[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It depends on whether you believe jobs begin at conception

They do. Unfortunately, they were artificially inseminated with Federal semen and will likely be stillborn.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But that's just a bar graph, do you have a link for it? Too bad we can't run a census every 2 months, we could employ these people FOREVER!

I'm also curious, are you a big fan of Reagan? In one post you're making fun of him for racking up a deficit, but then you're citing articles claiming 300 economists believe you need to rack up a deficit to protect economic recovery and job growth. Are deficits a bad thing in your view or not? Do tax cuts also rack up the deficit? Is this good or bad?

What does it have to do with the census?

Those are jobs/employment numbers that gets updated every month.

Don't you know where to get jobs numbers?

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Deficit spending is bad, but is needed during a recession in order to stimulate the economy and to prevent us from going into a depression.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What does it have to do with the census?

Those are jobs/employment numbers that gets updated every month.

Yeah... ending in April, about the time the census was wrapping up. I know... May, June, July, and August were all great job number months too.

Don't you know where to get jobs numbers?

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Yes, but thank you anyway. I noticed that I didn't see your bar graph on their site however. I mean, we can take Bureau of Labor Statistics to paint a good picture for Republicans...


... but it doesn't mean you're getting the whole picture right? After all, it's just a bar graph.

Deficit spending is bad, but is needed during a recession in order to stimulate the economy and to prevent us from going into a depression.

Ah yes, the broken window fallacy. Problem is two-fold, we're spending more to fix that window than the window repairman would've made in several years and once the windows are replaced the only option is to break more as evidenced by more calls for additional stimulus spending. The second problem is that we're borrowing from the private economy which then loses its jobs to create the "new" jobs elsewhere. What this Administration is beginning to find out (hopefully) is the Keynesian ideal of taking water out of one side of the pool and pouring it into the other side of the pool does not raise the overall water level. The idea that $1 of deficit spending in a recession creates $1.50 in new economic growth is tainted by empirical evidence that shows the $1.4 trillion in deficit spending did not spur $2.1 trillion in new economic growth. While I'm surprised that you turned out to be a "Reagan Democrat", the answer is now and was then a tax policy that targets productivity and supply by substantially reducing the marginal tax rate as was done in the 20's, 60's, and 80's; all followed by substantial economic growth. While Reagan indeed increased the deficit, much of it was targeted toward drastically reducing taxes on the "next dollar earned" and encouraged productivity and supply.

[BadKosh]

Do we even know the real amount of debt? Imagine our government lying!

US Government 'hiding true amount of debt' | News.com.au

US Government 'hiding true amount of debt'

THE actual figure of the US' national debt is much higher than the official sum of $US13.4 trillion ($14.3 trillion) given by the Congressional Budget Office, according to analysts cited on Sunday by the New York Post.

"The Government is lying about the amount of debt. It is engaging in Enron accounting," said Laurence Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University and co-author of The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future.

"The problem is we're seeing an explosion in spending," added Andrew Moylan, director of government affairs for the National Taxpayers Union.

In 1980, the debt - the accumulated red ink incurred by the Federal Government - was $US909 billion.

This represented some 33 per cent of gross domestic product, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Thirty years later, based on this year's second-quarter numbers, the CBO said the debt was $US13.4 trillion, or 92 per cent of GDP.

The CBO estimates the debt will be at $US16.5 trillion in two years, or 100.6 per cent of GDP.

But these numbers are incomplete.

They do not count off-budget obligations such as required spending for Social Security and Medicare, whose programs represent a balloon payment for the Government as more Americans retire and collect benefits.

In the case of Social Security, beginning in 2016, the US Government will be paying out more than it is collecting in taxes.

Without basic measures - such as payment cuts or higher payroll taxes - the system could be on the road to bankruptcy, according to officials.

"Without changes," wrote Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, "by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted. There will be enough money only to pay about $US0.76 for each dollar of benefits."

Mr Kotlikoff and Mr Moylan agree US national debt is much more than the official $US13.4 trillion number, but they disagree over how to add up the exact number.

Mr Kotlikoff says the debt is actually $US200 trillion.

Mr Moylan says the number is likely about $US60 trillion.

That is close to the figure quoted by David Walker, the US Comptroller General from 1998 to 2008.

He launched a campaign to convince Americans that the federal spending and debt is a greater threat than terrorism.

But whichever figure is accurate, all three agree that the problem has worsened in the last few years.

They say it is because Congress and the Administration, whether Republican or Democrat, consistently overspend.