Wait until after Christmas and see what happens with UE, when people like Sarvis and Corky have to turn their jolly red suits and curly-toed shoes with bells back in to the department stores.

Wait until after Christmas and see what happens with UE, when people like Sarvis and Corky have to turn their jolly red suits and curly-toed shoes with bells back in to the department stores.
#1 | Posted by cookfish

Only the left could spin another 11,000 jobs into a celebration of good news. Now if the Death toll in Afganistan is under 20 for the week...

-Only the left could spin

By most measures, the economy is growing again, but the labor market has yet to turn the corner. Friday's unemployment report provides hope that December will be the first month of job growth in two years.

OK, Corky. Let's play crystal ball and talk December. You obviously want to ignore this thread about November. Thanks for proving my point.

Compared to the 533,000 that Chimpy vaporized last November, you're damn right a loss of 11,000 is encouraging.

#5 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-12-04 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag: Thinks I write for Forbes magazine, lol

I could have used quotes "", but then I wouldn't know you didn't read the link.

From 700,000 a month when he took office to 11, 000 now? Yeah, the guy should be impeached.

Where's Raystradamus to tell us that it's really 11 million jobs lost this month and the Dow will still hit 1400 before this recession is over?

Chimpy vaporized, should have put the December Forbes crap in quotes, 700,000 a month to 11,000 now... you guys are funnier than the hell. I hope you are getting paid to spin every story that involves your Shepard.

#9 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-12-04 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag: Can't take bad news

#11 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-12-04 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag: Can't take good news

Corky, my wife and I have already taken pay cuts, and have family that have been layed off because of the struggling economy in Iowa. Nevermind the fact that I consider Republicans worse than Democrats on the economy, so I don't know what political motivation I would have for "hating good news" or whatever other bull shit you conjure up.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2009-12-04 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag: CAPTAIN PAYBACK THINKS NORMAL CYCLE IS SUCCESS FOR HIS SIDE

And still no word on the 8% WITHOUT "stim", 10.2% ACTUAL WITH IT.

Help us out Colonel Koolaid.

Chapel, the "stim" is one of the things keeping me in a job right now. (Iowa state employee)

You are beyond help, Chump.

- "hating good news"

It was a play on posts, #12 and #10, a juxtaposition that only a sleepy Floridian found slightly humorous, sorry.

Wait until March of 2009. If only 8,000 jobs are lost, Obama is a shoe in for a 2nd Term. -Madam Corky-Flordia Fortune Teller

-Wait until March of 2009.

Job losses will decrease every month until there are no more jobs to lose.

Wait until after Christmas and see what happens with UE, when people like Sarvis and Corky have to turn their jolly red suits and curly-toed shoes with bells back in to the department stores.

#1 | Posted by cookfish at 2009-12-04 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag: All he wants for Christmas is America to fail.

Maybe that will include you too FWthom?

#19 Zero Sum Intellect Thom

Hey JACKASS, it's snowing here in Houston. Whatever happened to Al Gore's global warming conspiracy?

We need to revive the CCC, but this time it will be the cleanup corps.

i.e. people have stopped looking.

It appears Obama hit rock bottom and no place to go but up.

Corky, off the topic but how will the Brewers finish up the 2010 season as long as you have the ball out?
Thanks in advance.

- "hating good news"

It was a play on posts, #12 and #10, a juxtaposition that only a sleepy Floridian found slightly humorous, sorry.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2009-12-04 11:26 AM

now if obama would just get of the campaign trail and spend some time in the office doing something,maybe ---

Um, ever hear of Christmas? I know you libs would like it banned completely, but it's still celebrated by the vast majority of people, and the main external effect of Christmas is that people go out and BUY THINGS. The labor force peaks just before Christmas, and this pathetic president is celebrating a continued loss.

So look for an "unexpected" loss in early 2010, so start finding someone to blame for that. You may think that Obama is God, but he's not responsible for Christmas.

Wow, only 11k, time for another party at the white house complete with rappers and gate crashers.

Um, ever hear of Christmas

Yeah dipshit, only last year at this time 533,000 Americans got pink slips to use to BUY THINGS.

Looks like we have a new standard for Liberal Economics. If things are LESS FUCKED THAN EXPECTED, then the economy is good. Hail to the Chief.

"Looks like we have a new standard for Liberal Economics."

Another genius who believes you're only responsible for driving the ship of state off the cliff until you hand off the steering wheel.

No, another genius that believes that job loses does not a good economy make. Liberal Economics wants people to believe that the government spending money it doesn't have, and likely won't have for a generation or more, and while planning on an additional few trillion in spending, is actually good for the economy. Liberal Economics wants people to believe that by vastly growing government with deficit spending in order to raise GDP is actually good for the economy. Liberal Economics wants people to believe that taking money from those that best able to provide jobs will actually increase investment and job growth. Charles Dodgson created a more realistic world for Alice.

Economy always bounces back if left alone, these dipshits running the show won't let that happen. Sheep like Danforth love the messiah so much that any bad news about this admin is automatically blamed on Bush. Will never end.

Nice to see the absolutely failed and discredited ideology of the Right is still going strong. Even Greenspan knows better now, but hey, go for it!

Yeah dipshit, only last year at this time 533,000 Americans got pink slips to use to BUY THINGS.

Crystal clear, and it still doesn't register for some.

Failed and discredited ideology:

So here's the headline:

JOBS LOSS MUCH LESS THAN EXPECTED. . .
RIIIGHTIES WHINE, "FOUL!"
TWENTY-SIX PERCENTERS CRY, "RECOUNT!!"

"another genius that believes that job loses does not a good economy make."

But you're blaming the job losses on the stimulus, which has to win some kind of moron award. Tell us, Einstein, which economy would you rather inherit: the one Clinton left Bush, or the one Bush left Obama?

"Liberal Economics wants people to believe that the government spending money it doesn't have, and likely won't have for a generation or more, and while planning on an additional few trillion in spending, is actually good for the economy"

Where have you been for the last decade? "Conservative" economics wanted people to believe that, too.

"Still, the respite may be temporary.

Job creation is expected to remain far too weak in coming months to absorb the 15.4 million unemployed people who are seeking work -- and the 11.5 million others who are underemployed. As more people begin seeking work, the jobless rate is likely to resume rising.

The report offered evidence of how hard it remains to find a job: The number of people unemployed for at least six months rose last month to 5.9 million. And the average length of unemployment has risen to more than 28 weeks, the longest on records dating to 1948.

Even counting last month's decline, the unemployment rate has more than doubled since the recession began in December 2007, when it stood at 4.9 percent. And the underemployment rate has jumped to 17.2 percent from 8.7 percent."

Lefties cannot read the article to the end.....

And no one can explain the 8% WITHOUT the "stim" vs. the 10% WITH IT.

Can they?

"Economy always bounces back if left alone"

Over what period of time?

"Sheep like Danforth love the messiah so much..."

I don't like most of what he's done, and I'm on record saying as much. What I like even less, though, are idiots who refuse to put blame where it belongs because of the letter after the name. I've yet to see The Party of Responsibility take responsibility for anything.

"any bad news about this admin is automatically blamed on Bush."

No, just the economic bad news, and the fact Bush offloaded two wars on his successor. Cap & trade, for example...all Obama's fault.

"And no one can explain the 8% WITHOUT the "stim" vs. the 10% WITH IT. Can they?"

Sure: it probably would have been 12-15% without.

"Conservative" economics wanted people to believe that, too.

Wrong again. Conservative economics hasn't been practiced since Bush's early years. Just because Bush was a Republican doesn't mean he was practicing conservative economics. Such a short memory, you have, but that's pretty much required for liberals. Bush was trashed heartedly by the right on his fiscal policies, as well as many other policies. While his "tax cuts for the rich" brought in record amount of revenue, he never really cut spending otherwise, which is the hallmark of a conservative economy.

Question for the celebrating liberals: how can we continue to lose jobs but get a reduction in the unemployment? Fuzzy math, or Liberal Economics?

How do you loose jobs but the unemployment changes from 10.2 to just 10? Who is cooking these books?

"Conservative economics hasn't been practiced since Bush's early years. Just because Bush was a Republican doesn't mean he was practicing conservative economics. "

Sorry...Republican economics.

But Bush sure was the darling of the conservatives when he slashed taxes on the wealthiest.

"While his "tax cuts for the rich" brought in record amount of revenue..."

Another flunkee of Economics 101: you're not factoring for inflation, and comparing in nominal dollars instead of real dollars.

Them Lib lackys keep cooking the books on the job market, just like they cook them on the farce of the global warming scam...

Actually I did quite well in Economics 101, but micro and macro. But trying to deflect nominal versus real dollars is fruitless, because it was record regardless. Poor Danny. Sure, you can label it Republican economics if you wish, after all I made up Liberal Economics just a short while ago. But it doesn't change anything. Bush was spending like mad and Dems were playing patty-cake with mortgage and banking regulations and the country went into the crapper. Unfortunately Obama has tripled down on the spending, and the Dems are still playing hide the banana with Wall Street and the banks. And you celebrate because some fuzzy math made a decrease in jobs create a decrease in the unemployment rate.

still over 10% thanks to blowBama the libtard

hope your happy, nothing more than a socialist bastard. change we can believe in.. yea.. right... change we can do without is more like it.

Everything in D.C. is nothing but rotten
smelling, lying, maggots in a cesspool of greed, filth, and corruption, headed by a puppet racist pres, tutored by illegitimate racist scum-bag, Czars, and that's putting it mildly...

Only dim-witted libtards would celebrate losing...
.

Well, if this really is the fantastic news the libbies say, we'll all know what to do for the next recession: just give the investment banks a couple of trillion dollars, and let them pay it all out in bonuses.

The truth will be told in the tax collection numbers. That's what separates fact from fiction. The trend is encouraging, in that job losses are finally slowing. Whether that translates into actual non-governmental hiring is something we'll know in coming months.

"The truth will be told in the tax collection numbers. That's what separates fact from fiction. The trend is encouraging, in that job losses are finally slowing. Whether that translates into actual non-governmental hiring is something we'll know in coming months."

Why? Don't government workers pay taxes?

Don't government workers pay taxes?

If they work as part of Hussein's cabinet apparently not...

.

Government workers paying taxes. That's right! Let's take $60K of taxpayer money and hire someone in the government who will then pay back $5K in taxes. Then another, then another, then another. We could hire everyone that way, couldn't we? 0% unemployment rate. More Liberal Economics.

"More Liberal Economics."

Have you no concept of the multiplication factor of money? How one person makes $60K, and spends some at the barber, who spends at the grocery store, who's owner spends it at the local bar & grill, etc, etc, etc?

Trickle down!

Looks like we have a new standard for Liberal Economics. If things are LESS FUCKED THAN EXPECTED, then the economy is good. Hail to the Chief.

#33 | Posted by SpokaneJim

SpokaneJim - My new hero. Go Jim GO!

and your #55 is a good one too. :@))

Its Christmas for Christ's sake, not that he has anything to do with it. Retailers are hiring. There are seasonally adjusted numbers and seasonally unadjusted, which they report interchangably to create different illusions.

Its all bullshit and its bad for you.

Have you no concept of the multiplication factor of money? How one person makes $60K, and spends some at the barber, who spends at the grocery store, who's owner spends it at the local bar & grill, etc, etc, etc?

#56 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

Oh. Well in that case, we don't need anyone working at all. We could just have the government send out $60,000 checks to every household in America, then they can get it all back from the velocity of money.

Another genius who believes you're only responsible for driving the ship of state off the cliff until you hand off the steering wheel.

#34 | Posted by Danforth

Another genius that believes we elect people to complain about the previous admin.

This line of thought wont work on most people for long. We elect Presidents to fix screw ups not complain about them. Come 2012 it won't matter to most people what Bush did. What will matter is what Obama has done to fix the situation. If the economy has not improved significantly by 2012 the people will blame Obama and rightfully so because he said he had better ideas. I hope he's right.

"in that case, we don't need anyone working at all."

Nice to know RiR doesn't believe government employees actually work.

"We could just have the government send out $60,000 checks to every household in America"

That would have been better than sending it all to Wall Street. Jon Stewart said as much: why not just give the money to the folks who owe on the foreclosed houses, and let them pay the bank?

#60 - Exactly what I was getting at, but apparently Dan needs to read more slowly. The end result of Liberal Economics is everyone living off the government, but there will be no one left to pay the taxes. Liberal math = the problems with global warming, jobs created and/or saved, etc. And we want these fools telling us how much government health care will actually cost. You've got to be kidding me!

"Another genius that believes we elect people to complain about the previous admin."

Okay...let's see how tethered you are to reality: whom do you blame for the current economic woes: Obama, or Bush?

Tangentially, which economy would you rather have inherited: the one Clinton left Bush, or the one Bush left Obama?

"If the economy has not improved significantly by 2012 the people will blame Obama and rightfully so because he said he had better ideas. I hope he's right."

I agree.

"And no one can explain the 8% WITHOUT the "stim" vs. the 10% WITH IT. Can they?"

Sure: it probably would have been 12-15% without.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-04 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, the EXPLAIN your dear leader's words that I posted Dimforth, not make something up as usual.

HE said it would be 8% if we IMMEDIATELY did not pass his non stimulus pork bill to the tune of around $787 billion AND then it SKYROCKETED to 10.2% WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED bloat fest payback for all his supporters.

So, once again we ask, please EXPLAIN the stunning conundrum here which has led to many more lies and fabrications that have lowered the Messiah below 50% approval.

Let me refresh your memory.....

.......Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers leading proponents of a stimulus bill predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983.

You don't get it Danforth. It doesn't matter who is to blame! WTF is Obama going to do to fix it?

So far all he has done is make it worse.

If he knew how to fix it, he would have known unemployment would go to 10 WIth the stimulus.
Oh, it would have been even higher without our bassackwards response is such a load of sh%$#t.

"If the economy has not improved significantly by 2012 the people will blame Obama and rightfully so"

2012???

Not. 2010 Q1 at the latest.

Impeachment will begin by then based on this one's current track record.

Teleprompter magics is gone. People want results and not a whining, blaming, pop star traveler.

Impeachment will begin by then based on this one's current track record.

I don't think so.

Okay...let's see how tethered you are to reality: whom do you blame for the current economic woes: Obama, or Bush?

Tangentially, which economy would you rather have inherited: the one Clinton left Bush, or the one Bush left Obama?
#64 | Posted by Danforth

There are a whole lot more people to blame than either one of those dumbasses. I do think both hold some culpability as they were both elected officials when the shit hit the fan.

I don't think he inherited it he asked for it when he ran. He knew how bad things were, and said he could fix it. That being said the one Clinton left was better.

Impeachment will begin by then based on this one's current track record.

#67 | Posted by The_Chapel

What a dumbass

Impeachment for what. I don't care for his policies to much, but what has he done that warrants impeachment? You sound like all the dumbasses on hear that were calling for Bush's impeachment.

You know its pretty basic. When you spend money on a government job - it creates nothing EXCEPT additonal costs that have to be borne by the tax payers.

So - This "stimulas" is not doing anything but further incumbering us into greater debt.

If you create a private sector job...the money made by the business - a portion goes to pay taxes...as does the taxes on the individual. So lets say you hire someone for 50K and they make 200K for the business.

They are paying taxes on the 50K - so lets say they pay 20% - 10 K to the government.

The business pays 30% on the profit...so of the 200K - 75K is profit ...so they pay 22K.

So the net in addtional taxes for a private sector job to the government is 32K.

If the Government pays someone 50K...even if they are taxed the 20% - they are net COST to the government of 40K - a net difference of 72K!

Multiple that over 200k...and you have net difference of 14400000000 in additional expenditure 1) lower taxes coming in 2) more expense going out.

So you can say.."well we got more teachers, firemen, policeman ect." but the net is a massive negative to the country.

"The truth will be told in the tax collection numbers." - RiR.

TrimTabs does just that... and just for another datapoint....

"TrimTabs employment analysis, which uses real-time daily income tax deposits from all U.S. taxpayers to compute employment growth, estimated that the U.S. economy shed 255,000 jobs in November."

Truth be told: job losses have slowed (slightly) and without health care reform. Although I do believe reform is an avenue to stave off more job losses -- it's one of many areas we need to fix.

Our president, I feel, will still tow that line, his legacy is riding on the notion: US emergence out of the employment doldrums is dependant on Government reformation of 1/6th of our economy.

I believe in the resolve of the American people, not the trappings of Big Government.

"There are a whole lot more people to blame than either one of those dumbasses. "

You're right, but did they call them Hoovervilles, or Congressvilles?

For better or worse, Presidents get the nod.

How in the world is health care reform supposed to stave off job losses? By adding more government jobs? That is one subject that has never been explained and is open to ridicule. Other than more bureaucracy, there is nothing in the bill that adds jobs. The increased spending will only worsen the economy, the increased taxes will only cause more job losses. It's doomed to failure from the get go. Increased burdens to the insurance companies will drive up their costs, which will drive up premium payments, causing more employers to drop coverage, causing more people to be without insurance, causing more to need government assistance, causing increased costs and the eventual increase in taxes, then the whole damn thing starts over again. What an incredible load of crap.

PHYS - see my post 71...this is what happens when you add Government jobs.

The Libs need to think - if everyone has government jobs ( or the majority) who is left to pay the bills for them?

Here is a perfect example of what happens when government run something:

A comment from the Foshaffer link....LOL

"WASN'T the WHOLE IDEA of OTB to MAKE MONEY for the STATE?????? So much for the legalized gambling "pie-in-the-sky" panacea!!!! "OTB says it has lost $45 million over the last five years."

This who job thingy has Rush in a horrible mood. If the numbers go down one more point rumor has it Rush will fire his whole staff just to show them who is really in control.

Have you no concept of the multiplication factor of money?

#56 | Posted by Danforth

Have you ever stopped to see how stupid that statement is? Go read #55.

From 700,000 a month when he took office to 11, 000 now? Yeah, the guy should be impeached.

I have to laugh.

They talk about job loss and lower the unemployment rate from 10.2 to 10. Well that would mean we gained jobs or it does suggest the numbers are being lied about.

We lost 11000 jobs but unemployment rate fell.

Money, I thought the same thing...

"About 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in
November, an increase of 376,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not sea-
sonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and
were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12
months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched
for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey."

Which means a shrinking workforce can make a net job loss into a decrease in the unemployment rate.

And the corollary is that the unemployment rate could also rise with an increase in jobs created if these same people come back into the workforce to inflate the denominator.

I like the TrimTabs method of calculating unemployment....

How do you loose jobs but the unemployment changes from 10.2 to 10? Who is cooking these books?

#45 | Posted by Sniper

The truth will be told in the tax collection numbers . . .

Why? Don't government workers pay taxes?

#53 | Posted by Danforth

Where's Raystradamus to tell us that it's really 11 million jobs lost this month and the Dow will still hit 1400 before this recession is over?
#8 | POSTED BY CORKY

Nothing has been fixed. The amount of debt relative to income is worse than ever. This is just statistical noise.

Why? Don't government workers pay taxes?

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-04 02:56 PM

LOL!

Oh man, we are doomed.

There seems to be a fundamental breakdown in the thinking.

Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

Oh, Mato, I agree, we can't have all workers be government workers. But if you want to pretend government jobs and the resulting income don't have a multiplying factor in the economy, you're going to have to ignore economic reality as well as history.

"There seems to be a fundamental breakdown in the thinking."

Yeah, but you're forgiven.

Mato-
re: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

Ask Thatcher about Goldman Sachs.

What the Fuck. Ask yourself the question of private profit and socialized risk, you stupid motherfucker.

"They talk about job loss and lower the unemployment rate from 10.2 to 10. Well that would mean we gained jobs or it does suggest the numbers are being lied about."

Only to the folks unaware how the numbers are attained.

Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his job.

Why? Don't government workers pay taxes?
#53 | Posted by Danforth

To be accurate, government workers pay taxes from taxes; the private economy is the ONLY source of government tax revenue.

There is roughly one person in the private sector supporting two in the public sector - one tax producer to two tax consumers. There is no way this can be sustained. Lots of government worker layoffs to come, probably starting next year.

What the Fuck. Ask yourself the question of private profit and socialized risk, you stupid motherfucker.
#87 | POSTED BY BETELG

The idiot calls Mat a stupid motherfucker. Goldman Sachs is licensed from the socializers in Washington to socialize risk. They are both criminals.

"Why? Don't government workers pay taxes?
#53 | Posted by Danforth"

by Ray: "private economy is the ONLY source of government tax revenue.

There is roughly one person in the private sector supporting two in the public sector -
one tax producer to two tax consumers. There is no way this can be sustained.
Lots of government worker layoffs to come, probably starting next year."

#90 | Posted by Ray

"if you want to pretend government jobs and the resulting income don't have a multiplying factor in the economy, you're going to have to ignore economic reality as well as history."

#86 | Posted by Danforth

perhaps it's ME, just interpreting what ya said wrong, so I'll happily reserve comments till ya clarify a bit

thx in advance

"Danforth, could ya please elaborate on that your mult-factor & history??"

Let's say the government opens a tax center and employs 1,000 people. Suddenly, around that center pops up all the support businesses: cafes, dry cleaners, nightspots, shoe repair places, the list goes on and on. The gov't worker goes to the cafe for lunch, and picks up the dry cleaning on the way home. The dry cleaner gets his shoes repaired with the money spent at his business, and the shoe repairer goes out that night, and his waitress eats at the cafe the next day for lunch, and has money left over to dry clean her dress for the nightspot on her night off. If the same $100 is turned over 4 times, taxes are paid on $400, not $100. It's $400 of economic activity, not just $100.

That's a simplistic explanation, but basically that's how it works. $100 of pay produces more than $100 in economic activity. Not that everyone can or should be a government worker, not at all. But the concept that government workers are ONLY a drain is incorrect.

Chapel, the "stim" is one of the things keeping me in a job right now. (Iowa state employee)

#15 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-12-04 11:22 AM

The other day I passed the state cleaning out ditches along a state route..... 8 men 4 tandem dump trucks and one track hoe..... Myself and one driver do the same job for the township with one track hoe and one semi. 6 of those state workers were un-necessary as well as were 3 trucks.

It's like the old joke.... State workers get on the job and realize they had forgoten their shovels.... they inform the boss and the boss responds, okay, I'll go get the shovels in the mean time lean on one another.....

Make work/make busy isn't productive for anyone except those collecting the pay check......

Technology is rendering the human obsolete.... It's the gorilla in the room that everyone keeps looking through as though it's invisible.

Lot of irony in this world..... somewhere around page 386 in (I think it was) the 911 report it went on and on about unsustainable entitlements etc.....
I'm reading this and thinking they're talking about the United States only to discover several pages later that they were actually talking about Iran.... lmao ....... sloth, greed, anger, revenge, lust, jealousy, gluttony are universal.... and they all lead to the same place and most "progressives" possess 5 of the 7 at any given time.

by Danforth;
Let's say the government opens a tax center and employs 1,000 people. Suddenly, around that center pops up all the support businesses: cafes, dry cleaners, nightspots, shoe repair places, the list goes on and on. The gov't worker goes to the cafe for lunch, and picks up the dry cleaning on the way home. The dry cleaner gets his shoes repaired with the money spent at his business, and the shoe repairer goes out that night, and his waitress eats at the cafe the next day for lunch, and has money left over to dry clean her dress for the nightspot on her night off. If the same $100 is turned over 4 times, taxes are paid on $400, not $100. It's $400 of economic activity, not just $100

#93 | Posted by Danforth

figuring a 33% overall tax rate [simplified]

a) when that $100 is turned over 3 times = break even for gvt [negative net economic growth]

b) that $100 must be turned over 6 TIMES just for gvt to make ($100) payroll the follwing week [gvt ahead $100 for the next payroll; still zero econ growth]

c) soo, that $100 NEEDS turned over more than 6 TIMES for any economic growth at all

now - - if ya substitute non-gvt {oil refinery, manufacturing plant, etc} for your "gvt tax center" . . .

$66 economic growth would happen on the FIRST $100 turnover and each thereafter

to further clarify the gvt payroll effect - just add 12 zeros to all of the above numbers & run thru 'em again

and that (above) merely covers gvt payroll,
ALL gvt expendatures would further take a bite out of economic growth

Listening to Markh mangle economic theory is almost as painful as listening to Bibble since he learned how to use the bold html tag.

God, please put this poor stupid troll out of our misery.

Markh must have studied economics from the University of Goatman. Maybe he has a new insight on how the cost of production as an effect on the price of gasoline at the retail pump?

That's a simplistic explanation, but basically that's how it works. $100 of pay produces more than $100 in economic activity. Not that everyone can or should be a government worker, not at all. But the concept that government workers are ONLY a drain is incorrect.
#93 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Ignores the vital fact that tax collectors have to be supported by the private economy. They don't contribute to national wealth, they are a drain on national wealth. Yes, their wages circulate back into the private economy, but the private economy still supports them.

That is not to say that all government is a drain on private wealth, some of it provides valued services. In my opinion, 90% of government expenditures are pure waste.

So Ray,

You'd have no problem if we disbanded the military, bankrupted Halliburton and the rest of the corporations that exist on the public teat, get rid of all police and fire departments and put those lazy fuckers on the newly non-existant dole, get rid of Medicare and Social Security, close all the public schools, colleges and universities and close nearly every hospital in the country.

Yea right.

Axe,

My hyperbole to yours..... sounds like a good start.

by axe;
Listening to Markh mangle economic theory is almost as painful as listening to Bibble since he learned how to use the bold html tag.

God, please put this poor stupid troll out of our misery.

#98 | Posted by axe

just let me know axe -

a) post about someone's genitals to request; 4th grade level

b) post some anti-Christian stuff to request; 5th grade level

c) post your anti-Jew comments for; 6th grade level

if ya post anything coherent -
I'll notify rcade that your identity was stolen

thx in advance for your attention

Our military makes the weapons industry rich, makes enemies around the world and kills without conscience.

Medicare and SS are $100 trillion in a hole. It's a Ponzi Scheme disguised as insurance. (I expect to collect until they run out of money.)

Education and health care were a dominion of the market until government took it over. Americans are getting dumber and sicker as costs run out of control.

I said not all government is a drain on private wealth, but you ignored that statement.

The fact is that the federal government and many state and local governments are going bankrupt. The private economy can no longer support such a massive economic burden.

The trouble with fighting 'The Big Lie' strategy of the Republicans is that the Democrats don't have the imagination to come up with lies that are bigger than the Republican reality.

Let's try a few:

1. The republicans are so sleazy that they would put a pedophile in charge of looking after the welfare of Senate Pages.

2. The Republicans are so stupid they would run an unknown from Alaska for their vice president candidate without first bothering to find out if she was a blithering idiot or not.

3. 4The Republicans would be in such a hurry to start a war that they would threaten to fire Pentagon planners who wanted to plan for the aftermath of the invasion.

4. The Republican President would tell a CIA briefer 'okay you covered your ass' 1 month before 9/11/2001 when the briefer delivered a report stating that OBL was going to use airliners to crash into buildings in the USA.

Markh,

Just admit you plagiarized that 'economic' claptrap from Michael 'We gots us a nigger too' Steele and we'll let you go with a warning.

It ain't too bright to crib answers from the class moron, dude.

This arguing over who's better, Republicans or Democrats, is a circus side show. Our political system is infested with termites, cockroaches, pigs and rats from both sides of the aisle and the populace.

That's a simplistic explanation, but basically that's how it works. $100 of pay produces more than $100 in economic activity.
* * * *

And so why do we ever have recessions? Why aren't GDP increases automatic, and steady over time?

Another quick question: what would be preferable? 900,000 jobs created in the private sector, or 1,000,000 in the public?

ever had to make a payroll axe??

Markh,

By that are you trying to imply that you have? What a sick little puppy you are trying that 3rd grade bullshit.

I've owned my own business since 1986.

Michael Steele make one idiotic statement and these poor stupid Rtards still cannot stop parroting the fool.

When a person spends $100.00 on groceries down at the grocery store, what the hell difference does it make who's payroll he is on?

Learn to think for yoursleves, sheep!!!! You cheerleaders for failure sure chose the right political party.

by axe:
"I've owned my own business since 1986.
#110 | Posted by axe"

cool . . w/out disclosing personal or financial details - -

estimate your effective tax rate

thx

"Another quick question: what would be preferable? 900,000 jobs created in the private sector, or 1,000,000 in the public?"

The former. Are you really so clueless you have to ask?

"soo, that $100 NEEDS turned over more than 6 TIMES for any economic growth at all"

Okay, so let's say it turns over ten times. You're completely missing the point.

"$66 economic growth would happen on the FIRST $100 turnover and each thereafter "

No, it wouldn't. $33 for each thereafter.

"Ignores the vital fact that tax collectors have to be supported by the private economy."

No it doesn't. It merely acknowledges that $100 of pay to a government worker leads to MORE than $100 of economic activity.

"In my opinion, 90% of government expenditures are pure waste."

In my opinion, you're full of shit. There's certainly too much waste, but nowhere near that much.

"Ninety-percent of government expenditures are pure waste...."

Good. Let's reduce to Marine Corps to two divisions and two air wings, as Truman recommended.

"And so why do we ever have recessions? Why aren't GDP increases automatic, and steady over time?"

During uncertain times, the worker skips lunch at the cafe and bags it instead, and does dry cleaning only half the time. The owner of the cleaners waits longer to get his shoes repaired, so the cobbler decides to eat at home, and the waitress only has enough to pay rent and buy groceries.

But I'm guessing you knew all that.

"Tangentially, which economy would you rather have inherited: the one Clinton left Bush, or the one Bush left Obama?"

The one Reagan left Clinton

Dan,

Never underestimate the stupidity of Republicans. Most of these clowns get their talking points from Glenda Beck and their morals from Newt Gingrich.

Vernon,

You are SO funny!!!! Only in Vernon's universe did George Bush the Pedophile not exist.

"The one Reagan left Clinton"

Vernon must get his history books from the same place he gets his calculators.

Vernon's going to edge out snippy for title of DR Moron of the Month if he keeps this up!!!!

No it doesn't. It merely acknowledges that $100 of pay to a government worker leads to MORE than $100 of economic activity.
#116 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

And you call yourself an accountant. You ignore the fact that taxes are confiscated. It's no different than if a thug robbed a store and went on a spending spree with his loot. In essence you are saying we can make ourselves richer by robbing from ourselves.

"In my opinion, 90% of government expenditures are pure waste."
In my opinion, you're full of shit. There's certainly too much waste, but nowhere near that much.

Your opinion against mine. The fact remains that the federal government is going bankrupt. The debt level is impossible to manage without the printing press.

"And you call yourself an accountant."

No, I don't, and never have.

"You ignore the fact that taxes are confiscated."

And you ignore the reality of economics. Does $100 in pay ultimately end up in more than $100 of economic activity or not?

"Your opinion against mine. "

Your opinion is 90% waste. That encompasses Social Security, Medicare, the military, all safety factors, and all government workers. The bullshit factor is obvious.

merely acknowledges that $100 of pay to a government worker leads to MORE than $100 of economic activity.
#116 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

soo, why didn't ya just come out & say ya wanted "economic activity"?

btw . . .

a) T-bill auctions are "economic activity"

b) a bankruptcy is "economic activity"

c) a trip to the unemployment office? yup . . that too

btwII . . economic activity DOES NOT EQUAL economic growth

Does $100 in pay ultimately end up in more than $100 of economic activity or not?

Bad question. I explained in #124. I'll explain in different words.

It's not a question of economic activity; it's a question of economic wealth. Wealth can only be created by voluntary exchange. Buyer trades money of lesser value for goods he values higher. Seller trades what he has produced for something of higher value, money. Both buyer and seller gain wealth in the exchange.

But when a revenue agent takes money from a taxpayer, it is taken by force. The taxpayer is deprived of the $100 dollars the agent gains. To emphasize the agent's gain is to ignore the taxpayer's loss. The taxpayer is forced to support someone of no value to him. Forced transactions destroy wealth.

Your opinion is 90% waste. That encompasses Social Security, Medicare, the military, all safety factors, and all government workers. The bullshit factor is obvious.

Whatever. Government has spent and borrowed beyond the means of the private economy to support it. It's only a matter of time when the warfare-welfare state goes bankrupt. If you think 2009 couldn't get any worse, wait for 2010.

The right wing's motto is: "Good News Sucks"

It took Bush a year to even admit we were in a recession.

one thing is for sure the dollar is in the shitter.. I bought Thyssen Krupp, BASF, Royal bank of Canada, Toyota and Bayer in Euros, Yen and Canadian Dollars and made over 35K in 3.5 weeks and the prices of the stock have marginally increased. The diff is the value of the declining dollar.

UE will be chronic until 2012 and will top out over 12% ( not U6 numbers)
The layoffs will continue, there will be further erosion in commercial/residential real estate and the dollar has further to slide. That is not partisan remark and I make no comments regarding who is responsible. This is the reality of the current economy. It will improve at some point just not in the next few years.

And you ignore the reality of economics. Does $100 in pay ultimately end up in more than $100 of economic activity or not?

#125 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

depends upon the activity..in most cases no..

Impeachment will begin by then based on this one's current track record.
Teleprompter magics is gone. People want results and not a whining, blaming, pop star traveler.
#67 | POSTED BY THE_CHAPEL

don't be an idiot..

Niceville can't help being an idiot!!

"in most cases no.."

Another flunkee of Econ 101.

"in most cases no.."
Another flunkee of Econ 101.

#134 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Velocity = nominal value/amount of money in circulation on average in an economy

Stability and velocity are dependent of independent factors not used in the calculation like Inflation or Deflation.

Danforth- I have MASTERS in Economics.

Since we do not live in a vacuum and outside factors always have influence on static models I would have to see what specific activity has a velocity greater than the initial value injected.

Too many activities today drain coffers and offer no additional velocity to the bottom line or public value.(see War in Iraq/Afghanistan)