter (aka “Stupid Voters”) have no idea what is going on in the background.

At some point the negative downside to QE will start to creep in as the Fed tries to ween the fake ‘propped up’ economy off of the endless supply of money that the Fed has been, in effect, electronically printing.

The longer a QE cycle runs… the steeper the withdrawal symptoms when it stops.

Example: One clearly visible side effect of QE is Market Growth, not built on fundamentals. When the original QE ended, the market withdrew and it stymied growth in the entire economy. So QE2 was implemented. When it expired the same thing happened. So they came up with QE3 only this time they did not set limits on it. It continued unabatedly pumping 85 billion dollars into the economy every month, until just recently. Now the roll back starts. Let the fun begin!

Chart-By-DayOnBay.png
 
...But let’s try and look at it without an agenda. Obviously, QE has a major effect on our economy. That’s the reason behind doing it in the first place. Right? Can we agree on that much?

Sorry, we can't even agree on that.

QE has been largely unsuccessful. It's fairly inert. Exagerated monetary policy isn't an effective way to stimulate the economy. A little may good, but a whole bunch more is pointless. We have given the responsibility of managing our economy largely to the fed, but the fed only has one tool, and that's monetary policy. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail.

Fiscal policy (ie tax cuts for the consumer class) is a much more effective tool for managing a weak economy.
 
So you think we need more government employees? Or that the government should take over private industry and tell them to pay more, instead of allowing the free market to make these decisions based upon supply and demand? I didn't realize that you were a socialist.

Oh! Look who's putting words in my mouth! I think we're done with this conversation.



the unemployment rate is what it is. The way it is computed today is identical to the way it was computed under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc.

And I'm saying that the unemployment rate does not show the full problems.



Nope. You are safe. You haven't even scratched the surface of reality. All you have done is to repeat the party line, and that's what those government men want you to do.

That was called sarcasm!
 
If you are familiar with the Laffer curve, then you are aware that tax cuts only increase tax revenue when the taxes are on the right side of the curve.
Yes, I am familiar with the Laffer curve. In fact, the Laffer curve and supply-side economics inspired Reaganomics and the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981.

One of the differences between liberals and conservatives is the core concept of who can spend your money better… you or the Government. While the Laffer curve helps to dial in the sweet spot of maximum tax tolerance and the point of diminishing returns, it fails to address the people quotient. In other words, economics can define an economic point of tolerance, but it does not reflect compassion.

In a recession, or during a recovery from one form of catastrophe or another, natural or man made, many are in need of assistance. A little tolerance, a little latitude during the recovery is a good long term investment. It’s helps to build quality of life from the bottom-up. A better sense of well being inspires a desire to improve further, and help others along the way. It begets growth and further stimulus. It removes the emotional depression for an economic recession.

Only if you assume that all economic growth is caused by tax cuts. Of course that would be a faulty assumption.

Of course all economic growth is not caused by tax cuts, but to a degree, economic growth can be stimulated by the lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services. Regulatory burdens, how ever small, have a negative counter effect.

During the Great Recession, the Obama Administration has raced head long into punishing regulatory requirements that have negated and thwarted the very stimulus packages the have endorsed. From the EPA to the medical industry, this Administration has shot itself in the foot time and again rushing to agenda in favor of economic recovery for the nation.



If you look at the tax revenue for any year that taxes were cut, you will see a dip in inflation adjusted tax revenues.


In 1994 President Clinton's own Council of Economic Advisers stated: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."*

The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year--the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982).* From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)*

For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%— the right side slippery slope of the Laffer curve, but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%.* (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)

As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply.

The economy grew impressively during Reagan’s presidency.* The economic expansion of the Reagan years is particularly impressive when we remember that Reagan inherited a weak and staggering economy.* In January 1981 the unemployment rate was 7.4% and was on its way to climbing to over 10%.* Double-digit inflation had pushed interest rates into the high double-digit range. Real pre-tax income of the average American family had been dropping since 1976, and after-tax income was falling even faster.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.



So if cutting taxes creates more tax revenue, then why don't we just get rid of all taxes? We would have tons of revenue then wouldn't we?

What a ridiculous statement.

Obviously, we need a government to provide for the safety and security of the nation. But once again, conservative vs. liberal, we come down to the question how much is enough?
 
Back
Top Bottom