Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Unemployment Rises To 7.9%  
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3419 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Both the unemployment rate (7.9 percent) and the number of unemployed persons (12.3 million) were essentially unchanged in October, following declines in September. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for blacks increased to 14.3 percent in October, while the rates for adult men (7.3 percent), adult women (7.2 percent), teenagers (23.7 percent), whites (7.0 percent), and Hispanics (10.0 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.9 percent in October (not seasonally adjusted), down from 7.3 percent a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In October, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.0 million. These individuals accounted for 40.6 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
139 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

So what was it last year? And the year before that?

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4587 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2168 times:

The numbers look good. Jobs increased. More peope came back into the work force from the "Not in the workforce" category.

The numbers also go agains the notion that last month's numbers were "fudged" as certain fake news websites railed on about.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2162 times:

Talk about bias! The very report you just cited begins with:

"Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 171,000 in October, and the unemployment
rate was essentially unchanged at 7.9 percent
"



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Obviously there have been some job losses and some new jobs created, perhaps nowhere near enough new jobs and nowhere near enough full-time for those that need full-time work. But:
Quote:
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 171,000 in October, and the unemployment
rate was essentially unchanged
at 7.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment rose in professional and business services, health care,
and retail trade.

Emphasis added to the source that you quoted. How does "unchanged" and "employment rose" - which is repeated a number of times in your source - lead you to select a headline "rises"? Even your own OP states "essentially unchanged", so why pick a headline that contradicts both the source and your OP?

[Edited 2012-11-02 06:55:47]

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
so why pick a headline that contradicts both the source and your OP?

You already know the answer to that question.

The Republican spin machine has to get in gear fast when a report like this comes out. It's hard to reconcile their recent discrediting of the unemployment percentage (stating that we should worry only about the number of jobs added) with this report which says that a whole bunch of jobs were added to the economy.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineWolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 487 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

Much to the undoubted chagrin of Bjorn14 the jobs report came in much better than expected see e.g. MarketWatch's headline "October payrolls surprise: 171,000 new jobs added "

171,000 jobs were added when the consensus expectation was 120,000.

Previous months figures were revised upwards:
"Companies also hired more employees in September and August than previously estimated. The number of new jobs created in September was revised up to 148,000 from a prior estimate of 114,000. And August's figure was revised to 192,000 from 142,000 to mark the best month of hiring since February."

This report also blows out of the water conspiracy theories about Obama's administration supposedly rigging the employment rate figures last month although I doubt those who put forward these theories will admit that.

That Bjorn14 chooses to leave out all the positive aspects only shows his myopic bias and speaks to the credibility of his arguments. No surprise there.

[Edited 2012-11-02 06:58:23]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8837 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

So there you have it - the recovery has peaked out, and we have gotten to this point by maxing out our credit cards. 1.3% net growth, 8% unemployment is now what our economy looks like at the peak (I remember a lot of economists warning of that probability 3.5 years ago when Obama was talking about stimulus but not about actually fixing the mortgage problem or the debt). We are looking at Taxmaggedon on Jan 1st, which will cause a recession if it goes through, and will probably cause a recession if we delay all the tax increases and simply let the debt accumulate.

Basically, we are screwed. I'd hate to be the new president, whichever one he is, because in 4 years, he will certainly be the most hated man in America. Either We do an Argentina, devalue our currency, which would plunge the whole world into another tailspin, or he does the impossible and turns things around - but ends up pissing off everyone who now gets something from the government (the 47%) not to mention future recipients.

To this day, I still cannot fathom how people, who call themselves compassionate who care about others, could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

The piper is here, and he's a-knockin.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
To this day, I still cannot fathom how people, who call themselves compassionate who care about others, could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

Did you vote for candidates that supported deficit spending?

"I have met the enemy, and he is us!"



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2119 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
So there you have it - the recovery has peaked out,

Has it? Economists normally rely on more than one month's data - usually two consecutive quarters are looked at to determine whether the economy has plateaued, entered a recession or whatever. You may be right but do these figures bear out what you are saying?


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8702 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2119 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
So there you have it - the recovery has peaked out, and we have gotten to this point by maxing out our credit cards.

Previously, you were complaining that too few jobs were being added. Now that 171,000 jobs have been added in one month, you forget to mention that particular statistic... I wonder why that might be.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
Taxmaggedon

Oh no, wait, I don't wonder...   



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8837 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 10):
Previously, you were complaining that too few jobs were being added. Now that 171,000 jobs have been added in one month, you forget to mention that particular statistic... I wonder why that might be.

Because it is not a very meaningful statistic. Even if it was, 170K per month is just barely enough to keep up with population increase. What I look at is Total non-farm private employment divided by working age population. That is not looking so rosy.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 9):
Has it? Economists normally rely on more than one month's data - usually two consecutive quarters are looked at to determine whether the economy has plateaued, entered a recession or whatever. You may be right but do these figures bear out what you are saying?

it's been pretty damned consistant, and remember that deficit spending has added several points to "growth" every quarter - but that is not real growth - that's just borrowed against growth in the future when you have to pay the bill.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8702 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2089 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Because it is not a very meaningful statistic.

So why were you harping on about it earlier?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3419 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
Talk about bias! The very report you just cited begins with:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Even your own OP states "essentially unchanged", so why pick a headline that contradicts both the source and your OP?

Unemployment was 7.8% in September '12 and now it is 7.9% so according to my public school math that's an increase or rise. Statistically, one could argue that .1% is "essentially unchanged" but since so many on this site love to be technically correct I just wanted to help them out. This isn't even a dead cat bounce.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2082 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):

Thanks for providing the graph showing changes in GDP growth over the past few years. While it confirms a slowdown during Q1 and Q2, it shows that some ground has been regained rather than worsening into negative figures.

It is interesting to note that some analysts draw different conclusions. For example, BMO Capital describes the figures as

Quote:
"Job growth improved meaningfully in October, though a jump in labour force participation lifted the unemployment rate slightly.

"This suggests the economy is gathering a little momentum, and that GDP growth will improve further in Q4 from the 2.0 per cent pace of Q3."
Emphasis added.


Now I don't have a crystal ball so perhaps they are engaging in wishful thinking. Then again they may be taking these figures in conjunction with others that lead them to a more positive outlook.


User currently offlineracko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

Don't you usually compare unemployment numbers to the same month last year to eliminate seasonal effects? At least that's how it is done here.

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2048 times:

Quoting racko (Reply 15):

Yes and no. Unemployment figures are often quoted as "seasonally adjusted" but for many purposes a twelve month period is considered too long. Hence quarterly figures are often used to indicate a trend.


User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

US Debt held by the public at ~ 11 trillion or 66% of GDP is lower than most eveywhere in Europe or Japan and Singapore.

Also, America can and does simply monetise its debt on a massive scale without inflation, due in large part to the demand for dollars overseas, which the euro crises is helping nicely.

I don't think debt is anywhere near critical. America and other stable countries have had it higher with no doomsday.





Pu







http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
US debt held by the public is the correct figure for comparing the USA to other countries since US debt held by the government itself ("intragovernmental debt") is not the type of "debt" reported by other nations.

www.cia.gov/library/publications/the...d-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20534 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2000 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
To this day, I still cannot fathom how people, who call themselves compassionate who care about others, could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

I was thinking the same thing when we were pouring hundreds of billions into foreign wars post-9/11 that we were supposed to be reimbursed for by thankful nations. Remember those claims? That's where a HUGE amount of the accelerated numbers of our mounting debt is stemming from. What happened to all that money? Do you see any of it? I sure don't.

There's an advert playing on some of the cable networks lately. It was banned by the major networks in 2010 as "too controversial": Why do great nations fail? Personally, I think it's a bit OTT, but an interesting message nonetheless.

While I'm a fiscal conservative for the most part, I do see the need to spend dollars to improve the infrastructure of America to help us stabilize and grow, and that includes for our intellectual assets as well as the traditional brick-and-mortar goods.

There are some tax subsidies that Romney proposes to get rid of, such as for alternative energy. I've not done an in-depth analysis of how much the economy receives back in terms of stimulation and jobs from these subsidies, but I'm seeing news articles appear in my Google Alerts about companies initiating layoffs of up to a quarter of their staff in this sector already due to the uncertainty of whether the Investment Tax Credit will be extended or not. Those unemployed are already showing up in the latest figures, both white and blue collar jobs.

I don't believe one can call out those "compassionate about others" and question their commitment to a thriving economy in the same breath, while ignoring how much money was wasted in prior years that we're now burdened with in terms of debt.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19556 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
So there you have it - the recovery has peaked out,

Yes. That's it. Clearly it will only get worse from here for ever and ever and ever and ever... unless Obama is gone because he is clearly the only factor in this.

Except just last month (and every month before) you have gone on and on about the participation rate and how it is the true measure of job growth.

Well, it went up, didn't it?

But now you ignore that because you don't like the result because it might possibly suggest that Obama is doing a good job. You can't accept that conclusion, so you reject the facts.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 18):
While I'm a fiscal conservative for the most part, I do see the need to spend dollars to improve the infrastructure of America to help us stabilize and grow, and that includes for our intellectual assets as well as the traditional brick-and-mortar goods.

That is absolutely consistent with fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism should hold that government spending should be restricted to only those services that really cannot be profitably performed by the private sector and infrastructure development is one of those things. There are too many financial, legal, and regulatory barriers to having private, for-profit companies funding, planning, and building road and rail. Or providing disaster relief. Etc. Another central tenet of fiscal conservatism is that your spending should not outstrip your revenue.

What the current GOP is espousing is not fiscal conservatism, but is rather so internally inconsistent that it has absolutely no philosophy attached to it at all. It basically comes down to: "More spending on the stuff I like/stuff that gets me kickbacks from my buddies in the defense and security industries, less spending on the stuff I don't like/stuff that doesn't get me a kickback." And yet, even the GOP has historically been the largest accruers of debt. It is NOT fiscal conservatism to cut taxes while increasing spending. And yet that is exactly what Romney wants to do. Add a TRILLION extra dollars to the defense budget that the Pentagon doesn't even want! And does his budget plan make any provision to pay for it? No.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
To this day, I still cannot fathom how people, who call themselves compassionate who care about others, could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

Nor can I. The budget as it stands could be mostly balanced by eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. It was, after all, balanced before those tax cuts went into effect.

And yet the GOP will not let it happen to the point of bringing us to the point of the fiscal cliff.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20534 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Another central tenet of fiscal conservatism is that your spending should not outstrip your revenue.

That's one reason why I qualified my statement, since I don't believe that debt, if it's for infrastructure, is a bad thing. For instance, I believe that a proper WPA-style program in this day and age could result in both improved infrastructure and put valuable job skills to work, rather than just handing out unemployment checks. If we're going to be spending the money, we might as well get something tangible in return for it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19556 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 20):
That's one reason why I qualified my statement, since I don't believe that debt, if it's for infrastructure, is a bad thing. For instance, I believe that a proper WPA-style program in this day and age could result in both improved infrastructure and put valuable job skills to work, rather than just handing out unemployment checks. If we're going to be spending the money, we might as well get something tangible in return for it.

Agreed. When you buy a house, you don't really lose money. The house has value and adds value. The same is true of infrastructure.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 18):
While I'm a fiscal conservative for the most part, I do see the need to spend dollars to improve the infrastructure of America to help us stabilize and grow,

If it's a project that needs doing, it needs to be done no matter what the economy looks like. Spending for the sake of spending is pointless.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Fiscal conservatism should hold that government spending should be restricted to only those services that really cannot be profitably performed by the private sector and infrastructure development is one of those things.

...in some cases. Even so, there needs to be a stronger local component of funding for such projects. Having Uncle Sam drop off a sack of cash on everyone's doorstep is a great way to waste a lot of money. You can't build for building's sake, it's too expensive and it doesn't fix the economy anyway. The New Deal proved that much.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
The budget as it stands could be mostly balanced by eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. It was, after all, balanced before those tax cuts went into effect.

Raising taxes during a recession is a good way to stomp on any sign of a recovery.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6576 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1854 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Raising taxes during a recession is a good way to stomp on any sign of a recovery.

And Romney's Loophole closing (do we know which ones yet?) wont result in an effective tax increase?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19556 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):

Raising taxes during a recession is a good way to stomp on any sign of a recovery.

Except raising taxes on the upper bracket has no such effect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/bu...ices-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0

Of course, the GOP suppressed the nonpartisan report because, as we have seen from this new GOP, facts and figures are meanignless if they conflict with dogma.

Yet the world still goes around the Sun.


25 BMI727 : It will, and it's probably a bad idea. Of course since only the rich use tax loopholes, or so the left tells me... Even if that's true, it's Robin Ho
26 D L X : These two sentences cannot possibly be true at the same time, when you think about it. The "loophole" he has implied he will close (while artfully do
27 Post contains links AeroWesty : There's a lot of basic infrastructure that has been let to lapse into disrepair, plus plenty of opportunities to improve worker skills and reinvest i
28 BMI727 : Yes, they can be. People aren't spending money for the good of the economy, they're spending because they want or need something. That's real demand,
29 D L X : Right. And when they spend money, they are inherently buying something FROM somebody. That somebody uses the money to buy other things, put a roof ov
30 AeroWesty : This is where your arguments go into The Big Fail. In your posts you're simply not addressing my original point that there should be/have been an opp
31 Mir : The alternative is to take from the poor to cover the cost of the debt while allowing the rich, who were at least as culpable for getting us into the
32 BMI727 : It's also real demand, not government stimulus spending for spending's sake.
33 D L X : You have made a distinction without a difference.
34 casinterest : But how is it a Government produced bubble? The Government controls money flow through the treasury. By spending on anything, the government is also
35 Dreadnought : 33 to 39 indeed witnessed a 60% increase in GDP, but was still no higher in 39 than what it was in 1930. The economy bottomed out in 1933, after havi
36 BMI727 : That's why you can't have a government full of social programs that spend a lot of money on nothing. Which is basically the same as stimulus to bring
37 mt99 : FEMA included?
38 AeroWesty : Since you continue to avoid addressing my point, and are simply going off on your own tangents, I've got to conclude that you believe that spending d
39 BMI727 : Because it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. The government can pump a bunch of money into the economy by building a bridge, but it's going to have to suc
40 Dreadnought : Yes, FEMA is stimulus (if it is paid for by addig to the debt). Strictly speaking, since money is fungible, the entire deficit (difference between re
41 BMI727 : Not at all. You have to cut those social safety net programs to avoid paying out money for no return and also cut stimuli to avoid paying out money f
42 bjorn14 : What I find amazing is that black unemployment is 14.3% and black teen employment is over 40% but yet they will go to the polls to keep themselves in
43 AeroWesty : Monday-morning quarterbacking. The bulk of the money has already been spent. If you're not interested in addressing the point that it could have been
44 Post contains links and images mt99 : So, spending on FEMA is immoral? "We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immora
45 D L X : So, I'll ask again: have you advocated for or voted for candidates that supported or executed deficit spending?
46 DeltaMD90 : It is simple, as long as they feel that the President can do a better job than Romney then they vote for the President. Add that many believe the Pre
47 Dreadnought : I never said or meant any such thing. I just said that it is essentially stimulus - even by definition. What may be a moral imperative (helping the p
48 Post contains links AeroWesty : So may we safely assume you've voted for Democrats then for President traditionally? You know, voting by your principles? Despite what you heard, GOP
49 BMI727 : We've known that the New Deal was a failure for seven decades. We've seen the national debt headed north since the Great Society programs from the 19
50 AeroWesty : Purely your opinion. Let's make that clear. You've offered up nothing statistical to back up your opinion. Except, even if you pay someone to build s
51 BMI727 : The New Deal was a short term plan that only could be said to have had any success in the short term but failed to end the Depression. Only the massi
52 Post contains links AeroWesty : Once again, you're going off on your own little tangent. Here's a graph for you: U.S. Infrastructure Spending Infrastructure spending has been going
53 Post contains links BMI727 : Not at all. When you look at government projects like infrastructure or defense, things are either needed or they aren't. The necessity of a given in
54 AeroWesty : You're the only one who's arguing that point. Since you're replying to my posts on this subject, please, quote me where I've stated what you claim I
55 FlyPNS1 : You can believe that all you want, but the facts say otherwise. Yet, total U.S. wealth has grown substantially over the same period of time. If Keyne
56 BMI727 : Up until now I thought it was pretty obvious. I guess not. Simple logic. You're advocating economic stimulus in the form of increased government spen
57 AeroWesty : Obviously, you're just going to continue to quote my posts, then debate yourself, so there's really no reason for me to continue replying, correcting
58 tugger : And on your door as well. Where is your normally fine analysis of the "other" numbers? Say U6? Which you noted better reflected things? You spent las
59 Mir : So the poor get their programs cut and the rich get to keep their tax rate. There's no shared sacrifice there. By that logic, tax rates should never
60 Post contains images AeroWesty : I think that's "tax cut for the highest 1%, deficit-spending Republicans."
61 BMI727 : We've seen that raising taxes during a weak economy isn't a smart thing to do. And, if you're talking about income taxes, many of the poor aren't sac
62 Mir : I'm talking about paying more for the services that they use. You can argue about whether that's a back-door tax or not, but it's certainly an econom
63 DocLightning : And it works because it forces the rich to stop hoarding money and actually spend it on business, which stimulates the economy. It's worked in the va
64 BMI727 : That's not really practical. Current issues, like the intervention in Libya, aren't hugely expensive and those exceptionally expensive measures that
65 Maverick623 : "Congress shall have the power to .... levy taxes". Listen to yourself. You claim to want to put an end to the ever increasing gap between the rich a
66 BMI727 : You should make the distinction between taxes that fund valuable government services like the military or schools and then there's taxes that are jus
67 DocLightning : The Constitution says otherwise. Perhaps you should move to Monte Carlo? The military and schools ARE wealth redistribution. All taxation is wealth r
68 BMI727 : Do you think wealthy people and their money aren't already doing that? The military is a service which we all receive and all pay for. Unfortunately,
69 DocLightning : Do you oppose raising taxes to build bridges, roads, rail, runways, electrical wires, sewers, etc? You are talking about welfare and I am talking abo
70 Maverick623 : THAT'S what you took from it????!!?!! Again: "Congress shall have the power to .... levy Taxes". Nothing in there about a qualifier like "for valuabl
71 tugger : They are not actually. More wealth moves into the USA each year than moves out as do more "wealthy people" move to the USA than away from it. That is
72 BMI727 : No. But rail should be a private venture and many roads and airports should be public-private partnerships. Many airports around the world are privat
73 cws818 : Why? Why? Which ones?
74 BMI727 : Then why all the hand wringing about closing loopholes if money is still flowing here and the wealthy aren't hiding or moving their money to avoid ta
75 tugger : I'm not "wringing hands". Following the rules provided in tax law is what anyone should do. And it doesn't say anything about whether the tax policy
76 BMI727 : For far too many people "effective and appropriate" means more taxes on the wealthy. It's much too easy to spend someone else's money. Improvement is
77 tugger : Really? How so? Tax changes require a lot of people to get implemented and then those wanting the money have to get it and benefit from it. That does
78 BMI727 : It's always easy to vote for expanding this program and that program when it isn't going to impact your taxes. A few billion to bail out a car compan
79 bjorn14 : Sewers usually are the responsibilty of the local Public Works Department funded by Municipal Bonds
80 flipdewaf : Why is rail different from roads and airports? So if only a small amount of people benefit it should be private? So if only a small amount of people
81 DocLightning : Well guess what? 50% of the bridges in this country are structurally obsolete. We are in desperate need of more mass transit. We need vast investment
82 cmf : Why should society allow itself to be in a position where a few individuals can hold everyone else hostage by cutting of the service. Not to mention
83 BMI727 : So if the state of California wants a rail line between LA and the Bay Area, they can pay for it. Then fix it. If the need is so desperate, I'm sure
84 DocLightning : Love to. The GOP says it's socialism. You fix that, we'll fix the infrastructure.
85 BMI727 : Which Republicans say that fixing or replacing bridges is socialism?
86 cmf : A bus or two? So you're for regulation of utilities. The governments tasks you endorse are expanding. It automatically reduces other social programs.
87 Maverick623 : Yes, we should all be so lucky that the rich and powerful are kind enough to let us eek out a meager existence. Tell you what, let's just all forget
88 BMI727 : I've always been for regulation of utilities. It's just not practical to have ten different electrical substations and a dozen phone companies runnin
89 AeroWesty : How do these two statements jive?
90 Post contains images BMI727 : They're exactly the same. Utilities and mass transit should be provided by private, for profit, companies that are regulated by the government. Mass
91 AeroWesty : The problem is that mass transit costs more to provide than can be logically charged. The balance is made up from tax revenue. Here in Portland, ther
92 casinterest : And those roads you use just pay for themselves, no gas taxes needed?
93 BMI727 : If people aren't willing to pay what it costs, it obviously is not that important to people and is therefore unnecessary. Namely that is sucks money.
94 mt99 : Like a war?
95 AeroWesty : I pay gas taxes without complaint. I do understand the importance for tax revenue to support infrastructure, and am on the record supporting it. It's
96 BMI727 : If the impact is so massive, people (or the businesses that they patronize or are employed by) should be willing to pay for it. That's why I want to
97 AeroWesty : That's exactly what I outlined in my previous post in regards to mass transit, then you pooh-poohed the idea of providing same unless it came directl
98 cmf : I remembered when you stated government mandated right of way was a nice to have. Why do you constantly propose the most horrible solution to each pr
99 DocLightning : So I assume that you pay a fee every time you use a road? Because guess how those are built? Not by private corporations. Oh, the actual building is
100 BMI727 : Some, and I'm all for competition, but in many places it's just not going to happen. A monopoly is going to have to be regulated. Government spending
101 3DoorsDown : Wait until the week after the election. The government will announce they read their charts and graphs wrong and all of a sudden it will be double dig
102 cmf : If that was an issue it would be a problem. Fortunately it isn't. What matters is that we are behind on infrastructure. Again you create a dystopian
103 BMI727 : Then the government needs to stop writing welfare checks and start spending on infrastructure. Because Keynesian economic policies don't work. There
104 flipdewaf : The whole is more than the sum of the parts, ever heard that before? If a mass transit system costs $100bn to implement and the companies within the
105 cmf : We already went through this. Spending on infrastructure reduces welfare spending. So companies use Keynesian economics. No, it is the third option y
106 BMI727 : Which would be waste in many cases. Not if a nice chunk of that $11 is someone else's money.
107 Post contains images cmf : It is never a waste. There are always things that needs to be done. How do you figure this? And who is going to pay the toll for you?
108 BMI727 : Then they should be done whatever the economy looks like. That's why Keynesian policies don't work. Because when a private company builds and maintai
109 flipdewaf : Do you think cmf is suggesting that actual government workers do the jobs? pretty sure that it would just be put out to tender. Fred
110 BMI727 : The distinction is pretty academic. It's still money out of the government budget which is money out of taxpayers' hands which is a zero sum game. Th
111 flipdewaf : Unless the economic output of the region increases such that the tax income increases above a threshold deemed to give a positive NPV. And no, its no
112 tugger : Actually you are wrong, it is not a "zero sum game". The basis is that, for example, a new bridge will bring in more business and opportunity to a co
113 BMI727 : The stimulus portion of it is. If you need a bridge, you need a bridge whether the market is booming or in a downturn. The market is all but irreleva
114 tugger : Again you are wrong, and you even interpret Keynesian economics incorrectly. Wealth creates more wealth, just because you take money from one place d
115 BMI727 : Good then we're on the same page. But, a given piece of infrastructure does not become more or less beneficial based on the market unless its cost ch
116 tugger : They very much know that already. They are partially making an "investment" with their decisions to buy dollars but they also keep the "present value
117 flipdewaf : The demographics of the population around which the infrastructure will be built will be constantly in flux, these could significantly impact cost an
118 cmf : So you rather pay $11 in toll to cross a bridge than $10? Some pretty interesting economics there.
119 BMI727 : You can't separate out the toll and the building costs. I'm sorry I didn't pick up on that earlier, but no, I don't have a problem with toll roads. I
120 cmf : That's an answer to a question not asked. Again, do you rather pay $11 and $10 in toll? You're failing to do the math. Building the road is the same
121 Maverick623 : Just because the company adds a profit margin, doesn't mean it will wind up costing more. Private companies have a tendency to cut expenses to add to
122 BMI727 : ...only if you use the road. Those who do not use the road pay nothing. If you use the road you should be willing to pay for it, and ideally those wh
123 AKiss20 : You continually seem to fail to grasp the concept that just because you aren't actually driving on it doesn't mean you don't benefit from it. Have yo
124 BMI727 : Those costs should be rolled into the cost of the item. If you get something shipped by FedEx, the cost covers landing fees. Except that there are pr
125 cmf : Let the public funded organisation run efficiently and there is no reason it will cost more. Then the only difference is the profit margin. Not an is
126 BMI727 : When has that ever happened? You also get a private company to put up the initial investment, which may be substantial. So you're no worse off. You m
127 cmf : Hasn't it? So what? The tolls must still pay that money. Main difference is that government usually have access to cheaper money. Wrong. If you don't
128 BMI727 : Only if they want to pay it. Or, for existing infrastructure, privatization can provide a nice windfall of cash. Chicago got over a billion dollars f
129 cmf : At higher cost. Why is it so hard for you to admit that?
130 BMI727 : Paying a higher interest rate for money is not a problem when it's someone else getting the loan. It doesn't matter if a government can do it for hal
131 cmf : You're just providing corporate welfare. Stealing money from the people using the road.
132 BMI727 : They're paying to use the road. I wouldn't call that theft. This isn't a new idea, it's in use for roads and airports right now. If you need some inf
133 bjorn14 : Sounds like Obama's "You didn't build that"
134 Maverick623 : How do you figure? Again, you don't quite grasp basic economic principles. The government can always raise taxes (or even implement a user-fee system
135 BMI727 : The government doesn't have to pay for the road, the money comes from users rather than taxpayers. Saying "public" is probably a poor way of putting
136 Maverick623 : You're still not getting that they're the SAME PEOPLE. Everyone who drives uses the highways that are funded by the taxes they pay. If you don't driv
137 BMI727 : Maybe. Or maybe not. Of course, if they're the same people then there's no problem anyway. Unless, of course, you don't use it. If you never fly out
138 Maverick623 : No. They are the same people. No maybe. So why change then? So what's the issue then? On a small scale.
139 cmf : Can we move past the ideology and use some common sense? This has nothing to do with budgets. - Clearly we are talking about something where there is
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Unemployment Rate Up To 6.1% posted Fri Sep 5 2008 06:12:23 by Sv7887
Hooray! US Unemployment Down To 7.8% posted Fri Oct 5 2012 07:14:58 by comorin
US Rep Wants To Pattern Schools After Madrasses posted Fri Jul 6 2012 14:13:41 by slider
US State Dept To Issue Europe Wide Terror Alert posted Sat Oct 2 2010 14:20:05 by oa260
US Air Force To Test Hyper Sonic Cruise Missile posted Tue Dec 15 2009 09:07:05 by Falcon84
Economy Recovers, But Unemployment Rises posted Mon Aug 17 2009 18:58:24 by StasisLAX
US SSNs Easy To Guess: Carnegie-Mellon Researchers posted Tue Jul 7 2009 05:54:52 by PNQIAD
US Tortured Detainees To Prove Iraq-Al Qaeda Link posted Thu Apr 23 2009 11:30:12 by Yellowstone
US Citizen Going To North Korea? posted Fri Apr 10 2009 00:28:40 by AA7295
US Dollar Plunges To Record Lows Across Globe posted Mon Mar 3 2008 09:27:52 by Derico