New jobs data are out today for December. In what's becoming a trend, job growth was flat, but the unemployment rate fell because a large number of people gave up looking for work.
Non-farm employment rose only 1,000, while the number of people seeking work fell by 309,000. The administration will surely dwell on the falling % without mentioning the asterisk of no new jobs. And when asked how to make new jobs, the answer will be "More tax cuts for the rich, of course!" Already is, actually. The Post reports Don Evans as saying these numbers show the necessity of making the tax cuts permanent.
Isn't the turn around number for job growth supposed to be about 149,000 jobs more than that?
That's the break-even number, where we at least create enough new jobs for the new workers entering the workforce. 200,000-300,000 new jobs a month is usually cited by economists as the number needed to sustain a robust recovery.
According to the DoL, we've created a grand total of 278,000 new jobs over the last five months.
My wife and I own a small service company that is tourist dependent. We felt a huge hit right after 9/11. No one traveled. The economy went south, if only here. For about a year it was touch and go with our small struggling company. We actually considered shutting the doors. We decided to wait till our season came to see if we could hold on.
The season actually started early. people are spending money and we are expecting to double our income from the whole previous year just in this season. I also do computer consulting (which was hit pretty hard) it has picked up threefold. people are more willing to part with money.
I am also a musician. This last year has been absolute Sh**. Already this season I have made what I made the entire year previous.
You all can quote statistics and opinions all day, but I am convinced thing are revving up in this economy.
We were never in a surplus, ever. It was a PROJECTED surplus. That means it was never real. You all know that.
I didn't know that. The CBO says we real a small REAL surplus in 1999, and a larger REAL surplus in 2000. If you include the SS surplus, we ran REAL surpluses from 1998-2001. Then, in a single year, 2001-2002, we saw a swing of -$285M, evenly split between lower tax revenues and higher general spending.
[Sorry, I get ornery when people make absurd statements without looking at any data first, and then when presented with hard data to refute their absurdity, claim the data is misinterpreted, or wrong, or not someone's fault. Not that's I'm trying to predict the future of this thread, just remembering threads gone by. But if you're tempted, remember that the recession was during the 3rd and 4th qtr of 2001, not in 2002.]
Fun news from the NYTimes: Tax Cuts for the Rich are working! Bush was right!
Basically, while most retailers saw dissapointingly flat sales growth in December, retailers of high-end luxury goods enjoyed a boom-time holiday season. Diamond-studded watches and Prada handbags drove robust sales growth in stores like Neiman-Marcus, Saks, and Tiffany. More blue-collar stores like Wal-Mart, Target, Kohl's and Circuit City, meanwhile, saw little year-over-year growth.
So the tax-cuts are working as planned, and the rich are out spending in droves. This is the first part of trickle-down, right? I'm almost willing, just for kicks, to suspend judgement and see what sales are like next December. Will all sectors of retail rebound? Or will we again see luxury goods dominate growth? But it's already been two Christmases since the huge tax cuts of 2001, hasn't it? Is trickle-down supposed to work this slowly? Maybe the rich really are just getting richer while the rest of us aren't?
I didn't know that. The CBO says we real a small REAL surplus in 1999, and a larger REAL surplus in 2000. If you include the SS surplus, we ran REAL surpluses from 1998-2001. Then, in a single year, 2001-2002, we saw a swing of -$285M, evenly split between lower tax revenues and higher general spending.
[Sorry, I get ornery when people make absurd statements without looking at any data first, and then when presented with hard data to refute their absurdity, claim the data is misinterpreted, or wrong, or not someone's fault. Not that's I'm trying to predict the future of this thread, just remembering threads gone by. But if you're tempted, remember that the recession was during the 3rd and 4th qtr of 2001, not in 2002.]
let me restate what i said. I meant this current round of deficit/surplus hoopla...
I have been doing some reading, and it appears I may have been wrong about the statement I made even though I did not get it across the way I wanted. I am doing some more reading on the matter.
I read before that the numbers that were quoted were projected out several years (5-10). When congress touted balancing the budget I thought they were talking about that 10 Yr. projection. I am pretty sure that was the explanation. Now, apparently that is no longer the case. We are talking about year to year budgets.
I will admit that I am a little confused now and will have to revaluate my stance on this particular subject.
Fun news from the NYTimes: Tax Cuts for the Rich are working! Bush was right!
Basically, while most retailers saw dissapointingly flat sales growth in December, retailers of high-end luxury goods enjoyed a boom-time holiday season. Diamond-studded watches and Prada handbags drove robust sales growth in stores like Neiman-Marcus, Saks, and Tiffany. More blue-collar stores like Wal-Mart, Target, Kohl's and Circuit City, meanwhile, saw little year-over-year growth.
So the tax-cuts are working as planned, and the rich are out spending in droves. This is the first part of trickle-down, right? I'm almost willing, just for kicks, to suspend judgement and see what sales are like next December. Will all sectors of retail rebound? Or will we again see luxury goods dominate growth? But it's already been two Christmases since the huge tax cuts of 2001, hasn't it? Is trickle-down supposed to work this slowly? Maybe the rich really are just getting richer while the rest of us aren't?
Maybe you should think of it as a little incentive to become rich. Or you can vote your pinko commies into office and their incentives for everyone to be poor.
Apparently he had chemical weapons hidden. That would indicate that he had something to hide, like maybe .... should I say it? ... WMD's. Because, um..., a blister agent would be considered chemical weapon, a WMD. Right?
Finding some old chemical weapons, I suppose in your view, that SH was innocent on all accounts, and Bush was proven wrong.
Apparently he had chemical weapons hidden. That would indicate that he had something to hide, like maybe .... should I say it? ... WMD's. Because, um..., a blister agent would be considered chemical weapon, a WMD. Right?
Finding some old chemical weapons, I suppose in your view, that SH was innocent on all accounts, and Bush was proven wrong.
From the article you linked:
Quote:
Both the U.S. and British governments cited the threat of illicit weapons of mass destruction as a main reason for launching the Iraq war. However, no such weapons have been found so far.
The U.S. pulled 400 weapons-disposal experts from Iraq this month in what The New York Times called "a sign that [the] administration might have lowered its sights." The move raised suspicions that weapons are unlikely to be found.
The White House played down the move, saying the group focused on hunting weapons was remaining in Iraq.
These aren't the droids you're looking for. If you and Blue Shift can't see that it's because you're grasping at straws.
Comments
Department of Labor Press Release.
Non-farm employment rose only 1,000, while the number of people seeking work fell by 309,000. The administration will surely dwell on the falling % without mentioning the asterisk of no new jobs. And when asked how to make new jobs, the answer will be "More tax cuts for the rich, of course!" Already is, actually. The Post reports Don Evans as saying these numbers show the necessity of making the tax cuts permanent.
Isn't the turn around number for job growth supposed to be about 149,000 jobs more than that?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Yikes!
Isn't the turn around number for job growth supposed to be about 149,000 jobs more than that?
That's the break-even number, where we at least create enough new jobs for the new workers entering the workforce. 200,000-300,000 new jobs a month is usually cited by economists as the number needed to sustain a robust recovery.
According to the DoL, we've created a grand total of 278,000 new jobs over the last five months.
Originally posted by Towel
According to the DoL, we've created a grand total of 278,000 new jobs over the last five months.
Better than nothing?
And the middle class workforce ( which is most of the people ) and expect robust results.
Oh well, as Bungie says it's better than nothing.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
The season actually started early. people are spending money and we are expecting to double our income from the whole previous year just in this season. I also do computer consulting (which was hit pretty hard) it has picked up threefold. people are more willing to part with money.
I am also a musician. This last year has been absolute Sh**. Already this season I have made what I made the entire year previous.
You all can quote statistics and opinions all day, but I am convinced thing are revving up in this economy.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You all can quote statistics and opinions all day, but I am convinced thing are revving up in this economy.
Subtract your portion of the national debt from that grown and let us know what's left over.
Originally posted by bunge
Subtract your portion of the national debt from that grown and let us know what's left over.
Oh yeah that deficit thing:
We were never in a surplus, ever. It was a PROJECTED surplus. That means it was never real. You all know that.
And this economy was hit hard as a result of 9/11, you all seem to forget that. That was not Bush's fault but Bin Laden's.
Originally posted by NaplesX
We were never in a surplus, ever. It was a PROJECTED surplus. That means it was never real. You all know that.
I didn't know that. The CBO says we real a small REAL surplus in 1999, and a larger REAL surplus in 2000. If you include the SS surplus, we ran REAL surpluses from 1998-2001. Then, in a single year, 2001-2002, we saw a swing of -$285M, evenly split between lower tax revenues and higher general spending.
But you must be right, and the CBO must be wrong.
[Sorry, I get ornery when people make absurd statements without looking at any data first, and then when presented with hard data to refute their absurdity, claim the data is misinterpreted, or wrong, or not someone's fault. Not that's I'm trying to predict the future of this thread, just remembering threads gone by. But if you're tempted, remember that the recession was during the 3rd and 4th qtr of 2001, not in 2002.]
Basically, while most retailers saw dissapointingly flat sales growth in December, retailers of high-end luxury goods enjoyed a boom-time holiday season. Diamond-studded watches and Prada handbags drove robust sales growth in stores like Neiman-Marcus, Saks, and Tiffany. More blue-collar stores like Wal-Mart, Target, Kohl's and Circuit City, meanwhile, saw little year-over-year growth.
So the tax-cuts are working as planned, and the rich are out spending in droves. This is the first part of trickle-down, right? I'm almost willing, just for kicks, to suspend judgement and see what sales are like next December. Will all sectors of retail rebound? Or will we again see luxury goods dominate growth? But it's already been two Christmases since the huge tax cuts of 2001, hasn't it? Is trickle-down supposed to work this slowly? Maybe the rich really are just getting richer while the rest of us aren't?
Originally posted by Towel
I didn't know that. The CBO says we real a small REAL surplus in 1999, and a larger REAL surplus in 2000. If you include the SS surplus, we ran REAL surpluses from 1998-2001. Then, in a single year, 2001-2002, we saw a swing of -$285M, evenly split between lower tax revenues and higher general spending.
But you must be right, and the CBO must be wrong.
[Sorry, I get ornery when people make absurd statements without looking at any data first, and then when presented with hard data to refute their absurdity, claim the data is misinterpreted, or wrong, or not someone's fault. Not that's I'm trying to predict the future of this thread, just remembering threads gone by. But if you're tempted, remember that the recession was during the 3rd and 4th qtr of 2001, not in 2002.]
let me restate what i said. I meant this current round of deficit/surplus hoopla...
I have been doing some reading, and it appears I may have been wrong about the statement I made even though I did not get it across the way I wanted. I am doing some more reading on the matter.
I read before that the numbers that were quoted were projected out several years (5-10). When congress touted balancing the budget I thought they were talking about that 10 Yr. projection. I am pretty sure that was the explanation. Now, apparently that is no longer the case. We are talking about year to year budgets.
I will admit that I am a little confused now and will have to revaluate my stance on this particular subject.
Originally posted by Towel
Fun news from the NYTimes: Tax Cuts for the Rich are working! Bush was right!
Basically, while most retailers saw dissapointingly flat sales growth in December, retailers of high-end luxury goods enjoyed a boom-time holiday season. Diamond-studded watches and Prada handbags drove robust sales growth in stores like Neiman-Marcus, Saks, and Tiffany. More blue-collar stores like Wal-Mart, Target, Kohl's and Circuit City, meanwhile, saw little year-over-year growth.
So the tax-cuts are working as planned, and the rich are out spending in droves. This is the first part of trickle-down, right? I'm almost willing, just for kicks, to suspend judgement and see what sales are like next December. Will all sectors of retail rebound? Or will we again see luxury goods dominate growth? But it's already been two Christmases since the huge tax cuts of 2001, hasn't it? Is trickle-down supposed to work this slowly? Maybe the rich really are just getting richer while the rest of us aren't?
Maybe you should think of it as a little incentive to become rich. Or you can vote your pinko commies into office and their incentives for everyone to be poor.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Maybe you should think of it as a little incentive to become rich.
Where are the conservates on these boards telling Blue Shift that it's not the government's job to redistribute wealth?
Originally posted by bunge
Where are the conservates on these boards telling Blue Shift that it's not the government's job to redistribute wealth?
by taxing them at 3x da going rate for pinko commies?
Maybe he was. (Bush that is)
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...als/index.html
Maybe he was. (Bush that is)
Mid 1980's.
1980's.
80's.
Originally posted by bunge
Mid 1980's.
1980's.
80's.
I'm sure dat will be an interesting tid bit of trivia when someone is hit w those WoMD
Originally posted by bunge
Mid 1980's.
1980's.
80's.
What does that have to do with anything?
Apparently he had chemical weapons hidden. That would indicate that he had something to hide, like maybe .... should I say it? ... WMD's. Because, um..., a blister agent would be considered chemical weapon, a WMD. Right?
Finding some old chemical weapons, I suppose in your view, that SH was innocent on all accounts, and Bush was proven wrong.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What does that have to do with anything?
Apparently he had chemical weapons hidden. That would indicate that he had something to hide, like maybe .... should I say it? ... WMD's. Because, um..., a blister agent would be considered chemical weapon, a WMD. Right?
Finding some old chemical weapons, I suppose in your view, that SH was innocent on all accounts, and Bush was proven wrong.
From the article you linked:
Both the U.S. and British governments cited the threat of illicit weapons of mass destruction as a main reason for launching the Iraq war. However, no such weapons have been found so far.
The U.S. pulled 400 weapons-disposal experts from Iraq this month in what The New York Times called "a sign that [the] administration might have lowered its sights." The move raised suspicions that weapons are unlikely to be found.
The White House played down the move, saying the group focused on hunting weapons was remaining in Iraq.
These aren't the droids you're looking for. If you and Blue Shift can't see that it's because you're grasping at straws.