8% unemployment - more like 20% actually

[Too Tall]

you
What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?

Are these the tax codes you call tax breaks for the wealthy?

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.

Just so you will know, wealth is not taxed in the US, income is. And, unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

Yeah......let's hear it for job-creation....BUSHCO-style!!!

I will repeat for the brain impaired.

Unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.

you
What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?

Are these the tax codes you call tax breaks for the wealthy?

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.

Just so you will know, wealth is not taxed in the US, income is. And, unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

300 billion of the stimulus was tax cuts. 800 billion in tax cuts/extensions were passed in December.

That's 1.1 trillion in lost revenue added to the deficit/debt in order to stimulate the economy.

It isn't working, is it?

 

[pinqy]

The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

That U-6 unemployment number published bythe BLS if more like 18%.

Nope, it's 15.8%, which is nothing like 18%.

Even that number, I think, probably understates the real state of employment in the USA

It gives a different picture, which is more useful for some aspects. The U-6 is Unemployed (looking for worrk) plus Marginally Attached (say they're willing and able to work, looked sometime in the last year but not the last month, not looking now for any number of reasons) plus Part Time for Economic reasons (either normally work full time but had hours cut or want to work full time but settled for part time) as a percent of the Labor Force and the Marginally Attached.

It's a broader look at people who potentially are available to work and those who could work more than they are. So that's definitely something we want to pay attention to, but that's not Unemployment. Note too, that from April to May the official rate went up, but the U-6 (and the U-5), went DOWN. (No change with the U-4).

This anonymous group of self proclaiming economists believes the real rate of unemployment is now about 22%

That number, which includes forced part time workers and discouraged workers as well.

The Shadowstat numbers you're citing are bullshit. The math doesn't work.

Williams (the guy who runs shadowstats.com) claims he's adding in people who are willing and able to work but have not looked in more than a year, (basically extending the U-6) but it doesn't add up.

The U-6 is (U+M+P)/(L+M) where
U is Unemployed
M is Marginally Attached
P is Part time for economic reasons
L is Labor Force (Employed + Unemployed).

So for May:
U = 13,914,000 (Table A-1)
M = 2,206,000 (Table A-16)
P = 8,548,000 (Table A-8)
L = 153,693,000 (Table A-1)
(U+M+P)/(L+M) = (13,914,000+2,206,000+8,548,000)/(153,693,000+2,206,000)= 24,668,000/155,899,000 = 15.8%

So how many people do we have to add to the equation to get 22%? Since the additional people are not in the labor force, we have to add them to the numerator and the denominator so we get (U+M+P+X)/(L+M+X) = 0.22 Solving for X we get X = 12,346,000

But wait...looking again at Table A-1 we see that people Not in the Labor Force who "want a job now" is 6,227,000 and that includes the Marginally Attached. So we only have about 4 million people who say they want a job (regardless of if they could actually accept one or if they've ever looked) that aren't in the U-6, but we would have to add over 12 million to get 22%. So where do those extra 8 million come from? People who say they don't want a job? (adding in all who say they want a job to the U-6 gives a rate of 17.9%)

 

[NYcarbineer]

8%? The figure last week said 9.1%. Of course, you are right, it's much higher.

No it's not. Unless of course you change the definitions and starting adding in different groups who are not unemployed, etc etc.

You mean if we went back to the original definition instead of this carefully crafted one designed to make it look like we have higher employment than we really have to mask the problem?

If you change the definition, then all past unemployment numbers go up in proportion to what the number would go up now,

but of course, in the confusion, that wouldn't appear clear to the average person.

Good plan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.

you
What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?

Are these the tax codes you call tax breaks for the wealthy?

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.

Just so you will know, wealth is not taxed in the US, income is. And, unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

Bush's tax cuts didn't expire at the end of his presidency. Bush's share of the 2009 deficit was about a trillion dollars.

 

[Too Tall]

you
What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?

Are these the tax codes you call tax breaks for the wealthy?

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.

Just so you will know, wealth is not taxed in the US, income is. And, unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

Yeah......let's hear it for job-creation....BUSHCO-style!!!

I will repeat for the brain impaired.

Unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

You photo shopped the wrong President in front of the returning KIA. There were 293 KIA (killed in action) in 2008, Bush's last year in office. That went to 510 in 2009, Obama's first year in office, 708 in 2010 and 230 as of May 2011.

 

[Too Tall]

you
What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?

Are these the tax codes you call tax breaks for the wealthy?

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.

Just so you will know, wealth is not taxed in the US, income is. And, unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

Bush's tax cuts didn't expire at the end of his presidency. Bush's share of the 2009 deficit was about a trillion dollars.

Bush's tax cuts are now Obama's tax cuts, at least until 2012. What does Bush's share of the deficit, (I do not accept your number) have to do with the FACT that unemployment averaged 5.2% for the 8 years of Bush's presidency?

 

[Seawytch]

Romney will tear him to shreds on the economy - Mitt has creds/track record on that issue.

Apparently you aren't aware of Romney's economic track record...

Mitt Romney's economic record questioned

"As a strict labor market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney years, he said. "On every measure you've got, the state was a substantial under-performer."
​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are these the tax codes you call tax breaks for the wealthy?



Just so you will know, wealth is not taxed in the US, income is. And, unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

Bush's tax cuts didn't expire at the end of his presidency. Bush's share of the 2009 deficit was about a trillion dollars.

Bush's tax cuts are now Obama's tax cuts, at least until 2012. What does Bush's share of the deficit, (I do not accept your number) have to do with the FACT that unemployment averaged 5.2% for the 8 years of Bush's presidency?

Ok, so why aren't you averaging in the last 2 years unemployment rates into 'Bush's' since we're effectively still operating under HIS tax policy?

 

[Too Tall]

Bush's tax cuts didn't expire at the end of his presidency. Bush's share of the 2009 deficit was about a trillion dollars.

Bush's tax cuts are now Obama's tax cuts, at least until 2012. What does Bush's share of the deficit, (I do not accept your number) have to do with the FACT that unemployment averaged 5.2% for the 8 years of Bush's presidency?

Ok, so why aren't you averaging in the last 2 years unemployment rates into 'Bush's' since we're effectively still operating under HIS tax policy?

Simple, because Bush's tax policy was unable to offset the $800 billion stimulus Obama got in 2009. And, the collapse of the housing market is the primary cause of the present unemployment rate. Secondary cause is the out of control spending by the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Bush's tax cuts didn't expire at the end of his presidency. Bush's share of the 2009 deficit was about a trillion dollars.

Bush's tax cuts are now Obama's tax cuts, at least until 2012. What does Bush's share of the deficit, (I do not accept your number) have to do with the FACT that unemployment averaged 5.2% for the 8 years of Bush's presidency?

Ok, so why aren't you averaging in the last 2 years unemployment rates into 'Bush's' since we're effectively still operating under HIS tax policy?

So, this is the part of the story where we argue that we're going to balance the budget by increasing taxes on 1% of the American population?

 

[Douger]

20% ! That's even better than your masters hoped for !
Here's one of your masters that wrote the very last part of your movie, in which the credits are now running, with one of the elders professional chanters. Actually, Bill only signed the bill but you didn't know that, didja ? His elder wrote it. Do you know who Bill's superior is ? Of course you don't. I'll give you a hint. Haiti.

Can you name a song by this chanter ? Do you know who summoned him ? Hint: female.
Sure you can. He didn't soak up hundreds of million$ because you DIDN'T listen to his chants.

OH LOOK ! Snookie got another tat ! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bush's tax cuts are now Obama's tax cuts, at least until 2012. What does Bush's share of the deficit, (I do not accept your number) have to do with the FACT that unemployment averaged 5.2% for the 8 years of Bush's presidency?

Ok, so why aren't you averaging in the last 2 years unemployment rates into 'Bush's' since we're effectively still operating under HIS tax policy?

Simple, because Bush's tax policy was unable to offset the $800 billion stimulus Obama got in 2009. And, the collapse of the housing market is the primary cause of the present unemployment rate. Secondary cause is the out of control spending by the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration.

That's nonsensical. 300 billion of the stimulus, for the THOUSANDTH time, was tax cuts. The other 400 billion was not even spent for the most part in 2009, and,

while we're on the subject:

How does the government borrowing money and spending it into the economy cause unemployment?

Be specific. It's your claim.

 

[boedicca]

while we're on the subject:

How does the government borrowing money and spending it into the economy cause unemployment?

Be specific. It's your claim.

Easy Peasy.

The government borrowing and spending money to prop up State and Local Union jobs is a misallocation of capital. That spending just consumes money. Taking it away from the private sector means that less money is invested in job creating entrepreneurial ventures (more than half of all job creation is by small businesses and start ups).

And don't bother with the carnard about Mega Corps sitting on $2T of cash. They are not the ones who create jobs. They will use that cash to buy smaller companies - but that generally results in job losses.

 

[boedicca]

And in bit of serendipity, the WSJ has a column today on why Texas is creating jobs when other states aren't. The reason is simple: lower cost government and a friendlier business climate.

Texas is also among the few states that are home to more jobs than when the recession began in December 2007. The others are North Dakota, Alaska and the District of Columbia. If that last one sounds like an outlier at first, remember the government boom of the Obama era, which has helped loft D.C. payrolls 18,000 jobs above the pre-crisis status quo. Even so, Texas is up 30,800.

What explains this Lone Star success? Texas is a big state, but its population of 24.7 million isn't that much bigger than the Empire State, about 19.5 million. California is a large state too—36.9 million—and yet it's down 11,400 jobs. Mr. Fisher argues that Texas is doing so well relative to other states precisely because it has rejected the economic model that now prevails in Washington, and we'll second that notion.

Mr. Fisher notes that all states labor under the same Fed monetary policy and interest rates and federal regulation, but all states have not preformed equally well. Texas stands out for its free market and business-friendly climate.

Capital—both human and investment—is highly mobile, and it migrates all the time to the places where the opportunities are larger and the burdens are lower. Texas has no state income tax. Its regulatory conditions are contained and flexible. It is fiscally responsible and government is small. Its right-to-work law doesn't impose unions on businesses or employees. It is open to global trade and competition: Houston, San Antonio and El Paso are entrepôts for commerce, especially in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Based on his conversations with CEOs and other business leaders, Mr. Fisher says one of Texas's huge competitive advantages is its ongoing reform of the tort system, which has driven litigation costs to record lows. He also cited a rule in place since 1998 in the backwash of the S&L debacle that limits mortgage borrowing to 80% of the appraised value of a home. Like a minimum down payment, this reduces overleveraging and means Texas wasn't hurt as badly by the housing crash as other states.

Review & Outlook: The Lone Star Jobs Surge - WSJ.com


It's also interesting to note how Texas avoided most of the Housing Meltdown due to not encouraging No Doc Liar Loans.

 

[VaYank5150]

How many incumbant presidents have been re-elected on those numbers ??? -not since FDR

1 and out for Obama - unless there is an unprecedented economic turnaround by 2012.

you
What happened to all of those new private sector jobs that were supposed to be created by you dipshits putting the Republicans back in power in the House? I guess those tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs after all, huh?

Are these the tax codes you call tax breaks for the wealthy?

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.

Just so you will know, wealth is not taxed in the US, income is. And, unemployment averaged 5.2% during Bush's 8 years. It averaged 9.4% for the first 18 months of Obama's regime. How is that $800 billion bailout working for you?

And didn't the Republicans promise to fix all of Obama's "failed" economic policies and bring back private sector jobs by extending the Bush tax cuts?

 

[NYcarbineer]

while we're on the subject:

How does the government borrowing money and spending it into the economy cause unemployment?

Be specific. It's your claim.

Easy Peasy.

The government borrowing and spending money to prop up State and Local Union jobs is a misallocation of capital. That spending just consumes money. Taking it away from the private sector means that less money is invested in job creating entrepreneurial ventures (more than half of all job creation is by small businesses and start ups).

And don't bother with the carnard about Mega Corps sitting on $2T of cash. They are not the ones who create jobs. They will use that cash to buy smaller companies - but that generally results in job losses.

Money isn't being taken away from the 'private sector'. It's being borrowed from investors and ending up IN the economy.


If the government borrows 100 million dollars and uses it to finance a defense contract for X amount of military hardware...

...what's the net job loss/gain? Who lost jobs because of that? Who gained jobs because of that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And in bit of serendipity, the WSJ has a column today on why Texas is creating jobs when other states aren't. The reason is simple: lower cost government and a friendlier business climate.

Texas is also among the few states that are home to more jobs than when the recession began in December 2007. The others are North Dakota, Alaska and the District of Columbia. If that last one sounds like an outlier at first, remember the government boom of the Obama era, which has helped loft D.C. payrolls 18,000 jobs above the pre-crisis status quo. Even so, Texas is up 30,800.

What explains this Lone Star success? Texas is a big state, but its population of 24.7 million isn't that much bigger than the Empire State, about 19.5 million. California is a large state too—36.9 million—and yet it's down 11,400 jobs. Mr. Fisher argues that Texas is doing so well relative to other states precisely because it has rejected the economic model that now prevails in Washington, and we'll second that notion.

Mr. Fisher notes that all states labor under the same Fed monetary policy and interest rates and federal regulation, but all states have not preformed equally well. Texas stands out for its free market and business-friendly climate.

Capital—both human and investment—is highly mobile, and it migrates all the time to the places where the opportunities are larger and the burdens are lower. Texas has no state income tax. Its regulatory conditions are contained and flexible. It is fiscally responsible and government is small. Its right-to-work law doesn't impose unions on businesses or employees. It is open to global trade and competition: Houston, San Antonio and El Paso are entrepôts for commerce, especially in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Based on his conversations with CEOs and other business leaders, Mr. Fisher says one of Texas's huge competitive advantages is its ongoing reform of the tort system, which has driven litigation costs to record lows. He also cited a rule in place since 1998 in the backwash of the S&L debacle that limits mortgage borrowing to 80% of the appraised value of a home. Like a minimum down payment, this reduces overleveraging and means Texas wasn't hurt as badly by the housing crash as other states.

Review & Outlook: The Lone Star Jobs Surge - WSJ.com


It's also interesting to note how Texas avoided most of the Housing Meltdown due to not encouraging No Doc Liar Loans.

Texas is an oil economy. Texas also dodged much of the real estate mess by having put in strict regulations on real estate borrowing/lending.

Texas also leads the nation in the number of GOVERNMENT jobs added in the last 10 years.

 

[auditor0007]

Romney will tear him to shreds on the economy - Mitt has creds/track record on that issue.

Unless Romney starts telling us we need to raise taxes as well as cut spending, then he is just like all the other Republicans who believe you can cut taxes to zero and increase revenue at the same time.

 

[pinqy]

8%? The figure last week said 9.1%. Of course, you are right, it's much higher.

No it's not. Unless of course you change the definitions and starting adding in different groups who are not unemployed, etc etc.

You mean if we went back to the original definition instead of this carefully crafted one designed to make it look like we have higher employment than we really have to mask the problem?

I'm disappointed..Avatar4321 didn't come back to post the original definition and tell us how it's all different