Deficits almost entirely encapsulate output growth. That's the main reason we have had record low unemployment.I don't think that is true, particularly now.
Likely because wages are not at the levels necessary to fill them. We also have had record quit rates. If businesses really wanted to hire people to fill these jobs, the pay would be higher.The demographics show something other than this, we have more jobs that people available to fill them, with a declining participation.
My point holds regardless of your speculation.While reducing federal spending would impact labor markets, I don't think the trade off is worth it.
Some desperate Google search.
You're not capable... not in the slightest. In this exchange, I've once again showed the forum how pathetic and desperate your positions are.
With lies, fallacies, and no logical structure. You've shit the bed once again.
Another glaring example of your total lack of critical thinking and reading comprehension. If you don't understand what FRED encompasses....
He wasn't the one who was against raising the debt limit. So no, the deficits don't support this stage theory.
Looking at the evidence instead of just parroting the talking point we find the social security trust fund was used to pad the general revenue creating the illusion of a significant surplus out of the reality of another overspend by the Federal government.The facts are, we had a budget surplus. This is not debatable. Your denial of reality is a by product of your partisan hackery.
Waste of time with this posterLooking at the evidence instead of just parroting the talking point we find the social security trust fund was used to pad the general revenue creating the illusion of a significant surplus out of the reality of another overspend by the Federal government.
No credible economist, account, actuary, etc... would accept that source. Not one.
This has been the case since '68, and the trust funds have been designed to accumulate federal debt. You simply do not know what you're talking about.Looking at the evidence instead of just parroting the talking point we find the social security trust fund was used to pad the general revenue
Again the source or messenger always trumps the message in that arrogant liberal world. Keep ignoring the data showing how easy it is to indoctrinate people and make fools out of themNo credible economist, account, actuary, etc... would accept that source. Not one.
Your perpetual failure is legendary.
No it is you that doesn't know what they are talking about, SS and Medicare have among the worst Return on investments in this country, borrowing the money and using that to pay additional expenses short changes SS contributors by generating a terrible return and no use of that money for your entire working career.This has been the case since '68, and the trust funds have been designed to accumulate federal debt. You simply do not know what you're talking about.
Deficits almost entirely encapsulate output growth. That's the main reason we have had record low unemployment.
Likely because wages are not at the levels necessary to fill them. We also have had record quit rates. If businesses really wanted to hire people to fill these jobs, the pay would be higher.
My point holds regardless of your speculation.
I know it sucks for you that you are forced to detach yourself from reality, in order to cling to your ideology. But reality doesn't care. The facts remain, there was a budget surplus. You can whine and not like that all you want. Nobody cares.Looking at the evidence instead of just parroting the talking point we find the social security trust fund was used to pad the general revenue creating the illusion of a significant surplus out of the reality of another overspend by the Federal government.
Say what you will about Biden but if this new debt ceiling bill is passed; he deserves most of the credit. He was ablt to protect every one of his priorities. He may be old but his experience comes through loud and clear. McCarthy can chest beat all he wants; Biden was the Chief negotiator here and is not the type to chest beat
Sorry, I am unsure what you mean by "deficits encapsulate output growth". Are you trying to say deficit spending explains low unemployment?Deficits almost entirely encapsulate output growth. That's the main reason we have had record low unemployment.
Many employers are offering $15 or more as starting wages. This used to be referred to as a living wage.Likely because wages are not at the levels necessary to fill them. We also have had record quit rates. If businesses really wanted to hire people to fill these jobs, the pay would be higher.
My point holds regardless of your speculation.
You mischaracterize what happened.Sorry, I am unsure what you mean by "deficits encapsulate output growth". Are you trying to say deficit spending explains low unemployment?
People withdrawing in prime working age aren't counted in the unemployment statistic. That artificially lowers the rate.
Many employers are offering $15 or more as starting wages. This used to be referred to as a living wage.
Look at what happened in Seattle when they legislated a living wage for fast food workers. Many workers demanded fewer hours so as not to have their welfare benefits reduced.
Parroting President Biden, who has never so much as run a hot dog cart in the private sector, claim that employers just refuse to pay enough to fill jobs as if they can just print more money like the Federal government is nonsense. The lack of workers to take jobs is driven by an overly generous welfare state with no meaningful work requirements.
There you go again telling us what everyone else will do. Where did you develop this incredible skill you believe you have? Always some imaginary economist, account, or actuary without any link. Stunning how you never answer direct questions regarding your own posts.No credible economist, account, actuary, etc... would accept that source. Not one.
Your perpetual failure is legendary.
The original SS legislation in 1937 required "excess" funds be used in sham purchases of special purpose bonds owned exclusively by the Federal government. It's not a trust fund it's an unsecured IOU. Worse, Treasury accounts for the trust fund as an asset. Clinton and the Democrats deliberately ignore the liability created by spending SS trust fund cash to create a budget surplus.This has been the case since '68, and the trust funds have been designed to accumulate federal debt. You simply do not know what you're talking about.
No, Reuters put a Leftist spin on the story.You mischaracterize what happened.
(Reuters) - A Seattle law that requires many businesses to pay a minimum wage of at least $13 an hour has left low-wage workers with less money in their pockets because some employers cut working hours, a study released on Monday said.Seattle employers cut hours after latest minimum wage rise, study finds
A Seattle law that requires many businesses to pay a minimum wage of at least $13 an hour has left low-wage workers with less money in their pockets because some employers cut working hours, a study released on Monday said.www.reuters.com
Wasn't Biden's priority a clean debt bill? Didn't he promise that repeatedly, while promising not to negotiate?Say what you will about Biden but if this new debt ceiling bill is passed; he deserves most of the credit. He was ablt to protect every one of his priorities. He may be old but his experience comes through loud and clear. McCarthy can chest beat all he wants; Biden was the Chief negotiator here and is not the type to chest beat
Negotiations for the 2024 budget don’t begin until the fall. The issue at hand is funding a budget that was already approved.
Wasn't Biden's priority a clean debt bill? Didn't he promise that repeatedly, while promising not to negotiate?
What the hell happened to that?
Yea, this doesn't support your position at all that medical school costs are a primary driver of overall US medical costs. Total physician/clinical spending represents 20.3% of all healthcare spending first off, so it is a small portion of the overall. Second, the articles primary contention is that it drives students into specialization? There are a host of reasons why physicians go into specialization, it isn't nearly as much about money for the last 10-15 years. Specialist compensation has fallen off a cliff while basic medicine like IM has seen huge jumps. This isn't the 80's and 90's where neuro/CT surgeons were making 10x their peers. A neurosurgeon is now doing ~800k and a hospitalist is easy north of 400k.
Further, their reimbursement isn't dictated by their medical school costs, Medicare (the primary driver of reimbursement by CPT) doesn't care at the RUC level.
That model only applies to those not on medicaid/ACA plans. ~Half the country gets to skip that and binge on whatever they want healthcare related.
All health insurance plans have a max out of pocket expense as well as no cap on care. So the days of medically driven bankruptcy are long gone. You don't forego surgery in France or the UK, it is simply not made available to you are you get to wait for an extremely long time to get it. Look up the statistics for joint replacements in the UK. There is a reason they are far less prevalent, the NHS doesn't spend $20k to replace the hip in an elderly person, they aren't worth it.
What you call "weasel definitions" are actually just definitions. I provided the hard data to show the US per capita welfare spending is top 10 in the world and higher than most major EU nations.
Sounds like someone was a Comms major, figures.
Ok, so your argument then is that a 4 year comms degree is valuable because they have all the skills you have departing high school? Algebra? Are you kidding me? I did that in 7th and 8th grade. If there were no dispute or debate here then there wouldn't be a question of wages and the cost of university. If there were a value there there would be a whiner next to it.
How about everyone who has a college loan balance over 40 years old. That's a pretty solid indicator of people who F'd up with their education and financial management.
This was in specific rebuttal to your argument that Medicaid is only available to the poor, I pointed out it was expanded to 4x the poverty level based on household size. You don't understand the notion that the US has a generous social system? That's odd, I gave you the figures showing we were 10th in the world in per capita social spending. That was #10 including some countries that were tiny, compared to peers we were ~top 5.
No, they drop a kid to do it.
Biden has always said he wanted a bipartisan bill and that is what he got. The point is that the GOP's 4/27 bill was basically gutted or dramatically reduced and Biden was able to protect most of his policiesWasn't Biden's priority a clean debt bill? Didn't he promise that repeatedly, while promising not to negotiate?
What the hell happened to that?
I understand that. The President submits his budget in Feb but the last time a budget was completed with all relevant bills was about 20 years agoUh, the 2024 Federal Fiscal year starts on October 1st.
No credible economist, account, actuary, etc... would accept that source. Not one.
Your perpetual failure is legendary.
McCarthy presumably got a few things he could hand to his members to take back home to voters. Everyone wins, to some extant.
“So the days of medically driven bankruptcy are long gone.”
That’s patently false!
This is the real reason most Americans file for bankruptcy
Two-thirds of people who file for bankruptcy say medical bills or other issues related to illness contributed to their financial downfall. One big reason: their health insurance wasn't enough.www.cnbc.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?