US economy adds 130,000 jobs in August

[TU Curmudgeon]

Im not interested in the 'effects.' Unlike you, I dont believe the ends justify the means. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is simply justifying theft because you believe your ends are moral. And maybe they are, but you dont do evil that good may come.

For some reason, your posts give me the impression that you are a "Peter"? Is that correct?

 

[Kushinator]

LOL So not only were the deficits rising at the end of Obamas term, his own projections showed that rise continuing. Thats called being 'baked in.' So again, where is the lie?

Not at these levels. The post you decided to quote:

Restrictive trade policy combined with deficit growth during periods of historically low unemployment is already baked into the global and domestic economy. We will soon be forced to run $1.5 trillion+ deficits and experiment with negative interest rates.

Not once have you even attempted to address the anti-trade policy of the Trump administration as you are desperately clinging to a fragment of a quote without taking into consideration the context. Deficits were expected to rise as far back as 2016. However, the CBO later put out a baseline projection where deficits declined on the basis of economic growth. Neither projections materialized, as 2019 will be roughly $250 billion higher than the 2016 baseline projection, and roughly $400 billion higher than the 2017 baseline. So your only option is to deflect from the failure of your ideology in true Trumpian fashion.

Revenue isnt falling, spending is rising.

Not enough to keep up with the spending enacted by a totally GOP controlled federal government. Furthermore, revenue as a percentage of GDP and per-capita GDP has declined, while revenue at the baseline is roughly $300 billion lite of the 2016 projection. You don't get to cherry pick.

Because no one cares about the deficit.

We should all want deficits to fall during economic expansion and rise during economic contraction. However, deficits are rising and you and your side want to claim the economy is just coasting along (at the same trend that began in 2011). Cognitive dissonence has gotten the best of the GOP and it's supporters.

Democrats in the House voted 219-16 to increase spending next year by $320 billion.

No link!!!

Trump's FY 2020 budget request has a $300+ billion increase (requested by.... the POTUS). Democrats have not ran on spending cuts.

So you can stop pretending like anyone in your party gives a crap about the deficit either.

I don't have a party, but it is crystal clear as to which party carries the burden of fiscal responsibility.

 

[Kushinator]

It might be interesting to see if Kush or his cohorts would care to do this math. Impact of tax cuts on 2019 deficits versus Fed actions since the 2016 elections. By Fed actions make sure not only to count the interest rate increases but the cost of shrinking their balance sheet.

If you weren't such a coward, you would be able to see the 2016, 2017, and 2019 baseline CBO projections that take this very thing into consideration. If the person you've decided to quote wasn't so afraid to address the data, maybe we could have taken a deeper look into exactly what has grown (and fallen) in terms of the revenue/outlay trajectory to the baseline(s).

But nope... Fletch wanted to cherry pick. And so you can't see where the CBO projected, in 2016, that net interest would equate to $369 billion ($39 billion more than what materialized) with the 2019 baseline projection differential being $66 billion less than 2016's.

Would you like to point out just how much of the Fed's balance sheet has been reduced? Would you like to discuss the initial interest rate increases in late 2015/2016, and how they impacted an economy that was feeling tremendous headwinds from a collapse in oil prices? Of course not. You have nothing of value to offer, and are only here to make excuses for the fiscal policy blunders of the GOP.

 

[Fletch]

Not at these levels. The post you decided to quote:



Not once have you even attempted to address the anti-trade policy of the Trump administration as you are desperately clinging to a fragment of a quote without taking into consideration the context. Deficits were expected to rise as far back as 2016. However, the CBO later put out a baseline projection where deficits declined on the basis of economic growth. Neither projections materialized, as 2019 will be roughly $250 billion higher than the 2016 baseline projection, and roughly $400 billion higher than the 2017 baseline. So your only option is to deflect from the failure of your ideology in true Trumpian fashion.




Not enough to keep up with the spending enacted by a totally GOP controlled federal government. Furthermore, revenue as a percentage of GDP and per-capita GDP has declined, while revenue at the baseline is roughly $300 billion lite of the 2016 projection. You don't get to cherry pick.



We should all want deficits to fall during economic expansion and rise during economic contraction. However, deficits are rising and you and your side want to claim the economy is just coasting along (at the same trend that began in 2011). Cognitive dissonence has gotten the best of the GOP and it's supporters.



No link!!!

Trump's FY 2020 budget request has a $300+ billion increase (requested by.... the POTUS). Democrats have not ran on spending cuts.



I don't have a party, but it is crystal clear as to which party carries the burden of fiscal responsibility.

Soooo, wheres the lie again?

 

[Kushinator]

When we are weighing policy, the ends always justify the means. Policy "A" helps people "X" but hurts people "Y." Is it worth it? Taxing the minority of rich help the vast number of middle class and poor citizens. I think that is worth it. You do not.

I would also argue that the most wealthy benefit the most. Sure the highest income earners will pay a greater percentage... but their wealth will increase by a rat that fare exceeds what is given up in taxes. We should discuss this in greater detail.

 

[Fletch]

For some reason, your posts give me the impression that you are a "Peter"? Is that correct?

No, you wouldnt be correct. But you should be used to that by now.

 

[Kushinator]

Soooo, wheres the lie again?

Deficit growth of this magnitude wasn't projected back in 2016. LOL... deficit growth of this magnitude wasn't expected by Trump, his supporters, or the people who were in charge of the projections! :lol: To claim that this trajectory of fiscal expansion was baked in during the Obama administration is factually incorrect. The Federal government was not expected to run a $1 trillion fiscal deficit for FY 2019. So that's no.1

Secondly, there wasn't a most obnoxious trade war creating more economic uncertainty than during any period of the Obama administration. You have not once addressed this point.

We know why.

 

[Fletch]

Deficit growth of this magnitude wasn't projected back in 2016. LOL... deficit growth of this magnitude wasn't expected by Trump, his supporters, or the people who were in charge of the projections! :lol: To claim that this trajectory of fiscal expansion was baked in during the Obama administration is factually incorrect. The Federal government was not expected to run a $1 trillion fiscal deficit for FY 2019. So that's no.1

Secondly, there wasn't a most obnoxious trade war creating more economic uncertainty than during any period of the Obama administration. You have not once addressed this point.

We know why.

Deficit growth was baked in. Trump inherited a rising deficit with the projections saying that rise would continue. His policies caused that deficit to grow beyond projections but the growth in the debt was baked in. Your problem is you just cant bring yourself to ever admit that democrat polices are to blame for anything negative.

 

[Kushinator]

Deficit growth was baked in.

I didn't claim to the contrary. This is just a hail mary strawman with the hope to deflect from reality.

Our current economic climate was certainly not baked in. To make the claim my comment pertained to any other idea is another example of your dishonesty.

Trump inherited a rising deficit with the projections saying that rise would continue.

They weren't saying $1 trillion by FY 2019! You and all the other wound-lickers weren't predicting this sort of reality either! We were supposed to be winning. Instead, this silly trade war has cannibalized whatever fiscal stimulus effects were created from deficit growth. And it all happened with an unemployment rate (that you once called fake) less than 4%. Talk about failure.

His policies caused that deficit to grow beyond projections but the growth in the debt was baked in.

Again... not at these levels. Did you actually believe Trump's policies would change the trajectory?

Your problem is you just cant bring yourself to ever admit that democrat polices are to blame for anything negative.

I don't have the time or energy to invent major policy blunders of the Democratic party. Yet because i know you can't respond in kind: We could easily argue tax reform was not used as a bargaining chip. The lack of a public option for health care reform was a grave failure by such a majority. And the ability to generate a more in-depth (meaning over $1 trillion) fiscal stimulus during the height of the Great Recession and Global Financial Crisis was a fumble.

But that's not even on the same continent as the recent fiscal and economic policy blunders of the GOP. To argue anything different is a failure to adhere to reality.

 

[washunut]

Deficit growth was baked in. Trump inherited a rising deficit with the projections saying that rise would continue. His policies caused that deficit to grow beyond projections but the growth in the debt was baked in. Your problem is you just cant bring yourself to ever admit that democrat polices are to blame for anything negative.

He refuses to take into account the massive run up in rates including the shrinking balance sheet that impacted deficits. Doesn't take into the increase in revenues due to higher GDP growth and stock market profits. Just cheery picks data and bangs his head.

 

[Kushinator]

He refuses to take into account the massive run up in rates including the shrinking balance sheet that impacted deficits.

The CBO baseline projections accounted for excess interest expense.

Doesn't take into the increase in revenues due to higher GDP growth and stock market profits.

The data accounts for this false statement. GDP growth is partially due to deficit spending. Remove the additional $250 billion in deficit growth and where does the economy stand?

Just cheery picks data and bangs his head.

I'm fluent in data and the analysis necessary to partake in these discussions. You're just a waterboy for a failed ideology.

 

[Fletch]

I didn't claim to the contrary.

Then we agree. What I said wasnt a lie, you arent man enough now to admit that, and the deficit growth Trump inherited was baked in by stupid leftist policies.

 

[Luther]

if Black unemployment was at record highs.....Dems would be screaming from the rafters...all day everyday about how it was Trumps fault.

How many of these Black Jobs are just part time?

You know they still can collect the many forms of welfare still right?

 

[Decypher]

Isn't it ironic?

Only in the Morrisettian sense.

 

[Eriech]

How do you grow jobs when everyone is working?

We are undermanned and stressed with no relief in site. Almost worth voting Democrat for some respite. It was so much easier with high unemployment.







Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[MTAtech]

How do you grow jobs when everyone is working?

We are undermanned and stressed with no relief in site. Almost worth voting Democrat for some respite. It was so much easier with high unemployment.

Are you saying everyone who wants to work has a job? When people die or retire, jobs to replace them are added. In addition, more people 16 or older enter the workforce.

 

[Kushinator]

Then we agree. What I said wasnt a lie, you arent man enough now to admit that, and the deficit growth Trump inherited was baked in by stupid leftist policies.

Trump policy has exacerbated any potential deficit growth that was projected,and this was implied in my comment.

This is what... The fifth time you've failed to address the other part of the statement: restrictive trade policy.

You are nothing if not a liar.

 

[Eriech]

Are you saying everyone who wants to work has a job? When people die or retire, jobs to replace them are added. In addition, more people 16 or older enter the workforce.

Yes I am saying that.

When someone retires and is replaced that is not a new job. For example, when a company has 100 employees this month and 120 employees next month that is 20 new jobs assuming these new hired were listed as unemployed or are entering or reentering the work force. If the 20 new hires were hired away from other employers they do not add to the job numbers.

Wages are necessarily going up to retain and attract employees.



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[MTAtech]

Yes I am saying that.

When someone retires and is replaced that is not a new job. For example, when a company has 100 employees this month and 120 employees next month that is 20 new jobs assuming these new hired were listed as unemployed or are entering or reentering the work force. If the 20 new hires were hired away from other employers they do not add to the job numbers.

Wages are necessarily going up to retain and attract employees.

The BLS counts new hires, not new jobs.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Soooo, wheres the lie again?

Your usual incisive and detailed responses are always a high-point of my morning.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, you wouldnt be correct. But you should be used to that by now.

You mean you don't think that he is a taxpayer?

 

[Visbek]

Yes I am saying that.

It is highly unlikely that "everyone who wants a job is working." Labor force participation is still around 62%. While most of those non-workers are taking care of family, retired, raising kids, or in school, there are also surely millions of people who want jobs and can't get them. More likely is that those potential workers don't have the necessary skills, or aren't interested in the available jobs, or don't live where the jobs are available.

Wages are necessarily going up to retain and attract employees.

Wages are barely inching up. Most of the increase in wages recently is paired with, and caused by, increases in inflation. Employers have been stunningly reluctant to increase wages.

 

[Eriech]

The BLS counts new hires, not new jobs.

If that is the case what an absolute meaningless number.
If a Target employee quits to take a job with Walmart a job was created?



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[bomberfox]

Can we ever get a long term analysis from anyone on this forum?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I didn't claim to the contrary. This is just a hail mary strawman with the hope to deflect from reality.

Our current economic climate was certainly not baked in. To make the claim my comment pertained to any other idea is another example of your dishonesty.



They weren't saying $1 trillion by FY 2019! You and all the other wound-lickers weren't predicting this sort of reality either! We were supposed to be winning. Instead, this silly trade war has cannibalized whatever fiscal stimulus effects were created from deficit growth. And it all happened with an unemployment rate (that you once called fake) less than 4%. Talk about failure.



Again... not at these levels. Did you actually believe Trump's policies would change the trajectory?



I don't have the time or energy to invent major policy blunders of the Democratic party. Yet because i know you can't respond in kind: We could easily argue tax reform was not used as a bargaining chip. The lack of a public option for health care reform was a grave failure by such a majority. And the ability to generate a more in-depth (meaning over $1 trillion) fiscal stimulus during the height of the Great Recession and Global Financial Crisis was a fumble.

But that's not even on the same continent as the recent fiscal and economic policy blunders of the GOP. To argue anything different is a failure to adhere to reality.

It appears that you have differing definitions of "baked in".

To illustrate,

1. the United Nations estimated that there WOULD be casualties involved in the raid on Dieppe during WWII - that means that "casualties" were, in fact, "baked in" to the plan;
   HOWEVER
2. the United Nations did NOT estimate that the casualty level would be around 67.8% - that means that 67.8% casualties" were NOT "baked in" to the plan;

the way that someone is trying to tell you the size and rate of growth of the US deficit was "baked in" to Mr. Trump's actions.

If a football coach, at the end of a 1 - 26 season in which they had predicted that they would likely have a 24 - 3 (or better) season tried to tell you that they had been correct when they said that their team would have "some losses" during the season, would you renew their contract?