Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

If you think I "spin" anything, you are either not paying attention to what I am saying or I am doing a bad job of communicating. I make a concerted effort to be as objective in my posts as possible. Would you be surprised to learn that I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary and McCain in the 2008 general election?

Here is my picture contribution to the employment topic:


If you want to see more of my posts on what that graph represents, search this thread for "employment population ratio."

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I know that is both funny and sad; I'm just not sure which it's more of.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i want to post!






important comparison:

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

So, what conclusion are we to draw from this? That the economic recession of 1981 was less severe (in terms of its impact as a percentage change of US economic output) than the recession of 2007, and that the rate of recovery (as percentage change over time after the arbitrary point marked "recovery") was greater?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yes.

forgot to show the employements one:








major jobs vs. major fail?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Ah, yes. Because we all know that the President of the US is the single most influential factor in driving every single aspect of life in the US, and that other factors such as the banking system, the financial liquidity of our trading partners, etc., are of relatively little importance to the US economy.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I was disappointed to find that the recession that probably best - but still incompletely - resembled the "Global Financial Crisis" did not have data available as these were all Post WW2 recessions. "The 2007-09 recession was the deepest recession in the postwar period; at their lowest points employment fell by 6.3 percent and output fell by 5.1 percent."

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Edit: I found looking at the slide rules of the depth of recessions pretty interesting also. It seems that most, if not all, "troughed" before the 2007-09 recession. That is, the 2007-09 was still in a contractionary period (in terms of jobs) even though the recession was officially marked as over.

None of that is to say that a more competent and cooperative government response (such as very large individual tax cuts and targeted spending) might not have (and might still) improve the recovery pace.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i never said it was the president.

but i know how to fix the problem:

work mandates. force people to get a job or pay a tax...obviously this means unemployment benefits would kinda work in the reverse, but it's totally constitutional.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Work mandates! Hey, if the government can tax you for not buying something, then they can tax you for not working, right?

For some strange reason (sarcasm alert) we're just not snapping back from this recession like every one in the past. What's the statute of limitations for blaming Bush?

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I wanted to join in the graphical fun everyone's been having.

Fun fact: more workers joined the federal government's disability program in June than got new jobs! Wow, that's real progress.

How about this fun fact: While the economy has created 2.6 million jobs since June 2009, fully 3.1 million workers signed up for disability benefits. There's no end in sight, as 275,000 people applied last month. How many will win the lucky disability lottery?!

3.1 Million Workers Join Disability Ranks Vs. 2.6 Million That Got Jobs In Obama Recovery - Investors.com

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Scrappy, you're the first person I've EVER heard of go from supporting a Libertarian to a Socialist. So I'm less surprised than shocked; central planning and liberty simply cannot coexist.

Your continued support of these failed policies simply leads me to believe that everyone else here on this forum is doing a bad job of communicating the facts to you. :(

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Like I said, you are not paying attention to what I am saying. Please point out some examples of me supporting "a Socialist" (I assume you mean Obama) or "these failed policies" (specifying which ones).

I would bet, it's more likely that you are assuming a binary decision making process.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Oh I get it...you're a moderate! Right? If not, why don't you just spill the beans? You're about as clear and transparent as the Obama White House.

If you voted for Ron Paul, are you Libertarian? Do you want the Fed abolished?

If you voted for McCain, do you want funding increased for the military?

If you like Obama, you can choose what the guy says or what he does. He was against gay marriage before he was for it. He wanted Gitmo closed--it's still open. He wanted out of Afghanistan before he added more troops. He was going to cut the deficit in half before he added $5 trillion to it. He wanted us to keep our insurance before they got too expensive for us to keep (mine went up 38% this year). He wanted the most transparent government ever, before he stopped taking reporter's questions--at least the scripted ones. And of course he was the one who said we'd be under 6% unemployment now if we went along with his stimulus program...

Lay it on the line Scrappy--the floor is yours. Here's your chance to shine.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Correct- you actually took a page from Jason's book and didn't say anything at all.

You quoted a blurb from an article which said it was the president. Specifically:

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I respect Ron Paul for his consistency and apparent integrity. In 2008, like many people, I misunderstood the US monetary system and sectoral balances, including national debt and Federal deficits. I have since learned that Ron Paul's economics are more morality-based than reality-based and that applying fixed currency (aka gold standard) economic policies to our current monetary system would be a Bad Thing®.

I most aligned with Libertarians on social and foreign policy issues: government should not be involved in marriages, prohibition did not work against alcohol and it doesn't work against marijuana, the focus should be on national defense and not international offense, etc. We don't need a million different government agencies shutting down little rabbit farms and lemonade stands. Unions may or may not have their place in the private sector in today's world (they definitely used to) but they do not belong among public employees.

However, I do not believe all government spending is always bad, that all private sector enterprise is always more efficient, that all regulation stifles innovation or that the Free Market exists (outside of very small areas and theory). I do believe that a massive tax cut is generally better than a massive government spending program, but that they are both equal in terms of deficit effects.

I do believe in attempting to view issues from multiple sides rather than rejecting them from a knee-jerk ideological perspective. Because I call in to doubt Position A does not mean I automatically support Position B.

I voted against Obama in 2008, not for McCain. I will likely vote for Romney this year for similar reasons, because I feel he and the Republicans are more likely to keep deficits where they need to be via tax cuts rather than spending increases. I would prefer to vote for Joe Perez, but I am convinced he does not have a chance of defeating Obama due to the huge gap in fundraising.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

and his polarizing view on the greatness of chickens.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

But I'm pretty sure we are all smart enough to know what we are really comparing is the polices/environment. Specifically the threat of higher taxes, impact of obamacare, the hard regulatory environment, and their impact on investors and job creators.

here's what some business people have to say on today's climate:

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Thank you for clarifying Jack. While I don't agree with many things you say, it's nice to see that we have some similar views. That's a "win" in my book.

I feel myself commiserating with all of the business people quoted by Braineak most of all. I ran a successful small company in 2007 and was very proud to employ 15 people. What so many people--most--don't understand is that if you have to meet payroll and have vendors to pay, AND have customers that slow-pay, Uncle Sam doesn't care. He gets paid first, and he gets paid really, really well. If as a small businessman I make a whopping $250,000 per year in this scenario, most of that is on paper. Some months you've got $40k in the bank but you need to make payroll, Uncle Sam has his hand out, and your "good" customers are on net 60. You see the money on your balance sheet, but rarely in your bank account.

These "rich guys" are the Americans who get demonized. These are the jackasses who don't deserve a one year extension of the Bush tax cuts. These are the guys who would LOVE to hire more people or buy a new machine, but THEY'RE NOT SURE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL CHARGE/CHANGE NEXT YEAR. It's not a BS excuse, it's the life (or death) of a company. Do you want to guess wrong and then have to lay someone with a family off?

Only the truly stupid would unwittingly do this to an economy. This is on purpose. Obama is trying to fire the engine of a centrallly-controlled economy by wiping out the engine of capitalism.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare | The Daily Caller

Anecdotally, a 40-something doctor friend of mine let his license lapse this month. He's chosen not to practice...

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia | Politics News | Rolling Stone

InB4 "B..b...b...but Obama!".