Payrolls in U.S. Rise 173,000 as Jobless Rate Falls to 5.1%

[DA60]

because the direction of unemployment is different and the inflation situation is completely different.

No kidding...every period in history is different.
The point is that the Fed for years used a 6-6.5% U-3 as it's guidepost. Well that has long ago come and gone and still no rate hike. Plus, they have stopped quoting the U-3 and have basically admitted that it is a lousy guidepost for determining general unemployment.
And they are right.

that's true for the U-6 as well. If there are no unemployed, then the rate will be zero regardless of how many employed there are. What measure do you propose where ther are no unemployed but the rate is above zero?

Oh come on now.

Under the moronic U-3, you could have one person working and 200 million others desperate for a job - but since there are no jobs, they stopped looking for jobs. In that scenario, you would have an unemployment rate of 0% even though 200 million Americans are DESPERATE for a job.
It's a joke.

I would eliminate the 'discouraged worker' nonsense. If you seriously think it is ANYTHING but a ploy by the government to make the U-3 seem lower 'artificially' - then you are incredibly naive, IMO.

If you are unemployed and want a job and are physically capable of working (I.e. you are not too ill), then you should be counted as unemployed...and what you are doing while waiting for employment (school, stay-at-home parent, whatever) is none of the government's business.
The U-3 could still then be 0% with only one American working...but at least in that scenario, every other American that was capable of working would not want a job.

And I am NOT getting in a silly debate with you over this. Your LOVE for the BLS is incredibly well documented (plus you claim you work/worked there - so you are biased) and clearly your mind is completely closed on the matter.
And I don't waste my time with closed minded people, no offense.

The U-3 is a joke...I know it and so does the Fed.

You don't...that's your problem.

Good day.

 

[Pollycy]

Well, I was just taking a blind stab at it. I'm no constitutional scholar, and although I'm sure I reviewed the relevant precedent (McCulloch v. Maryland) as a student, that was nearly forty years ago. Apparently the reasoning relates to implied powers to carry out the federal responsibility to regulate the value of currency that derive from the Necessary and Proper Clause. As you are no doubt aware, it's extremely unlikely that this nearly two-hundred-year-old decision will be overturned. But feel free to help fund right-wing nut groups seeking to get that done in the courts or through an amendment.

Regarding the question of how the Fed "improves the 'welfare' of ordinary working, taxpaying citizens of the country" (btw, "of the country" seems redundant/unnecessary), this short summary looks like a useful review of the current situation: "How the Federal Reserve Can Help or Hurt the Economy," Economic Policy Institute, Jul 8, 2015

>>The Fed encourages inflation

But at a low level, right?

>>at the same time it deliberately fights free-market fluctuations in the economy that allow for prices to fall instead of constantly rising.

We don't want a destructive round of deflation, do we?

>>We need that? We need this to enhance the national welfare?! WHY?

Cuz it makes sense.

Mmmmm... bit of a stretch, especially when the only people who have benefited from Fed policies have been the very investment bankers and mortgage-backed securities traders who caused the Great Recession in the first place!

The demand for money is high, and nearly everybody in the world is pouring money into U. S. treasuries. The American Dollar is strong, and could be a great deal stronger if it weren't for Fed policies. Interest rates should be at least 5% - 6%... maybe close to double that. How would that hurt the value of the American Dollar?! The stock market gamblers wouldn't like it, but stocks are so overvalued now it's ridiculous -- and at some point will become unsupportable, even by the Fed cartel playing "fraud balloon" games for years on end.

And as for the big "deflation" bugaboo goes -- how would it harm us if prices decreased instead of increasing, and why is the Fed so hell-bent on jacking up prices and resulting inflation? Have you been in a grocery store lately? Have you priced cars, or houses lately? Have you been in a hardware store lately? It sure as hell wouldn't break my heart if there were prices DECREASES for a change!

 

[mmi]

the Preamble states, PROMOTE Domestic welfare

It's also, as I said and cited, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

>Where in your world do local and state governments have a responsibility for local and state citizens who need help?

In plenty of places. The federal government has a role as well.

>>You think your tax dollars fund local services in my community?

Yes, I do. Our federal tax dollars are helping:

• fight fires in California and Washington
• farmers and ranchers recover from recent fire damage in Alaska, Idaho, and Montana
• repair flood damage in Indiana
• improve the quality of K-12 education and build and repair transportation infrastructure around the country
• make a college education more affordable for low-income households
• support police services

The list goes on. This year, thirty-five percent of Texass' general state revenue is supplied by federal aid.

>>the link I sent you showing where all those Federal Tax dollars that come back to TX go but of course you ignored them.

You may have posted something, but you didn't send me anything. What's yer point?

>>It is the Federal Responsibility to fund the states for programs the Federal Govt. forces on the states such as expansion of unemployment insurance.

Yeah? And?

>>It does seem that big govt. liberals ignore the trillions spent by the federal govt. on items outside their responsibility

Doesn't seem that way to me.

If you are unemployed and want a job and are physically capable of working (I.e. you are not too ill), then you should be counted as unemployed

I figure it makes sense for the government to focus on people who make the effort to LOOK for a job. Do you want to pay taxes to the feds to fund a big program to go around and FIND jobs for people that aren't willing to look on their own? Of course, if you DO look, the government WILL help you.

Of the 93.7 million Americans who are out of the labor force, only 5.9 million (6.3%) report that they want a job. That includes the marginally attached who are currently available (1.8 million) and those not currently available (1.2 million), as well as the "discouraged" (624K).

>>what you are doing while waiting for employment (school, stay-at-home parent, whatever) is none of the government's business.

Respondents aren't required to answer any of the survey questions. Collecting data on why people aren't working helps the Labor Department operate more effectively its programs to help people find work.

>>And I am NOT getting in a silly debate with you over this.

It would be silly. Yer absurd claims about "U-3 could still then be 0% with only one American working" are a ridiculous waste of time. I don't pay any attention to them.

>>Your LOVE for the BLS is incredibly well documented

Gee, shouldn't we all love the BLS?

>>plus you claim you work/worked there - so you are biased)

pinqy worked there?

>>The U-3 is a joke...I know it and so does the Fed. You don't...that's your problem.

We all have our burdens in life.

 

[mmi]

the only people who have benefited from Fed policies have been the very investment bankers and mortgage-backed securities traders who caused the Great Recession in the first place

Yer opinion. I'd say the whole country and most of the world has benefited. We avoided a potentially catastrophic depression. Check out the aftermath of 1929, another period where we had three consecutive GOP "let business run the show" presidents. Seems to me the Fed had done a good job over the years EXCEPT for those periods where boards led by Volcker and Greenspan decided to forget about the interests of the middle and lower classes and cater to the fat cats.

>>The American Dollar is strong, and could be a great deal stronger if it weren't for Fed policies.

So you oppose what the Fed is doing and want an even stronger dollar?

>>Interest rates should be at least 5% - 6%... maybe close to double that.

Toward what end? The banks sure want rates up. You figure their interests should be held paramount?

>>how would it harm us if prices decreased instead of increasing

The US economy is driven by consumer spending and debt. Deflation causes the real value of debt to increase and suppresses the value of real wages. It's typically associated with declining employment and slow or even negative GDP growth.

Why should I buy a car or a house this month when it will significantly less expensive a year from now? Why should I hire new employees and expand my business when the economy is contracting? Anything more than moderate nflation is bad; deflation can be a lot worse. The Fed has a two percent inflation target. I figure that makes sense.

>>why is the Fed so hell-bent on jacking up prices and resulting inflation?

I don't agree with that characterization.

>>Have you been in a grocery store lately? Have you priced cars, or houses lately? Have you been in a hardware store lately?

Have you checked the CPI lately?



>>It sure as hell wouldn't break my heart if there were prices DECREASES for a change!

I think we should look to avoid another recession.

 

[DA60]

Mmmmm... bit of a stretch, especially when the only people who have benefited from Fed policies have been the very investment bankers and mortgage-backed securities traders who caused the Great Recession in the first place!

The demand for money is high, and nearly everybody in the world is pouring money into U. S. treasuries. The American Dollar is strong, and could be a great deal stronger if it weren't for Fed policies. Interest rates should be at least 5% - 6%... maybe close to double that. How would that hurt the value of the American Dollar?! The stock market gamblers wouldn't like it, but stocks are so overvalued now it's ridiculous -- and at some point will become unsupportable, even by the Fed cartel playing "fraud balloon" games for years on end.

And as for the big "deflation" bugaboo goes -- how would it harm us if prices decreased instead of increasing, and why is the Fed so hell-bent on jacking up prices and resulting inflation? Have you been in a grocery store lately? Have you priced cars, or houses lately? Have you been in a hardware store lately? It sure as hell wouldn't break my heart if there were prices DECREASES for a change!

Yeah, that big Keynesian death word - 'deflation'. Sure, 15+% is not good. But they start freaking out over the slightest dip.

Like 1-2% deflation will cause America's economy to plummet because no one will buy anything in anticipation of lower prices.

What a load of utter nonsense.

1% deflation on a $500 iPad is only $5. Even 2% is only $10.

These Keynesian/Krugmanite's actually believe that someone is going to defer buying an iPad for an ENTIRE year just to possibly save $10?

Riiiiiiiiiight.

:roll:

 

[Conservative]

It's also, as I said and cited, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

>Where in your world do local and state governments have a responsibility for local and state citizens who need help?

In plenty of places. The federal government has a role as well.

>>You think your tax dollars fund local services in my community?

Yes, I do. Our federal tax dollars are helping:

• fight fires in California and Washington
• farmers and ranchers recover from recent fire damage in Alaska, Idaho, and Montana
• repair flood damage in Indiana
• improve the quality of K-12 education and build and repair transportation infrastructure around the country
• make a college education more affordable for low-income households
• support police services

The list goes on. This year, thirty-five percent of Texass' general state revenue is supplied by federal aid.

>>the link I sent you showing where all those Federal Tax dollars that come back to TX go but of course you ignored them.

You may have posted something, but you didn't send me anything. What's yer point?

>>It is the Federal Responsibility to fund the states for programs the Federal Govt. forces on the states such as expansion of unemployment insurance.

Yeah? And?

>>It does seem that big govt. liberals ignore the trillions spent by the federal govt. on items outside their responsibility

Doesn't seem that way to me.



I figure it makes sense for the government to focus on people who make the effort to LOOK for a job. Do you want to pay taxes to the feds to fund a big program to go around and FIND jobs for people that aren't willing to look on their own? Of course, if you DO look, the government WILL help you.

Of the 93.7 million Americans who are out of the labor force, only 5.9 million (6.3%) report that they want a job. That includes the marginally attached who are currently available (1.8 million) and those not currently available (1.2 million), as well as the "discouraged" (624K).

>>what you are doing while waiting for employment (school, stay-at-home parent, whatever) is none of the government's business.

Respondents aren't required to answer any of the survey questions. Collecting data on why people aren't working helps the Labor Department operate more effectively its programs to help people find work.

>>And I am NOT getting in a silly debate with you over this.

It would be silly. Yer absurd claims about "U-3 could still then be 0% with only one American working" are a ridiculous waste of time. I don't pay any attention to them.

>>Your LOVE for the BLS is incredibly well documented

Gee, shouldn't we all love the BLS?

>>plus you claim you work/worked there - so you are biased)

pinqy worked there?

>>The U-3 is a joke...I know it and so does the Fed. You don't...that's your problem.

We all have our burdens in life.

So we need a 4 trillion dollar federal budget to do those things? When is there enough debt in your world? As for TX I posted the line where the Federal Dollars that come to TX went but obviously you ignored it. Go back and research that link and then tell me why the TX budget is 35% higher than it needs to be

 

[Conservative]

Yer opinion. I'd say the whole country and most of the world has benefited. We avoided a potentially catastrophic depression. Check out the aftermath of 1929, another period where we had three consecutive GOP "let business run the show" presidents. Seems to me the Fed had done a good job over the years EXCEPT for those periods where boards led by Volcker and Greenspan decided to forget about the interests of the middle and lower classes and cater to the fat cats.

>>The American Dollar is strong, and could be a great deal stronger if it weren't for Fed policies.

So you oppose what the Fed is doing and want an even stronger dollar?

>>Interest rates should be at least 5% - 6%... maybe close to double that.

Toward what end? The banks sure want rates up. You figure their interests should be held paramount?

>>how would it harm us if prices decreased instead of increasing

The US economy is driven by consumer spending and debt. Deflation causes the real value of debt to increase and suppresses the value of real wages. It's typically associated with declining employment and slow or even negative GDP growth.

Why should I buy a car or a house this month when it will significantly less expensive a year from now? Why should I hire new employees and expand my business when the economy is contracting? Anything more than moderate nflation is bad; deflation can be a lot worse. The Fed has a two percent inflation target. I figure that makes sense.

>>why is the Fed so hell-bent on jacking up prices and resulting inflation?

I don't agree with that characterization.

>>Have you been in a grocery store lately? Have you priced cars, or houses lately? Have you been in a hardware store lately?

Have you checked the CPI lately?

View attachment 67190296

>>It sure as hell wouldn't break my heart if there were prices DECREASES for a change!

I think we should look to avoid another recession.

Do you realize that you always buy what the left tells you about spending in the name of compassion. Obviously you have no idea as to what the line items are in the budget and how many of those budget items are duplications from state and local budgets but because you are told it is compassionate spending you buy the rhetoric. Don't you think with all that compassionate spending and an 18.2 TRILLION dollar debt we should have some actual positive compassionate results rather than over 100 million Americans dependent on that Federal Govt. and the taxpayers?

When JFK was President the budget of the United states was 250 BILLION dollars for 175 million Americans. Today Obama proposed a 4 trillion dollar budget for 312 million Americans. By any reasonable standards that is outrageous but what is more outrageous is that you are forced to contribute to SS and Medicare yet those dollars were put on budget by LBJ creating the Unified Budget and those items remain there which understate the Public debt but the shortfall is part of the total debt. When are you going to hold your liberal leadership accountable for the debt and very poor economic and financial results?

 

[SlevinKelevra]

When JFK was President the budget of the United states was 250 BILLION dollars for 175 million Americans. Today Obama proposed a 4 trillion dollar budget for 312 million Americans. By any reasonable standards that is outrageous but what is more outrageous is that you are forced to contribute to SS and Medicare yet those dollars were put on budget by LBJ creating the Unified Budget and those items remain there which understate the Public debt but the shortfall is part of the total debt. When are you going to hold your liberal leadership accountable for the debt and very poor economic and financial results?

When JFK was POTUS a nice new car cost $3000, nowadays about $30000.

Inflation, read about it.

 

[Conservative]

When JFK was POTUS a nice new car cost $3000, nowadays about $30000.

Inflation, read about it.

Yes, inflation at both the Federal, state, and local levels as well so tell me why we need all the duplication and whose responsibility is it really to handle poverty, hunger, housing, healthcare, federal tax dollars or state/local taxes as it is state and local expenses paid by the local and state taxpayers?

Keep buying what the left tells you but ask yourself how much help could be provided by the 250 BILLION a year in debt service, debt service that is going to skyrocket when interest rates return to normal?

 

[sawdust]

When JFK was POTUS a nice new car cost $3000, nowadays about $30000.

Inflation, read about it.

When the recession started the government massively increased government spending. It hit record levels. The problem is that after the crisis, the new levels became the new normal. Now Obama claims that he's been a good steward and only slightly increased spending while his predecessors increased spending much more as a percentage of government spending. While factual, it doesn't paint a true picture of government spending. If Obama and Congress had returned government spending to pre recession levels when we technically came out of recession, I'd have some respect for the lot of them. As is typical in Washington, when they get a bite of the apple, they eat when whole bushel.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

Yes, inflation at both the Federal, state, and local levels as well so tell me why we need all the duplication and whose responsibility is it really to handle poverty, hunger, housing, healthcare, federal tax dollars or state/local taxes as it is state and local expenses paid by the local and state taxpayers?

Keep buying what the left tells you but ask yourself how much help could be provided by the 250 BILLION a year in debt service, debt service that is going to skyrocket when interest rates return to normal?

completely non-germane response

 

[Conservative]

completely non-germane response

That describes your response to a tee. You are incapable of explaining why you support a 4 trillion dollar Federal budget and the fact that all poverty, uninsured, and other social issues are state and local issues not Federal. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

 

[SlevinKelevra]

That describes your response to a tee. You are incapable of explaining why you support a 4 trillion dollar Federal budget and the fact that all poverty, uninsured, and other social issues are state and local issues not Federal. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

I didn't say I support it, I said from your argument, it is not out of line given inflation and the increase in population.

There is a profound difference between supporting it, and pointing out you don't understand #'s and your own argument.

 

[Lute]

I wish people would have this view of Obama's legacy for all parts of his presidency. He gets the credit and the blame for many things just because he is in office. As it was with Bush.

 

[mmi]

So we need a 4 trillion dollar federal budget to do those things?

Federal aid to state and local governments will total about $625 billion this year, 16.6% of the $3.76 trillion federal budget.

Happily, as the president's economic policies have moved us out of the most recent GOP SSE ditch, Texass' teat-sucking dependency on Uncle Sugar has diminished. As I mentioned, federal aid is now about 35% of the state's general revenue. Two years ago, it was 40%.



The bad weather you all experienced in recent months led yer governor to come begging to DC for disaster relief. Obummer is supplying it, despite the fact that Scruz Loose voted against assistance to the victims of Hurricane Sandy a few years ago. ("Opinion: why Texas' request for federal aid is awkward," Christian Science Monitor, Jun 1, 2015) Mebbe that Kenyan Muslim commie ain't all bad, eh?



>>When is there enough debt in your world?

Funny coming from you. As I've shown/argued, just about ALL of the federal debt has resulted from the GOP SSE policies you strongly support. You idiots run it up, and Democratic presidents come in and get it paid off. The way to avoid another round of this devastation is to vote D.

>>As for TX I posted the line where the Federal Dollars that come to TX went but obviously you ignored it. Go back and research that link and then tell me why the TX budget is 35% higher than it needs to be

This is apparently going to become another nonsensical item you repeat over and over. I'm not going back and researching anything. If you have something to say about the issue, the server space is here to store yer wisdom and make it available to the world. I'm guessing the hard-to-find and valuable link yer referring to goes to this page.

Yep, looks like that's the one, in post #315. I'll be interested to hear what you have to say information gathered by National Priorities Project, a Taxachusetts-based non-profit that won a Nobel Peace prize last year for its work calling for smart cuts to US defence spending.

Do you realize that you always buy what the left tells you about spending in the name of compassion.

"The Left" doesn't tell me anything. I look at the world and reach my own conclusions.

>>Obviously you have no idea as to what the line items are in the budget and how many of those budget items are duplications from state and local budgets

I have an idea. It's right there to be seen. If the money going to Texass is duplicative, send it back.

>>because you are told it is compassionate spending you buy the rhetoric.

No, I'm just not a right-wing moron who blindly opposes government. I can see that the spending is needed. No one's forcing Texicans to accept it.

>>Don't you think with all that compassionate spending and an 18.2 TRILLION dollar debt we should have some actual positive compassionate results rather than over 100 million Americans dependent on that Federal Govt. and the taxpayers?

That 100 million figure is right-wing bull****. As I've mentioned, when my disabled elderly mom qualified for Medicaid for a couple of years before she passed away, that made her a tit-sucker. Because I went to part-time work and had her live with me so I could keep her out of a nursing home where she would have lived and died in extreme misery, that made me a tit-sucker too in the way that 100 million number is calculated. You people can shove yer tit-sucker crap right back where it came from.

>>When are you going to hold your liberal leadership accountable for the debt and very poor economic and financial results?

I hold those responsible for the debt accountable. I'm sure you'll never become aware of the reality involved.

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

It's effectiveness in creating a better world, a phenomenon that's been going on for centuries. Tom Paine was a liberal, Jefferson was a liberal, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Jack Kennedy. All liberals. You, sadly, are a blind, hateful reactionary.

 

[Conservative]

I didn't say I support it, I said from your argument, it is not out of line given inflation and the increase in population.

There is a profound difference between supporting it, and pointing out you don't understand #'s and your own argument.

Inflation calculator, 250 billion in 1965 is 1.8 trillion today and when you add the inflation on state and local programs the picture shows what a failure liberal social spending has been

 

[Conservative]

Federal aid to state and local governments will total about $625 billion this year, 16.6% of the $3.76 trillion federal budget.

Happily, as the president's economic policies have moved us out of the most recent GOP SSE ditch, Texass' teat-sucking dependency on Uncle Sugar has diminished. As I mentioned, federal aid is now about 35% of the state's general revenue. Two years ago, it was 40%.

View attachment 67190302

The bad weather you all experienced in recent months led yer governor to come begging to DC for disaster relief. Obummer is supplying it, despite the fact that Scruz Loose voted against assistance to the victims of Hurricane Sandy a few years ago. ("Opinion: why Texas' request for federal aid is awkward," Christian Science Monitor, Jun 1, 2015) Mebbe that Kenyan Muslim commie ain't all bad, eh?

View attachment 67190303

>>When is there enough debt in your world?

Funny coming from you. As I've shown/argued, just about ALL of the federal debt has resulted from the GOP SSE policies you strongly support. You idiots run it up, and Democratic presidents come in and get it paid off. The way to avoid another round of this devastation is to vote D.

>>As for TX I posted the line where the Federal Dollars that come to TX went but obviously you ignored it. Go back and research that link and then tell me why the TX budget is 35% higher than it needs to be




"The Left" doesn't tell me anything. I look at the world and reach my own conclusions.

>>Obviously you have no idea as to what the line items are in the budget and how many of those budget items are duplications from state and local budgets

I have an idea. It's right there to be seen. If the money going to Texass is duplicative, send it back.

>>because you are told it is compassionate spending you buy the rhetoric.

No, I'm just not a right-wing moron who blindly opposes government. I can see that the spending is needed. No one's forcing Texicans to accept it.

>>Don't you think with all that compassionate spending and an 18.2 TRILLION dollar debt we should have some actual positive compassionate results rather than over 100 million Americans dependent on that Federal Govt. and the taxpayers?

That 100 million figure is right-wing bull****. As I've mentioned, when my disabled elderly mom qualified for Medicaid for a couple of years before she passed away, that made her a tit-sucker. Because I went to part-time work and had her live with me so I could keep her out of a nursing home where she would have lived and died in extreme misery, that made me a tit-sucker too in the way that 100 million number is calculated. You people can shove yer tit-sucker crap right back where it came from.

>>When are you going to hold your liberal leadership accountable for the debt and very poor economic and financial results?

I hold those responsible for the debt accountable. I'm sure you'll never become aware of the reality involved.



It's effectiveness in creating a better world, a phenomenon that's been going on for centuries. Tom Paine was a liberal, Jefferson was a liberal, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Jack Kennedy. All liberals. You, sadly, are a blind, hateful reactionary.

Federal Aid to states come from Federal Tax dollars from the states and is returned to the states for programs forced upon the states to implement. Is it your contention that the state citizens should pay for federal programs forced upon the states?

Since you refuse to do research here is the link I posted and tell me why the state of TX gets 35% of the expense items from the Federal Govt?

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/smart/texas/dynamic/

You can make all the excuses in the world for a massive central govt. but none of those excuses address the actual line items in the budget many of which are also state and local budget items. Why is that?

As for the 100 million

Over 100 million US residents on welfare — RT USA

Stop making excuses for poor personal choices and understand that is personal responsibility which rests in the states not the Federal Govt

No one is talking about eliminating the Federal spending but rather holding the elected officials responsible for the poor results of that spending. Creating dependence reduces personal responsibility and human behavior. You justify it because you think with your heart and not the reality that these expenses are state and local, NOT FEDERAL. You have bought into the liberal argument that this is the role of the Federal govt. and it isn't

When you claim that most of the Federal Debt is due to GOP policies that just goes to show how poorly informed you are about the line items in the budget

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Inflation calculator, 250 billion in 1965 is 1.8 trillion today and when you add the inflation on state and local programs the picture shows what a failure liberal social spending has been

Um, con, the lion's share is due to increased medical costs, and a lot of that has to do with keeping old farts alive.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So we need a 4 trillion dollar federal budget to do those things?

No one is talking about eliminating the Federal spending....

Wait...what?

 

[Conservative]

Um, con, the lion's share is due to increased medical costs, and a lot of that has to do with keeping old farts alive.

In the 4 trillion dollar budget Obama submitted how much of that is increased Medical costs and wasn't Obamacare supposed to lower medical costs? You people have no concept of actual vs perceived costs

 

[mmi]

Federal Aid to states come from Federal Tax dollars from the states and is returned to the states for programs forced upon the states to implement.

Nonsense. States are forced to implement disaster relief?

>>Is it your contention that the state citizens should pay for federal programs forced upon the states?

Forced? You can always secede, right?

>>Since you refuse to do research here is the link I posted and tell me why the state of TX gets 35% of the expense items from the Federal Govt?

I posted the link myself. It's in the post you just quoted. Yer a real piece of work. More to the point, what if anything do you have to say about the information on that page? Nuthin'.

>>You can make all the excuses in the world for a massive central govt. but none of those excuses address the actual line items in the budget many of which are also state and local budget items. Why is that?

Like I say, send the money back if you don't like it.

>>As for the 100 million Over 100 million US residents on welfare — RT USA

Getting yer material from Putin now, eh?

>>Stop making excuses for poor personal choices and understand that is personal responsibility which rests in the states not the Federal Govt

Poor personal choices like living in Texass? This federal aid to state and local governments is going to continue. If you don't like it, too bad.

>>No one is talking about eliminating the Federal spending but rather holding the elected officials responsible for the poor results of that spending.

So dump Abbott.

>>Creating dependence reduces personal responsibility and human behavior.

"Reduces human behaviour"?

>>You justify it because you think with your heart and not the reality that these expenses are state and local, NOT FEDERAL.

I look at the Texass budget and see that a third of the money is coming from Uncle Sugar. What organ do you think with?

>>You have bought into the liberal argument that this is the role of the Federal govt. and it isn't

I have reasoned that it is. I'm not "buying" anything, certainly not yer ignorant nonsense.

>>When you claim that most of the Federal Debt is due to GOP policies that just goes to show how poorly informed you are about the line items in the budget

Two GOP SSE Great Recessions. It's all right there to be seen. Clinton cleaned up the first one, now Obummer's cleaned up the other. And of course, there was FDR cleaning up the Great Depression. I sure hope we stop this pattern.

 

[Conservative]

Wait...what?

We have a federal govt. that needs to operate and I have posted many times the actual Federal Responsibility items and the costs today would be about 1.5 trillion, not 4 trillion

 

[Gimmesometruth]

In the 4 trillion dollar budget Obama submitted how much of that is increased Medical costs and wasn't Obamacare supposed to lower medical costs? You people have no concept of actual vs perceived costs

Um, con, all you have to do is look at the % increases per year in HC costs, YOY they increased dramatically, reaching double digit % increases by 1980, since then the % increases have declined and have continued to do so, including now with the ACA....but as usual YOU won't look at where the changes in spending have actually happened, you just rely on rhetoric.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

We have a federal govt. that needs to operate and I have posted many times the actual Federal Responsibility items and the costs today would be about 1.5 trillion, not 4 trillion

This capitalized "federal responsibility", is it a pamphlet you created, or is it a part of a chain email you received?

 

[Conservative]

mmi;1065053277]Nonsense. States are forced to implement disaster relief?

Disaster relief is how much? Wow

Forced? You can always secede, right?

No, but the Contract with America signed by Clinton forces the Federal Govt. to send to the states the cost of the programs they force upon the states and that is the way it should be. Maybe one of these days you will realize that your idea of the Federal Govt. is way too big and that federal govt. runs on taxdollars collected from the taxpayers

I posted the link myself. It's in the post you just quoted. Yer a real piece of work. More to the point, what if anything do you have to say about the information on that page? Nuthin'.

Yes but like all liberals you want me to do the work for you and you learn nothing. What are you afraid of, learning the liberal lies?

Like I say, send the money back if you don't like it.

Why should the taxpayers of TX pay for the federally mandated increase in unemployment benefits? Why should the taxpayers of the state pay for the federally mandated increase in Medicaid? Why don' you just bypass the Federal Govt. and send your taxdollars directly to TX?

Would you prefer Mother Jones?

Poor personal choices like living in Texass? This federal aid to state and local governments is going to continue. If you don't like it, too bad.

Best move I ever made, no state income taxes, freedoms to be the best one is capable of being certainly not California where politicians know best. Seems that people like you want your freedoms but only on issues you want them to be, certainly not personal responsibility issues

So dump Abbott.

Why? Balanced Budget, incredible GDP growth, population growth, and businesses moving to TX bringing new consumers and taxpayers
.

I look at the Texass budget and see that a third of the money is coming from Uncle Sugar. What organ do you think with?

Does appear you understand the TX budget because 1/3 of the budget is Federal Mandated programs which should be funded by the Federal Taxpayers since your Representative voted for them

I have reasoned that it is. I'm not "buying" anything, certainly not yer ignorant nonsense.

Your posts say differently

Two GOP SSE Great Recessions. It's all right there to be seen. Clinton cleaned up the first one, now Obummer's cleaned up the other. And of course, there was FDR cleaning up the Great Depression. I sure hope we stop this pattern.

Really? so Clinton inherited a recession with economic growth of over 4% prior to him taking office? Obama cleaned up the recession, how? What economic policies did Obama implement that brought us out of recession in June 2009? You have a very selective partisan view of reality but also one based upon what the leftwing tells you not the facts