US jobs data give hope on economy

[웃 910]

Then why would we need to take more taxes out of the private sector?

Because we have maxed out the credit card. We have a serious national debt problem.

It's a really interesting chart. The debt crisis doesn't really begin until Reagan (tripled our debts) and Bush 1. Believe it or not that little dip on the blue line in 2001 and 2003 had quit an impact on our debts.

Understand?

Edited October 8, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[mawilson 2,133]

Because we have maxed out the credit card. We have a serious national debt problem.

When you've maxed out your credit cards, getting new ones or raising your credit limit is usually not the answer.

[mawilson 2,133]

The gov't always spends more than it takes in. Surpluses are accounting gimmicks or accidents that almost never happen.

So no, I will not agree to any new taxes. Where's there so stop them from raising our taxes again in 4-5 years? And again, and again? This madness must stop NOW.

[웃 910]

The facts show that our deficits would be much, much, much lower without the Bush Tax Cuts. First one below shows projections from 2004...Why didn't anyone take notice of the chart in 2004? It clearly shows $500, $600, $700 billion deficits vs. $100 billion deficits without....Well, those $500/$600/$700 billion deficits came true. So I believe they know what they are doing. And this was at a time before the housing crisis (economy good). The only reason our deficits are much worse than they projected is because they didn't foresee The Great Recession. Otherwise I bet they'd have been even more accurate...So facts are facts, our deficits would look much more reasonable without the Bush Tax Cuts....In fact, the wars and the tax cuts will account for almost $10 trillion of a projected $20 trillion deficit in 2019. That is a real eye opener.

Do you like the blue line (liberal policies) or the red line (GOP policies)? Saddest most pathetic FACT about it is there was 0% net job creation from 2000 to NOV 2009...

Edited October 8, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[mawilson 2,133]

The facts show that our deficits would be much, much, much lower without the Bush Tax Cuts.

No, they wouldn't. They would have spent any additional revenue anyway.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No, they wouldn't. They would have spent any additional revenue anyway.

That's what I keep telling the wife about sending money to her parents.

[웃 910]

Ok. So we have two options:

1 = 2; Deficits in 1 = Deficits in 2

1) Huge deficits = Less government revenue and huge spending

2) Huge deficits = More government revenue but even more spending than in 1 (infrastructure, education, state aid, etc.)

I know which one is better for the economy if both are the same. Looking at the job growth from 2000 to 2010 it's hard to make a case that lower tax cuts create jobs.

We should look at where jobs are created and probably stick to those policies (ie Clinton with 23 million new jobs).

Figure 2: Change in Gross Federal Debt/GDP by Presidential Term

During every Republican presidential term since 1977, our gross federal debt increased when expressed as a fraction of our economy. During every Democratic presidential term since 1977, our gross debt was reduced when expressed as a fraction of our economy. Regarding actual gross debt, during the period 1978-2005 it increased 36.4% under Republican Presidents versus only 4.2% under Democratic presidents.

[mawilson 2,133]

1) Huge deficits = Less government revenue and huge spending

2) Huge deficits = More government revenue but even more spending than in 1 (infrastructure, education, state aid, etc.)

I know which one is better for the economy if both are the same. Looking at the job growth from 2000 to 2010 it's hard to make a case that lower tax cuts create jobs.

We have plenty of government revenue - over 2 trillion dollars per year. I'm all for spending more on the infrastructure and education - we can do all that without raising any additional revenue. It's a matter of priorities.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The facts show that our deficits would be much, much, much lower without the Bush Tax Cuts. First one below shows projections from 2004...Why didn't anyone take notice of the chart in 2004? It clearly shows $500, $600, $700 billion deficits vs. $100 billion deficits without....Well, those $500/$600/$700 billion deficits came true. So I believe they know what they are doing. And this was at a time before the housing crisis (economy good). The only reason our deficits are much worse than they projected is because they didn't foresee The Great Recession. Otherwise I bet they'd have been even more accurate...So facts are facts, our deficits would look much more reasonable without the Bush Tax Cuts....In fact, the wars and the tax cuts will account for almost $10 trillion of a projected $20 trillion deficit in 2019. That is a real eye opener.

Do you like the blue line (liberal policies) or the red line (GOP policies)? Saddest most pathetic FACT about it is there was 0% net job creation from 2000 to NOV 2009...

Since when is speculation "fact"? How can you call what someone speculates "would have" happened "if" we did not have the tax cuts and then say "facts show..."

The Bush tax cuts expired. Obama renewed them. They are now the Obama tax cuts.

[웃 910]

Since when is speculation "fact"? How can you call what someone speculates "would have" happened "if" we did not have the tax cuts and then say "facts show..."

The Bush tax cuts expired. Obama renewed them. They are now the Obama tax cuts.

It's more than speculation. There is a science and method to it.

All you have to do is see how accurate this projection from '04 was to reality (just looking at the red line - obviously the blue line didn't happen). Did you know the CBO projected YEARS AND YEARS of surpluses after Bush first took the throne? Ya, he fvcked up pretty good...

Summary from 2004:

If it was just speculation, it was damn accurate!

Edited October 8, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's more than speculation. There is a science and method to it.

All you have to do is see how accurate this projection from '04 was to reality (just looking at the red line). Did you know the CBO projected YEARS AND YEARS of surpluses after Bush first took the thrown? Ya, he fvcked up pretty good...

Summary from 2004:

If it was just speculation, it was damn accurate!

Good grief. Do we really need to allow all citizens to vote?

Any "science" would be based on assumptions. This is speculation. They are not and can not be FACTS. It does not matter if former speculation was accurate or not.

[웃 910]

Good grief. Do we really need to allow all citizens to vote?

Any "science" would be based on assumptions. This is speculation. They are not and can not be FACTS. It does not matter if former speculation was accurate or not.

Says the guy who claims the United States of America lost 212,000 jobs last month. The most since April of 2009!

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/333131-us-jobs-data-give-hope-on-economy/page__view__findpost__p__4941303

[mawilson 2,133]

It's more than speculation. There is a science and method to it.

The scientific method behind it assumes that all other things remain equal. They do not.

The government ALWAYS spends more than it takes in - now THAT's a FACT. (Please don't bring up Clinton's "surpluses" - they were accidental and you know it.)

You can give the government any amount of money and they will find ways to spend it and then some. That's a fact.

[웃 910]

The scientific method behind it assumes that all other things remain equal. They do not.

1 month after inauguration:

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/us/surplus-estimate-hits-5.6-trillion.html

"Over his full, eight-year term (including much of the 2009 deficit that rightly falls to him), the country ran up $3.3 trillion in total deficits. That works out to an average of about $412 billion per year "

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/jeb-hensarling/rep-hensarling-says-annual-deficits-under-republic/

Let's just do the opposite of what Bush did.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There never were any "surpluses". Find the last year when the national decreased.