U.S. deficit falls to $680 billion [W:599]

[calamity]

Yes, I do know what he proposed but what good is it if it wasn't approved and executed? I can propose a lot of things and do but when they aren't implemented how am I responsible for the results?

He didn't sign the budget because the Congress didn't approve it. You don't seem to understand how the budget process works. Obama signed the budget passed by the Democrat controlled Congress but in your world that means Bush is responsible for it. Did Obama change the Bush budget and if not why not? What this shows is your total ignorance and how you have been brainwashed by an ideology. Centrist my ass, you are a hard core liberal but cannot admit it

If you charge up the company credit card before retiring, the debt is yours, not the poor schlep who took your job.

 

[Conservative]

I can only assume you are deliberate in your obfuscation. Surely you can;t really believe this nonsense.

I find it hard to believe this isn't an act on your part. Go into your next performance revenue and tell your boss how great you did only increasing expenses 42% which is only 1.7 trillion more than your predecessor. I am sure the company will be extremely proud of you.

 

[Conservative]

If you charge up the company credit card before retiring, the debt is yours, not the poor schlep who took your job.

That is leadership, something you don't understand, Obama took the 10.6 trillion debt handed to him and increased it to 17.2. That debt is his. Since there was no budget, what prevented Obama from reducing the Bush budget proposal? Did he do that?

 

[imagep]

So who had higher debt service, Reagan, Bush, or Obama?

I dunno, I would guess probably Reagan, in real terms or as a percent of GDP or as a percent of government revenue, but maybe not. It's probably close.

Maybe this will help...

Looks to me like it was probably none of the above. Most likely Clinton. Looks like Hillary will have a tough time there also according to the future projection.

 

[calamity]

I find it hard to believe this isn't an act on your part. Go into your next performance revenue and tell your boss how great you did only increasing expenses 42% which is only 1.7 trillion more than your predecessor. I am sure the company will be extremely proud of you.

We were in a recession and it's amazing that the debt only increased by 50%.

Tell me this, why do you ignore Bush carrying a $500B deficit year in and year out before the recession even hit but whine endlessly about Obama's $680B?

 

[Conservative]

I dunno, I would guess probably Reagan, in real terms or as a percent of GDP or as a percent of government revenue, but maybe not. It's probably close.

Maybe this will help...

Looks to me like it was probably none of the above. Most likely Clinton. Looks like Hillary will have a tough time there also according to the future projection.

What in the hell is this fixation with percentage change vs. real dollars? Do you pay your debt service on your percentage change or your actual debt? you want to talk about percentage change while ignoring that debt today exceeds 100% of our GDP and no Republican ever had those numbers. Keep cheerleading ignorance.

I think you need to change the lightbulb in that head of yours. I wonder if it ever will go off?

 

[calamity]

That is leadership, something you don't understand, Obama took the 10.6 trillion debt handed to him and increased it to 17.2. That debt is his. Since there was no budget, what prevented Obama from reducing the Bush budget proposal? Did he do that?

The recession prevented it, which would have become a full blown depression had federal spending gone down that dramatically.

Now you're definitely playing dumb on purpose. Why?

 

[Conservative]

The recession prevented it, which would have become a full blown depression had federal spending gone down that dramatically.

Now you're definitely playing dumb on purpose. Why?

Oh, I see, so now Obama did authorize the spending that you blame Bush for? Obama did sign the 2009 budget? Glad we finally came to agreement

 

[Conservative]

I dunno, I would guess probably Reagan, in real terms or as a percent of GDP or as a percent of government revenue, but maybe not. It's probably close.

Maybe this will help...

Looks to me like it was probably none of the above. Most likely Clinton. Looks like Hillary will have a tough time there also according to the future projection.

Let me see if I can help you a little here, Reagan took over an economy that was generating 2.8 trillion a year in GDP and when he left it was 5.3 trillion. If you take 3% of that 5.3 trillion you get debt service of 159 billion dollars. Obama has a 16.5 trillion dollar economy and debt service is 250 billion a year. Tell me what the govt. could do with that extra 100 billion dollars a year in debt service since percentage change is so important to you

 

[Singe]

This document does a pretty good job of explaining it. Noteworthy is this quote:

Indeed. Brooks Jackson (Director, Factcheck) acknowledged that their report was based solely on public debt. Heh... just not included in the actual Factcheck article. All the same, thanks for the link. I'm enjoying reading some of the actual treasury reports. Clearly, I need to find something more enjoyable to do with my time.

 

[MTAtech]

Does it matter whether or not they are real or nominal? What is debt service paid on? Why doesn't debt service matter to people like you? The people of the 80's lived on 80's dollars in terms of expenses and revenue, not 2005 inflation adjusted dollars

Then there is an attempt on your part to blame Bush for the 2009 deficit for a budget that was REJECTED and not blame Obama for the budget he signed and executed. That is liberal logic. My numbers come from the Treasury Dept and those are the numbers we pay debt service on. Interesting how we have a 17.2 trillion dollar debt that you ignore and your numbers don't show

Does adjusting for inflation matter? Of course it matters. It is the premier way that those in finance adjust for the the time value of money.

Moreover, since you brought up "debt service" it's interesting to note that the deficits issued under Reagan were at double-digit interest rates and the ones issue by Obama are between 1 and 2 percent. That's why even though the debt has effectively doubled under Obama, the amount of interest the federal government pays annually has remained the same or is lower than it was in 2007. The old 30 year; 20 year and 10 year bonds, at higher rates, are expiring while new issues are at record low interest rates.

 

[MTAtech]

What in the hell is this fixation with percentage change vs. real dollars? Do you pay your debt service on your percentage change or your actual debt? you want to talk about percentage change while ignoring that debt today exceeds 100% of our GDP and no Republican ever had those numbers. Keep cheerleading ignorance.

I think you need to change the lightbulb in that head of yours. I wonder if it ever will go off?

I wouldn't call it an "obsession." The size of the debt is meaningless without knowing the size of the economy that is sustaining that debt. I may have a personal debt of $1 million. That may sound like a lot -- and it may be a lot if my income is only $100,000 a year. It's not a lot if my income is $900,000 a year.

That's why the fixation over the last few years about reducing the deficit through austerity has been so counter-productive. The way to address deficits and debt is to grow the economy -- make the economy bigger so that debt:GDP shrinks. Essentially make the debt irrelevant compared to the size of the economy. Austerity doesn't grow an economy and put people to work. Expansionary policies do that.

 

[MTAtech]

Indeed. Brooks Jackson (Director, Factcheck) acknowledged that their report was based solely on public debt. Heh... just not included in the actual Factcheck article. All the same, thanks for the link. I'm enjoying reading some of the actual treasury reports. Clearly, I need to find something more enjoyable to do with my time.

There are an infinite number of activities I can think of besides reading Treasury reports. The first few that come to mind would win me infractions here.

 

[Conservative]

Does adjusting for inflation matter? Of course it matters. It is the premier way that those in finance adjust for the the time value of money.

Moreover, since you brought up "debt service" it's interesting to note that the deficits issued under Reagan were at double-digit interest rates and the ones issue by Obama are between 1 and 2 percent. That's why even though the debt has effectively doubled under Obama, the amount of interest the federal government pays annually has remained the same or is lower than it was in 2007. The old 30 year; 20 year and 10 year bonds, at higher rates, are expiring while new issues are at record low interest rates.

Sorry, but what matters is the debt service that people pay on that debt because it is money that isn't going back to the American people. I find it quite telling that you and others always love using 2005 dollars when the actual revenue and expenses in the 80's were in 80's dollars. Why is that? What purpose does it serve talking percentage change, nominal dollars and not actual debt and debt service? The fourth largest budget item today is debt service and that is going to rise when interest rates rise. That scares everyone but a liberal.

Obama cared so much about the debt he added 6.6 trillion to it. He cared so much about the deficit he proposed a 3.77 trillion dollar budget. Until the American people including liberals understand how debt affects the value of the dollar and the debt service paid that doesn't get back to the American taxpayer, this country is always going to be a mess.

Your point on the interest rates is right on, the higher interest rates during the Reagan years affected debt service more than the low interest rates today affect debt service meaning it really are the deficits that matter excluding debt service. Debt service today is on public debt as well as intergovt. holdings as it should be, too many however focus simply on public debt and not the liabilities accumulating in intergovt. holdings. SS and Medicare dollars have been stolen, I mean borrowed, and we don't have the cash to pay for them. Raising the debt isn't the answer.

 

[Conservative]

I wouldn't call it an "obsession." The size of the debt is meaningless without knowing the size of the economy that is sustaining that debt. I may have a personal debt of $1 million. That may sound like a lot -- and it may be a lot if my income is only $100,000 a year. It's not a lot if my income is $900,000 a year.

That's why the fixation over the last few years about reducing the deficit through austerity has been so counter-productive. The way to address deficits and debt is to grow the economy -- make the economy bigger so that debt:GDP shrinks. Essentially make the debt irrelevant compared to the size of the economy. Austerity doesn't grow an economy and put people to work. Expansionary policies do that.

That is why I pointed out that debt today exceeds over 100 percent of our annual GDP. Couldn't agree with you more about growing out of this debt. What economic policies of Obama have been created to grow the economy? Debt is always relative to economic growth and activity. That is why tax cuts were so beneficial in the 80's as they stimulated economic activity and create new taxpayers to the tune of 17 million. Obama has created nothing for that debt he has amassed as we still have over 2 million fewer people working today than we had when the recession began and he was hired to fix that. We have a labor participation rate at record lows and continue to see a stagnant labor force with high numbers of long term unemployed now, long term part time employees looking for full time jobs, and high numbers of discouraged workers. . The labor force has increase 1 million in 5 years under Obama and increased well over 10 million during the Bush term. That speaks volumes

 

[MTAtech]

Sorry, but what matters is the debt service that people pay on that debt because it is money that isn't going back to the American people. I find it quite telling that you and others always love using 2005 dollars when the actual revenue and expenses in the 80's were in 80's dollars. Why is that? What purpose does it serve talking percentage change, nominal dollars and not actual debt and debt service? The fourth largest budget item today is debt service and that is going to rise when interest rates rise. That scares everyone but a liberal.
...

As I said, it's interesting to note that the deficits issued under Reagan were at double-digit interest rates and the ones issue by Obama are between 1 and 2 percent. The debt issued under Reagan is the highest cost debt we have.

Additionally, the money is going back to the American people. Three-quarters of the holders of American debt are other Americans (private citizens, pensions, etc.) That means the interest is income to those Americans.

I also said, even though the debt has effectively doubled under Obama, the amount of interest the federal government pays annually has remained the same or is lower than it was in 2007. The old 30 year; 20 year and 10 year bonds, at higher rates, are expiring while new issues are at record low interest rates.

If CBO projections are correct, that will change as the economy improves and interest rates rise, if the deficit remains in the $400 billion range. That's why it is important to think about taxes to bring the deficit down. Repealing the entire Bush tax-cut would do that but place a burden on lower earning Americans. My view is that they should be further skewed toward the high end of the income scale.

 

[Conservative]

As I said, it's interesting to note that the deficits issued under Reagan were at double-digit interest rates and the ones issue by Obama are between 1 and 2 percent. The debt issued under Reagan is the highest cost debt we have.

Additionally, the money is going back to the American people. Three-quarters of the holders of American debt are other Americans (private citizens, pensions, etc.) That means the interest is income to those Americans.

I also said, even though the debt has effectively doubled under Obama, the amount of interest the federal government pays annually has remained the same or is lower than it was in 2007. The old 30 year; 20 year and 10 year bonds, at higher rates, are expiring while new issues are at record low interest rates.

If CBO projections are correct, that will change as the economy improves and interest rates rise, if the deficit remains in the $400 billion range. That's why it is important to think about taxes to bring the deficit down. Repealing the entire Bush tax-cut would do that but place a burden on lower earning Americans. My view is that they should be further skewed toward the high end of the income scale.

You sound like a reasonable person, tell me what policies Obama have implemented that are pro growth. CBO projections are based upon current law and what Congress gives them thus they aren't accurate as their own site explains.

There isn't enough income that can be generated out of taxing the rich to make any positive difference and the negative potential of raising those taxes is great. I don't think we will ever see 400 billion deficits under Obama, too much spending and the impact of Obamacare is devastating.

 

[Fenton]

As I said, it's interesting to note that the deficits issued under Reagan were at double-digit interest rates and the ones issue by Obama are between 1 and 2 percent. The debt issued under Reagan is the highest cost debt we have.

Additionally, the money is going back to the American people. Three-quarters of the holders of American debt are other Americans (private citizens, pensions, etc.) That means the interest is income to those Americans.

I also said, even though the debt has effectively doubled under Obama, the amount of interest the federal government pays annually has remained the same or is lower than it was in 2007. The old 30 year; 20 year and 10 year bonds, at higher rates, are expiring while new issues are at record low interest rates.

If CBO projections are correct, that will change as the economy improves and interest rates rise, if the deficit remains in the $400 billion range. That's why it is important to think about taxes to bring the deficit down. Repealing the entire Bush tax-cut would do that but place a burden on lower earning Americans. My view is that they should be further skewed toward the high end of the income scale.

Interest rates ARE NOT being held down by conventional market forces. The Treasury is creating debt out of thin air, and then selling it to our Central Bank as they buy up hundreds of Billions in toxic MBSs. The MAJORITY of our BONDS are owned by our OWN central Bank, NOT the American public.

I think you've confused us with Japan.

The FED is also paying banks interest on excess reserves so as to manipulate the overnight rate. Short term rates typically follow the overnight rates.

Additionally NEW bonds are short term bonds who's yields can increase causing a massive burden on the Treasury. Sure our debt service is low, but what happens when bond yields spike and we've just added another 7 TRILLION, or 10 TRILLION of new structural debt ?

What happens to a profoundly ill economy when the FED stops QE, causing interest rate to rise and a subsequent sell off because assets have been overvalued by TRILLIONS in monopoly money and they base their decision to stop QE on job numbers that don't take into account labor participation rates and REAL economic data ?

So Obama's plan is to wait for a interest rate hike as he celebrates an increase in Jobs that are either part time and low paying or not there at all ?

 

[MTAtech]

That is why I pointed out that debt today exceeds over 100 percent of our annual GDP. Couldn't agree with you more about growing out of this debt. What economic policies of Obama have been created to grow the economy?

The first was the economic stimulus, which the CBO and private economists conclude increased GDP. It was indeed smaller than it should have been, as liberal economists noted at the time, but the stimulus was a political compromise. President Obama then extended unemployment insurance several times, which again was stimulative. He then offered a jobs bill that the GOP rejected.

Remember, in the type of recession that existed and the weak economy that remains, the main culprit is insufficient demand. Putting money into people's hands and active government spending, creates demand.

Debt is always relative to economic growth and activity. That is why tax cuts were so beneficial in the 80's as they stimulated economic activity and create new taxpayers to the tune of 17 million.
...
The labor force has increase 1 million in 5 years under Obama and increased well over 10 million during the Bush term. That speaks volumes.

None of that is evident reviewing the facts. I also must correct your factual errors. During Bush's term from January 2001 - December 2008, net job gains were 1,845,000 not 10 million. (source) In addition, under Obama, January 2009-November 2012, was 2,340,000 (not one million, as you claimed.) Obama's presided over more job gains in five years than Bush did in eight years.

There is also no evidence that the tax-cuts in the 1980s was responsible for the 17 million jobs in that decade. In the 1970s, without those tax-cuts, job growth was 19,429,000 and in the 1990s, it was 21,827,000. In fact, we can see no coorelation between the Reagan tax-cuts and job growth. Unemployment got worse for a years after his first tax-cut. Unemployment declined in late 1982 when the Fed cut interest rates. Thus, crediting Reagan's tax-cut for job expansion is unfounded and merely conservative wishful thinking.

....

Obama has created nothing for that debt he has amassed as we still have over 2 million fewer people working today than we had when the recession began and he was hired to fix that. We have a labor participation rate at record lows and continue to see a stagnant labor force with high numbers of long term unemployed now, long term part time employees looking for full time jobs, and high numbers of discouraged workers. .

The labor participation rate has been falling for decades (see graph). So stop blaming Obama for a demographic trend. Obama didn't create the baby boom.

Obama inherited an economy that was shedding jobs all through 2008 -- before Obama was elected, and peaked at 800,000 jobs per month. That has completely reversed, as the below chart shows. The only thing that could have made it better was more aggressive stimulative action, which, of course, conservatives opposed.

Source: BLS

It sure seems that I have undercut every argument you have made and also corrected your glaring factual errors.

 

[Conservative]

MTAtech;1062634419]The first was the economic stimulus, which the CBO and private economists conclude increased GDP. It was indeed smaller than it should have been, as liberal economists noted at the time, but the stimulus was a political compromise. President Obama then extended unemployment insurance several times, which again was stimulative. He then offered a jobs bill that the GOP rejected.

Wow, liberalism really is a disease and dies hard. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of passion, loyalty and ease of brainwashing. There are four components in GDP and govt. spending is obviously one of them. Throw 844 billion into the economy and what do you expect to happen to GDP. The problem is we have a private sector economy, the stimulus was short term bailouts to the states that supported Obama and unions. The results are what we see today, high debt, high unemployment, stagnant economic growth, and massive dependence on the taxpayers.

Remember, in the type of recession that existed and the weak economy that remains, the main culprit is insufficient demand. Putting money into people's hands and active government spending, creates demand.

Because we have a private sector economy the best the govt. can do is stimulate demand by promoting a pro growth economic policy. What pro growth policies has Obama proposed? Think the people of W. Virginia are happy about Obama and his green energy policies? How about his attack on their livelihood coal? How about the Keystone Pipeline? How about the Boeing plan in the Carolinas? Name for me a pro growth Obama policy?

None of that is evident reviewing the facts. I also must correct your factual errors. During Bush's term from January 2001 - December 2008, net job gains were 1,845,000 not 10 million. (source) In addition, under Obama, January 2009-November 2012, was 2,340,000 (not one million, as you claimed.) Obama's presided over more job gains in five years than Bush did in eight years.

Didn't say job gains, Said labor force gains, people weren't dropping out then like they are now but your information is absolutely false. Here is the chart on employment. Notice what Obama inherited and what we have today?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2013

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142153 141644 140721 140652 140250 140005 139898 139481 138810 138421 138665 138025
2010 138439 138624 138767 139296 139255 139148 139167 139405 139388 139097 139046 139295
2011 139253 139471 139643 139606 139681 139405 139509 139870 140164 140314 140771 140896
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058 144285 144170 144303 143568 144386

I am sure you can do the math but let me help you. Bush took an economy that had 137 million working Americans that he got to 146 million in December. He left it at 142 million or a 5 million job net gain. Obama took that number, added 6.6 trillion to the debt and we have 144 million working today, a gain of 2 million but still down 2 million from the numbers before the recession began. Now in my educational background the 5 million net job gain for Bush over 8 years is still 3 million higher than Obama's 2 million. Why do you let liberals lie to you and why don't you hold them to a higher standards? What is it about liberalism that holds conservatives to a higher standard than liberals?

There is also no evidence that the tax-cuts in the 1980s was responsible for the 17 million jobs in that decade. In the 1970s, without those tax-cuts, job growth was 19,429,000 and in the 1990s, it was 21,827,000. In fact, we can see no coorelation between the Reagan tax-cuts and job growth. Unemployment got worse for a years after his first tax-cut. Unemployment declined in late 1982 when the Fed cut interest rates. Thus, crediting Reagan's tax-cut for job expansion is unfounded and merely conservative wishful thinking.

....

That is your opinion but then again you have shown zero understanding of the components of GDP Growth and thus economic activity. I suggest you learn those components and when you do you will understand the effects of more spendable income on economic activity. As bad as you want it not to be the case, people with more spendable income create more demand and the results were 17 million jobs created, doubling of GDP,and the peace dividend. Unleashing the American dream was also and affect of the Reagan leadership

 

[Conservative]

Continuation

The labor participation rate has been falling for decades (see graph). So stop blaming Obama for a demographic trend. Obama didn't create the baby boom.

I am sure that if the numbers were better he would try and find a way to take credit for them but since they aren't he and you ignore them. The labor participation rate although decreasing has never been at this level but that doesn't seem to bother you.

Obama inherited an economy that was shedding jobs all through 2008 -- before Obama was elected, and peaked at 800,000 jobs per month. That has completely reversed, as the below chart shows. The only thing that could have made it better was more aggressive stimulative action, which, of course, conservatives opposed.

Source: BLS

It sure seems that I have undercut every argument you have made and also corrected your glaring factual errors.

Yes, he inherited a recession and there are still millions and millions of Americans still living in a recession if not a depression. No matter how many times you say it doesn't change the reality of the facts from bls. Instead of employees losing their jobs they dropped out of the labor force in numbers far exceeding the 700,000 job losses, something liberals want to ignore. You see, discouraged workers aren't counted in the official unemployment numbers therefore if they aren't counted they don't exist, right?

I have posted this chart over and over again, get someone to help you read it since apparently you are unable to do it on your own. I am waiting for you to prove any factual errors I have posted. Maybe you should take that up with BLS, BEA, and the Treasury as those are the numbers I continue to post. I know how hard this must be for you but one of these days you are going to realize that liberalism has made a fool out of you.

Let me know the month that GW Bush had 1.3 million discouraged workers?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010

Unemployed

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7678 7491 7816 7631 8395 8578 8950 9450 9501 10083 10544 11299
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097
2012 12748 12806 12686 12518 12695 12701 12745 12483 12082 12248 12042 12206
2013 12332 12032 11742 11659 11760 11777 11514 11316 11255 11272 10907

Discouraged workers

2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 866 852 815 762

Unemployed + Discouraged

2008 8145 7887 8217 8043 8795 8998 9411 9831 9968 10567 11152 11941
2009 12783 13591 14074 14536 15297 15520 15442 15619 15718 16229 16088 16053
2010 16018 16243 16122 16418 15959 15724 15794 15845 15783 15855 16386 15711
2011 14912 14771 14549 14781 14714 15006 15027 14897 14934 14726 14419 14042
2012 13807 13812 13551 13486 13525 13522 13597 13327 12884 13061 13021 13274
2013 13136 12917 12545 12577 12540 12804 12502 12182 12107 12087 11669 0

Labor Force 2009 154185 154424 154100 154453 154805 154754 154457 154362 153940 154022 153795 153172
Labor Force 2011 153250 153302 153392 153420 153700 153409 153358 153674 154004 154057 153937 153887
Labor Force 2012 154395 154871 154707 154365 155007 155163 155013 154645 155053 155641 155319 155511
Labor Force 2013 155654 155524 155028 155238 155658 155835 155798 155486 155559 154839 155294

Discouraged Workers from BLS.gov

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2002 to 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 866 852 815 762

Seems that you have corrected my "factual" errors in your own little world, not the real one. I wonder what your position would be if a Republican took over a recession like Obama did and generated these kind of numbers, high debt, high numbers of people dropping out of labor force, high unemployment, stagnant economic growth, massive govt. dependence?

 

[imagep]

Wow, liberalism really is a disease and dies hard. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of passion, loyalty and ease of brainwashing

I'm not sure. But I suspect it may be facts.

 

[Conservative]

I'm not sure. But I suspect it may be facts.

Facts? From a liberal? I haven't seen a valid or verifiable fact yet from you or any other liberals, just cheerleading each others ignorance.

 

[dad2three2001]

You sound like a reasonable person, tell me what policies Obama have implemented that are pro growth. CBO projections are based upon current law and what Congress gives them thus they aren't accurate as their own site explains.

There isn't enough income that can be generated out of taxing the rich to make any positive difference and the negative potential of raising those taxes is great. I don't think we will ever see 400 billion deficits under Obama, too much spending and the impact of Obamacare is devastating.

Republicans wish only to whack government spending means they don't care about the deficit. You can not cost-cut your way to prosperity.

Do you remember 2001 when we had a budget surplus. Alan Greenspan testified before Congress in favor of the Bush tax cuts,"we are in danger of paying down the debt too fast". How absurd is that statement today! By the way, not a single GOP senator voted for the 93 reconciliation act that led to the balanced budget and eventual surplus.

The Republicans would not pay down the debt when times were much better. Now they want to focus on deficits.

 

[dad2three2001]

Facts? From a liberal? I haven't seen a valid or verifiable fact yet from you or any other liberals, just cheerleading each others ignorance.

HOW IS THIS:

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."