NOTHING in this article was presented that conclusively shows any rollback completed, in progress, or planned, has or will certainly affect workers adversely. The Obama Administration was playing ‘sheriff’ by enacting all of the prohibitive, punitive regulations that cannot be proven to help workers, but are certainly an impedement to industries that liberals dislike.
Beryllium exposure has NOT been proven to certainly cause cancer. The article makes it clear that conclusive evidence does NOT exist to substantial that claim by the O Administration and others.
The coal industry is MUCH safer than in distant, prior years used by Progressives / Liberals / Socialists / Anti-Capitalists to denounce the industry as highly dangerous to our health and the environment.
Regulations enacted by the Obama Administration in the last few WEEKS of his term in office beg the question: “if they are SOOOO important, why did they wait until the 11 o’clock hour?” The answer is simple; they are harmful and would have been discovered sooner, with public and political pressure imposed to roll them back while Obama was in office. That would have been embarrassing to Obama; i.e. Republican controlled Congress would subpoena members of his Administration to testify as to the intentions and means of the rules.
Further, the article includes a comment to the effect that regulations rolled back to date are largely those that make it easier to do business or to complete regulatory paperwork.
A comprehensive list of thses regulations will be published in November, so I’ll withhold complete judgment until then. However, no one has presented any credible, conclusive evidence that the roll backs are harmful. Industry representatives and political commentators have said that the rollbacks will, largely, be helpful and may lead to increased productivity and job creation. HOORAY! MAGA, one de-regulation act at a time.
Polar, two good ones that your opponents do not like judging from the dislikes because it goes against their agenda to control America and regulate it to death. By the way, I have not seen an Ozone action day due to pollution in quite some time. Another thing that seems to bother them is the Global Cooling going on and the prediction we will have a colder than usual winter. Seems like the Global Warming guys have some answering to do.
Okay class,
Who here can define the word ‘global’? Also, please define ‘climate’. We have a classmate who may be confused about what global climate change actually means. Pro-tip, it’s not just weather or a season in our own backyard.
While you’re at it Professor, could you also explain how man not only caused the hole in the ozone layer but also caused it to shrink by curtailing dangerous activities, or should we just believe there was no hole ever and it was all a giant scam so Al Gore could make money?
Sure thing Agent! I will gladly attempt to explain that if you can show some basic competency by replying with the literal or colloquial definitions of GLOBAL and CLIMATE (literal OR colloquial because they’re the same thing). No sarcasm
You know what’s over-rated? Clean air, clean water, worker, and public safety. Who needs them? C’mon, let’s go shoot some paper towels and minimalize people’s suffering.
Wrong. Another Straw Man Argument, and a rabbit hole.
I’ll pay taxes for NECESSARY govt services; e.g. police, schools, mil, roads, bridges, but not for bloated govt bureaucracies that DON’T produce anything or serve anyone.
I’m OK with NECESSARY SERVICES such a security (police, Federal law enforcement agencies, military) and education (local only), but NOT Planned Abortion-to-avoid-Parenthood, NPR, etc.
What has become more extreme is definitely democrats.
You argue we should do gun control because of gun deaths, but you’re not really specific on it, other than mental health checks and a loophole which both parties have agreed needs to go, but one party won’t let it go without tying the mental health with it.
So, we should institute gun control due to gun violence, because it would save lives.
Are you ready for me to blow your mind?
As I researched gun control, a factor they consider in the more credible studies is how much alcoholism affects violence and gun violence in countries.
We once had prohibition. Do you perceive it was right to allow people to drink?
Do you perceive we need more drinking regulations? Should there be a mental health check before drinking?
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe the government should be in the business of saying who is mentally fit? Let’s be clear, gender dysphoria is certainly a disease, for example, people with Autism tend to be more violent, but it’s not due to autism for example:
Should we extend background checks to race? Why? Why not versus mental conditions? Black folks in Chicago are significantly more likely to shoot people, or the better comparison, they are significantly more likely to be victims of not having fathers, and domestic violence, which would manifest with your association aspect as well that you suggested. Where do we cut that off? Should black children without fathers who were abused and demonstrated signs of depression (with most men this looks like rage) be flagged for not owning a gun? These same people are very likely in those cities to be a victim of the same crime. Do you not think these controls will affect them disproportionately? Will it be effective in disarming psychos at the cost of personal freedoms? Should gay folks who are flagged for too much drinking be put on a list to not own a gun? They are more likely to drink, but it has to do less with violence than depression. Gay people also are targeted for violent crime. Would we not be disarming a vulnerable section of society?
How would your bill work? How many gun deaths would it stop by doing mental health checks?
Why can we not flag someone who takes 6 drinks too many or gets into a fight for losing the right to drink alcohol?
Violence rates are immeasurably high there. In Russia, as an example, when Alcoholism got out of control their violence rates went through the roof. If you can justify your argument for a gun, it would apply just as well for drinking.
As I said, we’re going back to poor decisions made prior 1960’s, and I don’t want that.
And that, Doug, is what I don’t see your side do, neither the individuals nor the politicians.
Go ahead, get triggered and dislike my posts as per usual.
But I’m the only one here just about who makes this well of rational commentary with the right questions.
While you just claim the people like me are not for private freedoms, don’t care about people dying and reasonable gun control, and are just against all rights.
The central philosophy of Conservatism is anti-big govt and freedom from govt oppression; e.g. censorship, arms to protect against govt tyranny, attackers, etc.
Those who do not understand Conservatism should not try to define it.
October 9, 2017 at 10:58 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
If that were true, then they would not be trying to use the government to stop; 2 consenting adults from entering the exact same contract as 2 other consenting adults, adults from consuming a plant, people from making decisions on what is best for their own bodies, people from utilizing legal technologies in what ever way they want safely, people from expressing themselves and protesting in a peaceful manner, etc…
October 9, 2017 at 6:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“If that were true, then they would not be trying to use the government to stop; 2 consenting adults from entering the exact same contract as 2 other consenting adults,”
This is not the position of the right on this, also, Obama himself said he changed his mind mid presidency, so you’re not thinking at all right. The majority of the left has actually been anti gay marriage in the classic sense: Being against two consenting adults getting married. Republicans have been anti getting the government into ratifying a marriage through the government as the same as a heterosexual marriage and porting over laws. In no way should this occur. This is why republicans have been pro civil unions I might add.
“adults from consuming a plant,”
Democrats are also largely against this, for one, and for two, can we murder people? Why not? You will find if you watch Gowdy or debates about pot that republicans have actually during debate said while they do not think that pot is safe to the public, they are ticked off that it was classified as a level 1 drug, as opposed to pain killers which are causing the opioid crises being a level 2. To some degree the government has to make laws, and it is not encroaching to prohibit drugs, to the affect they are a danger to society. I will ask you: Should LSD be legal? Why? Why not?
“people from making decisions on what is best for their own bodies,”
It never was about their body, it’s about the baby, and here you are willing to contradict your religion for an idealistic phrase. Your weakness I might add.
“people from utilizing legal technologies in what ever way they want safely,”
Clarification needed.
“people from expressing themselves and protesting in a peaceful manner, etc”
Nope. Example needed. Protesting in a minor point is never productive. College debate is. Waiving a sign isn’t. Skipping out of work isn’t (I’m not saying all, but some protests involve this specifically). If you mean to say speaking out against breaking up rallies, breaking up a rally for the sake of breaking it up, is not protest or free speech, and in fact is an attempt to shut down someone else’s free speech. While you talk about this, the left is actively engaged in shutting down speakers they don’t like coming to campus, something a public school may not do when a student invites a speaker. I can give more examples. You are indoctrinated to no end over cliché phrases and lines.
You hear only what you want to hear from the right.
October 4, 2017 at 2:18 pm
InTheMiddle says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
However, no one has presented any credible, conclusive evidence that the roll backs are helpful with regard to public safety and would lead to actual job creation. SAD! Oh have a good time!
Well net job creation was negative (33,000 lost jobs) for the first time since 2010 last month. This was partly due to the hurricanes, but even without that would have been bad.
We are currently, and have been, at near full employment, wages finally started increasing the second half of 2016, there are over 6 million unfilled jobs, GDP is picking up; yet President Trump and the Republicans want to plunge us deeper in debt to make something happen that is already happening.
“We are currently, and have been, at near full employment,”
No we aren’t, and no we haven’t been. The LPR is down, and it is not due to solely retirees and college kids. It is because less of the labor force is working. As of right now my wife and I would have $22,000 more in costs with her working vs a $22,000 income. The upper 10% often remove one earner from the economy. We are not at full employment, and this upper 10% is definitely in the scenario with one worker not working.
During Obama’s presidency older workers stayed in the workforce at explosive rates, so they couldn’t be the reason for the LPR being stagnant.
“wages finally started increasing the second half of 2016,”
Key words “finally”. So after a good long while of not or in other words a good long while of bad performance which you refuse to blame Obama for and openly say he was bad. So we are only just now moving toward what could be a economic expansion to keep up with population growth, which we haven’t prior, whereas Reagan’s jobs increased more than population growth. This didn’t happen with Obama. Obama has not done well economically.
“there are over 6 million unfilled jobs,”
If true this is not a good thing.
“GDP is picking up; yet President Trump and the Republicans want to plunge us deeper in debt to make something happen that is already happening.”
It’s still historically below average, and nothing can change that most Obama’s year’s were in the 1% range, with I believe he averaged under 2%.
“Where are the fiscal Conservatives?”
They’ve been trying to pass tax policy and then you claim they don’t care about deficits.
They have been trying to repeal Obamacare then you say they want the poor to die.
You’ve created a no win scenario.
An easy way to get 2,000,000 people working again would be to offer tax credits of about $5,000 to working families in the income range of $70,000 – $150,000 total income. I’ve numerous times said why.
As said above, it would be a net cost of $22,000 to have my wife work out of an income of $22,000. This is not an exaggeration, and that is with half off daycare.
The vast majority of high income earners have one stay home earner. This would be the biggest part of why women earn 76 cents to the dollar, they are more likely to stay at home. This is why the EIC back in the 90’s increased the labor force in the income range they pushed it. It all adds up.
If you gave $5,000 of credit to 2,000,000 workers, to get their partner back in the work force it would cost $10 billion a year, and assuming equal GDP return of 10% since you’re adding 10% of the working class, you would have a 1.84 trillion dollar increase with 350 billion of revenues. Of course, I don’t expect 100%, and I already said it’s not all of high income earners as iti s. Let’s say it’s just 20%. You would have an expansion of 368 billion in GDP with 70 billion in revenues. Let’s say it’s 10%, you still come out ahead with 35 billion in revenues (assuming equal revenues as a pct of gdp to Reagan, 17.5%) and 184 billion in GDP growth.
This income range has to be targeted to get families back in the work force.
Unemployment rate – 4.2%
Wages increased: 2.7% in 2013, 2.8% in 2014, 2.9% in 2015, 3% in 2016, 3.1% in 2017
6.17 million job openings as of September 2017
3.1% GDP growth in 2nd quarter of 2017 from 1.2% in the 1st quarter
I would cite my sources, but you would just try to discredit them.
Therefore, if you want to get educated, Google it!
October 9, 2017 at 9:41 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Good. UnE is per U3, not U6. Not a useful measure of UnE, other than for historical comparisons. But people continue to use it as if it were the most valid stat on UnE. I prefer to report BOTH U3 and U6 numbers.
Wage icrease percents are virtually flat, but trending up. I see no good explanation for the inertia, other than the inertia of govt influence. TrumPresident’s elimination of stifling regulations may help immensely, but we won’t know for a few more quarters.
GDP is far too seasonal for me to bother with quarterly numbers. I’ll seek rolling year numbers ending at quarters and return to comment if there is a reason to do so.
I like a few sources, incl bls.gov. Google is biased by their ‘super-secret’ AlGore-ithms.
October 9, 2017 at 12:53 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Unemployment rate – 4.2%”
Absolutely irrelevant if the LPR is decreasing while people who would otherwise get a job are dropping out of the workforce, and that simply is occurring. Stop using this number without context.
“Wages increased: 2.7% in 2013, 2.8% in 2014, 2.9% in 2015, 3% in 2016, 3.1% in 2017”
While I do not agree with this source on all metrics, as it cherry picked a few things itself, it does a good job of explaining the drop out workers in the force, and using a chart for it. It also goes over wages quite well. What do you notice for Obama? He did bad with wage growth compared to his predecessors compared to inflation. Worse than George W. Many of these metrics show better for George W and that is the scary part.
6.17 million job openings as of September 2017
“3.1% GDP growth in 2nd quarter of 2017 from 1.2% in the 1st quarter”
Selective numbers, selective reasoning, and, disregards the annual average. The numbers bump around a lot, and we have had quicker 2nd quarter growths before, or other spikes. Obama still averaged less than 2%. You really need to analyze what I said about the EIC and getting people into the work force. There are tax credits that would get more in the upper 10% back to work, and even if the government was at a negative, the GDP brought in would be enough to push it in the positive. This worked during the Clinton years.
“I would cite my sources, but you would just try to discredit them.”
That’s what you do. Not him.
“Therefore, if you want to get educated, Google it!”
He’s asking you to show you work. He is educated on the matter on this one, and somehow, you’re not, or, you’re being willfully ignorant to the GDP growth. That’s even worse.
October 9, 2017 at 1:15 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
@bob; you have far more patience and focus on these issues than I… but I should have at least discussed briefly the reason for including the U6 numbers…
OF course, employment participation pctgs are helpful, but can be misleading when not taken in context.
The blips due to the Nat Cats thru the Gulf area are going to be smoothes out over the next few months, hence, I look at rolling year averages ending on quarter end points to eliminate the volatility and unique events.
Thanks for the insights in your comment/ post.
October 10, 2017 at 4:15 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
2 pretend economists who have proven in the past they don’t understand basic statistics or even averages. Both science deniers who reject almost all mainstream economics and even basic economics. Hilarious.
October 9, 2017 at 1:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
So a note to add here:
If there are 6,000,000 unfilled jobs, it’s pretty clear who could fill these jobs.
I will again blow all your minds on some additional commentary.
Ok, so I’m going to do something here which Ron didn’t notice yet nor did UW, while calling me a horrible imbalanced gun toting republican (over exaggeration of course)
Did you all catch when I referenced the EIC to get mothers in the market and mentioned giving even a $5,000 credit to the $70,000 to $150,000 earners? I am implying something that may have been missed. This means I also think that daycare being basically free for these earners is not a big deal, provided you also give enough assistance to higher earners as well to get them to work, because they then add to the GDP. The businesses who need that earner will be taxed at the business rate. When they hire someone they typically have at least twice that person’s income in revenues from them, or, in larger corporations, more than that. This means say you spend $5,000 to get workers with a $30,000 income into the workforce, and that is a low number, you now have at least $60,000 of taxable income. Let’s say with that $5,000 credit, we now have the upper income earner which is staying home in that scenario get a full $5,000 benefit, so, the cost truly is $30 billion. The $30,000 gets payroll taxes and medicare taxes though. $4,035 to the government is in that area. Then, the $60,000 minimum income the business receives is taxed at even 15% business tax: $9,000 of revenues. Congratulations. By paying $5,000 per worker you just got $9,000.
Now, you might say, Bob, that won’t happen. I beg to differ. Look at the LPR rates for women! 61% when they have a child. 61% at prime working age along with part time share as women! It’s obviously because of daycare. When those people work they add to the economy. This is a form of spending on the lower income aspect that makes sense, and, a form of tax credit on the upper income echelon that makes sense. Getting that up by spending $10 billion, which is not a lot of money, is worth it. Let’s say that Ron’s 6 million jobs all need $5,000 to get back to work. That’s a $30 billion cost for 6 million full time jobs. How many jobs did we get from the $700 billion stimulus? Didn’t Obama say create or save 3 or 4 million? This is just bad targeting. I say that so democrats understand that some things work, some don’t, and just because I just said some spending can get the LRP up for women, this does not mean all.
Florida’s has been adding 20-30k jobs a month but started losing about 15K jobs a month from June-Aug, Texas has been losing jobs since March. The hurricane conntributed, but didn’t make up the majority of it. Nationally July was 1/2 as high as a year previous, Aug significantly lower and the new numbers even worse. Wages have been increasing modestly, at about the rate of GDP and about the same rate as the last 2 years. The economy has slowed down. I agree we are close to full employment but the lack of more wage growth and the number of people increasingly working multiple jobs has done making interesting arguments that we are still short.
October 6, 2017 at 2:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
“The worst hurricanes we have ever seen are at fault. Until you mention climate change causing more severe storms, then there were worse in our past.”
Here we go with you focusing more on an aha with hypocrisy about republicans than you do any common sense.
The worst hurricanes that have hit us in the last 100 years is not synonymous with worst storms the Earth has ever seen due to climate change, nor does it prove your global climate change theory. This is not hypocrisy, it’s you being a brat. Also, Trump specifically said that at least the storm wasn’t as bad as Katrina…So…You’re wrong that he said they were the worst? Are you just not paying attention? He was lambasted for this Ron!
Republicans are consistent, as much as any other political group. Instead of finding moral high ground and hypocrisy let’s focus on laws. All you are doing is talking trash. It’s time to mature. You’ve been debating with me on here easily 5 years. How have you not grown at all by now out of this type of debate style?
October 6, 2017 at 4:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
“Scram, idiot. The GOP tax plan massively increases the debt, so don’t cite it as proof of deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility.”
I didn’t cite the tax plan. I made my own numbers, and I also said that it remains to be seen if Trump’s plan could get these earners back into the workforce. Also, the EIC did do this.
“Oh wait, I forgot there’s an English major pushing the Laffer Curve and debunked economic theories on Breitbart you can cite so that’s “real data” and you’re right, plus you used to be a liberal so you MUST be so SMART.”
I have not referenced the Laffer curve, and, also, I did not source Briebart. Further, you just recently accused me of attacking sources rather than data, you didn’t discount my data or address it.
This is simply common sense and math. What do you dispute about my numbers? I will also reiterate if you keep up harassment instead of debate, I will indeed file that police report.
October 6, 2017 at 4:48 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
I’m glad to see with you back dislikes are going rampant again. I seem to have noticed some likes disappeared, which means insurance journal has noticed it, and it was definitely ones in favor of leftists. One of Ron’s posts that had 2 likes now has 0. I really do believe you have to do with that.
As for my numbers and getting parents and married families back into work:
It is clear this occurs, the only question is to what degree and how we have solved some of it in the past to get dual earning couples back to work with kids. You can’t tell me that it benefits me to have my wife go to work. It doesn’t, and currently the tax system is part of the why, and it is a double whammy with the spending for the lower income which was done to get them back in the workforce as well. This has created a moral hazard, in which, it makes sense to not get into higher income fields, in my state, beyond $104,000 combined income. There is a reason why specifically beyond this income women don’t go back to work if there is one earner, or, they have lower skill jobs, you don’t typically find one engineer and one accountant working, you find the accountant mother gets out of the work force. This has happened for some time. I’ve done the math for myself personally. This is why my mom stayed at home as well. This is why my aunt ended up staying at home as well, if you are involved in higher income families (which does indeed tend to be somewhat familial) you would see this consistent.
There is indeed a reason why it is not until a certain threshold that mothers return to work, and, if you look into it, why the $50,000-$60,000 earners area has gone up so much over time, in that we targeted getting these mothers back to work. In this sense, I believe that it made sense for democrats to push some of this spending. This is one area in which you would have to be a contradictory person to disagree with me, this is not an extreme position to have. Are you really so young to not remember the 90’s Clinton EIC argument? Well, I already knew you were younger than I am, and it’s too young for me too technically, however, I’m smart enough to have seen it get retriggered by the Bush W tax cuts and increasing of the child tax credit which I was old enough to see. They hit home on the results of the EIC, he even said it was clear the government took too much and it was time to give back.
It is the same concept: Even if the government pays for her to get back to work, and they pay more than they receive, she creates more GDP, and that does get taxed with either sales tax, property tax, corporate tax, or business tax, in the products she is involved in, while she contributes to the economy. It is the same concept. You insist on absolutist types of belief, while talking down to any other ideal based on who you perceive has a motive to benefit. This is the source of chaos. I don’t care who has a motive. I don’t care who is moral or not. I care about what works.
You have demeaned me for years, and it has caused me to get ticked at other liberals here, who then use that to justify treating me like crap. It’s not ok. I have given you chances, and am yet again. I do not have to debate with you kindly as I am now, but I do, out of respect of humanity. If you want to debate me, do so. With numbers. Stop mocking ideologies that you believe are tied to my numbers. They aren’t. My numbers stand or fall on their own.
October 8, 2017 at 7:49 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
@UW: some workers are migrating out of FL, and a few from TX. Did you consider that in your comment? So, jobs in one state migrate to OTHER states with higher demand, thus higher pay. Is that a bad thing for you? I suppose it is if you want to focus on ONE state and not the big picture.
October 9, 2017 at 12:58 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
UW:
Great come back. You’ve called me names without facts alongside them. You discredited my sources and called my theories insane.
When are you going to direct my facts? You can insult me while you do, that’s normal, but give me something to work with buddy.
And no, I won’t accept “this guy says this! Your concept is disproven!”. Why do you believe we cannot get more people in the workforce? Do you believe there are not people who have left the workforce willingly? Do you not believe that women are removed from the workforce due to children? Do you not realize the EIC was to get them back? Why would it work less if we expanded it past $60,000 to high skill earners? Do you only want low skill jobs to come back?
Give me logic, or give me death! Sorry, I’m clearly not serious I’m mocking myself and logic adherence.
Give me something.
October 10, 2017 at 4:19 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Polar, if true it would have shown up in the job numbers or will in the next months. Also as I’ve stated these states wouldn’t make the total jobs negative if the economy hadn’t slown down. Much of it will be because of the hurricane but there’s 1 reason and 1 reason only that you are writing every possible scenario to explain it away after doing exactly the opposite for exactly 8 years.
October 10, 2017 at 4:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“Bob. Never, because I already have and got deny them,”
This is the first time I’ve used these numbers. You have not denied them or disproved them.
“scream “just the math” on why theory, post incorrect numbers off by thousands of percent”
Nope. You keep referencing that, and it was not off by thousands of percent, it was a typo when I moved the numbers. The math behind that typo, was 1000% correct.
“and say math doesn’t matter and then freak out when someone points out the data you cite shows the opposite of what you claim.”
This is incorrect and I never do this.
“I don’t just call you a total joke, that is a disgrace to thinking people who actually study this and work in it for no reason, I dismiss your sheet experiencing your unhinged nonsense for years.”
Oh knock it off, I have nothing to say to this. It is literally lunacy.
“You aren’t honest, competent or capable of looking at this”
Which you think of all conservatives or differing viewpoints. Ergo your issue.
“Your dismiss studies on the entire literature of subject matters without looking into it.”
Name one I have dismissed? I go off of numbers. Your climate change? I’m sorry, I don’t believe because you have studies you say prove your point. You recently said I go into source wars and don’t use data, yet here you are saying a valid argument is made by sources, not data. By your own words, you are doing what you said I do, and here I am with numbers, what just last week you said I never do, and you’re doing what you say I did, last week. You are literally insane, or you sow chaos intentionally.
“You are nothing but a Pseudo-intellectual, partisan hack.”
I take that as a compliment, in the first point, and you don’t know what the second point means. I just referenced the EIC and credited the democrats getting the poor back to work.
Would this be a partisan republican hack comment? You call me a pseudo intellectual because you cannot possibly say that I lack intelligence, so you try to call it fake. I am in fact smart. Debate me. Stop the lunacy.
What is wrong in my present numbers?
October 11, 2017 at 9:27 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Nope Bob, I, and others showed that a typo was not the case there and in other threads. Again back to the lack of knowledge/ability, inability to admit it when you are wrong and pathological lying. But as always Lord Bob has decreed it so it’s Truth.
October 11, 2017 at 12:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“Nope Bob, I, and others showed that a typo was not the case there and in other threads. Again back to the lack of knowledge/ability, inability to admit it when you are wrong and pathological lying. But as always Lord Bob has decreed it so it’s Truth.”
You are talking about when I mentioned the percentage of income left over within corporations, and I was not off in the math by thousands of percent. Go ahead and link what I said. I do not have an inability to say when I’m wrong, I’ve done it. You haven’t.
Here is where we talked about conviction and colleges.
Here is an article that goes over how colleges find people guilty or not, and that it is government regulation which handles this. ACTU and you accused me of not knowing how colleges worked when I brought this up. You have not since admitted you were wrong. Do you really want to play games with me? I am far better on memory than you obviously, and far better in debate. Stop bringing up your random assessments of debates from almost half a year ago when we debate in present day, to say that I don’t know how to use numbers and that you don’t have to debate or disprove my numbers! No matter what way you cut the cake, this is immoral UW and tyrannical! It’s also a weakness and is why you don’t grow, whereas I do. I have now taken three items to show you that you are incorrect regarding it, I don’t have time for this. Stop being a jerk, get on point!
Hey, how’s your favorite indicator, LPR doing these days? Oh yeah, same as when President Trump took office and equal to or lower than 71 of the 96 months President Obama was in office.
Fake News!!!
Rabbit hole!!
Straw Man!!
Libbiterals!!
MAGA!!
Give me the list of names with their great-great-grandmother’s maiden names to prove a new point that has nothing to do with what you said…READY STEADY GO!
Agent is obviously talking annual GDP. A temporary spike is nothing to sell home about.
“Hey, how’s your favorite indicator, LPR doing these days? Oh yeah, same as when President Trump took office and equal to or lower than 71 of the 96 months President Obama was in office.”
What bills have the democrats allowed Trump to have? What has he passed? Generally, we wait longer than that to determine the affect.
“Or is that no longer a relevant statistic?”
Oh it is, but I would say it’s fair to wait until Trump’s policies are actually put into affect.
I mean, really, did he say the president had not hit a 3% growth in 96 months or 8 years?
This was willful on your part, or, it just shows how indoctrinated you are. By the way, I know who told you what you just said. They were hammering it home recently defending Obama on the 3% just like you did.
Liberals go to aid and defend Obama at all ends, as do you, yet you have been complaining that Trump gets any support early in his presidency. This is the hypocrisy. Not republicans pointing out what Trump does that they like, and ignoring over exaggeration from the left, which is clearly occurring.
“Thank you for admitting you were wrong claiming “Agent is obviously talking about annual GDP”
-Your immoral, a-hole, bratty poster”
Leave it to the brat to make a brat comment. Thank you, and then snark at the end.
Stop mocking my life choices etc and trying to emphasize my character aspects of debate to draw patterns, and I won’t rail on you so much.
That is why I had an issue with your comment to Polar as it is.
Would you go to your wife and bring up all the names she called you before when she said something in present day she legitimately thought was wrong, and then disregard her as a human as you did polar?
NO.
And you darn well know it, a-hole. You’re being a jerk. Admit it, move on. I do myself. You don’t. You seem to think you’re very special. Work on it.
“Stick to using US Govt websites if you want to be taken seriously about GDP,”
FAKE NEWS!!!! RABBIT HOLE!!! STRAW MAN!!!
Ron’s link used data from BEA. The BEA is the Bureau of Economic Analysis
“The BEA is part of U.S. federal government’s Department of Commerce that is responsible for the analysis and reporting of economic data used to confirm and predict economic trends and business cycles. Reports from the Bureau of Economic Analysis are the foundation upon which many economic policy decisions are made by government”
I also recall a lot of complaining from the right about EOs and “I have a phone and a pen”. Amazing how things change when it is “your guy” in the White House.
Nope. No complaints from me on a DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT type of EO.
I would and did complain about EOs from BHO that TOOK AWAY LIBERTIES from US citizens, or GRANTED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES to Illegal Alien Trespassers.
The planned/ proposed ‘relief’ from the ACA’s most liberty-punitive provisions is a welcome EO for me and most US citizens.
MAIWCA – Make America Insured With Choices, Again.
NOTHING in this article was presented that conclusively shows any rollback completed, in progress, or planned, has or will certainly affect workers adversely. The Obama Administration was playing ‘sheriff’ by enacting all of the prohibitive, punitive regulations that cannot be proven to help workers, but are certainly an impedement to industries that liberals dislike.
Beryllium exposure has NOT been proven to certainly cause cancer. The article makes it clear that conclusive evidence does NOT exist to substantial that claim by the O Administration and others.
The coal industry is MUCH safer than in distant, prior years used by Progressives / Liberals / Socialists / Anti-Capitalists to denounce the industry as highly dangerous to our health and the environment.
Regulations enacted by the Obama Administration in the last few WEEKS of his term in office beg the question: “if they are SOOOO important, why did they wait until the 11 o’clock hour?” The answer is simple; they are harmful and would have been discovered sooner, with public and political pressure imposed to roll them back while Obama was in office. That would have been embarrassing to Obama; i.e. Republican controlled Congress would subpoena members of his Administration to testify as to the intentions and means of the rules.
Further, the article includes a comment to the effect that regulations rolled back to date are largely those that make it easier to do business or to complete regulatory paperwork.
A comprehensive list of thses regulations will be published in November, so I’ll withhold complete judgment until then. However, no one has presented any credible, conclusive evidence that the roll backs are harmful. Industry representatives and political commentators have said that the rollbacks will, largely, be helpful and may lead to increased productivity and job creation. HOORAY! MAGA, one de-regulation act at a time.
Polar, two good ones that your opponents do not like judging from the dislikes because it goes against their agenda to control America and regulate it to death. By the way, I have not seen an Ozone action day due to pollution in quite some time. Another thing that seems to bother them is the Global Cooling going on and the prediction we will have a colder than usual winter. Seems like the Global Warming guys have some answering to do.
Okay class,
Who here can define the word ‘global’? Also, please define ‘climate’. We have a classmate who may be confused about what global climate change actually means. Pro-tip, it’s not just weather or a season in our own backyard.
While you’re at it Professor, could you also explain how man not only caused the hole in the ozone layer but also caused it to shrink by curtailing dangerous activities, or should we just believe there was no hole ever and it was all a giant scam so Al Gore could make money?
Sure thing Agent! I will gladly attempt to explain that if you can show some basic competency by replying with the literal or colloquial definitions of GLOBAL and CLIMATE (literal OR colloquial because they’re the same thing). No sarcasm
Agent wrote, “It is all a hoax on the American people.”
Again, Agent, please define ‘global’. Pro-tip – bigger than America.
I’m not sure how the Ozone Hole was created. But I do know how rabbit holes are created on IJ comment boards.
You know what’s over-rated? Clean air, clean water, worker, and public safety. Who needs them? C’mon, let’s go shoot some paper towels and minimalize people’s suffering.
Hyperbole is over-rated. VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY over-rated.
Polar, the main effect of regulatory roll back is sending the Progressives into a frenzy and them screaming it just isn’t “fair”. Too bad, so sad.
Wrong. Another Straw Man Argument, and a rabbit hole.
I’ll pay taxes for NECESSARY govt services; e.g. police, schools, mil, roads, bridges, but not for bloated govt bureaucracies that DON’T produce anything or serve anyone.
I’m OK with NECESSARY SERVICES such a security (police, Federal law enforcement agencies, military) and education (local only), but NOT Planned Abortion-to-avoid-Parenthood, NPR, etc.
stick to the topic.
Ok, then here we go.
What has become more extreme is definitely democrats.
You argue we should do gun control because of gun deaths, but you’re not really specific on it, other than mental health checks and a loophole which both parties have agreed needs to go, but one party won’t let it go without tying the mental health with it.
So, we should institute gun control due to gun violence, because it would save lives.
Are you ready for me to blow your mind?
As I researched gun control, a factor they consider in the more credible studies is how much alcoholism affects violence and gun violence in countries.
We once had prohibition. Do you perceive it was right to allow people to drink?
Do you perceive we need more drinking regulations? Should there be a mental health check before drinking?
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe the government should be in the business of saying who is mentally fit? Let’s be clear, gender dysphoria is certainly a disease, for example, people with Autism tend to be more violent, but it’s not due to autism for example:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201705/the-link-between-autism-and-violence-isn-t-autism
Should we extend background checks to race? Why? Why not versus mental conditions? Black folks in Chicago are significantly more likely to shoot people, or the better comparison, they are significantly more likely to be victims of not having fathers, and domestic violence, which would manifest with your association aspect as well that you suggested. Where do we cut that off? Should black children without fathers who were abused and demonstrated signs of depression (with most men this looks like rage) be flagged for not owning a gun? These same people are very likely in those cities to be a victim of the same crime. Do you not think these controls will affect them disproportionately? Will it be effective in disarming psychos at the cost of personal freedoms? Should gay folks who are flagged for too much drinking be put on a list to not own a gun? They are more likely to drink, but it has to do less with violence than depression. Gay people also are targeted for violent crime. Would we not be disarming a vulnerable section of society?
How would your bill work? How many gun deaths would it stop by doing mental health checks?
Why can we not flag someone who takes 6 drinks too many or gets into a fight for losing the right to drink alcohol?
Violence rates are immeasurably high there. In Russia, as an example, when Alcoholism got out of control their violence rates went through the roof. If you can justify your argument for a gun, it would apply just as well for drinking.
As I said, we’re going back to poor decisions made prior 1960’s, and I don’t want that.
And that, Doug, is what I don’t see your side do, neither the individuals nor the politicians.
Go ahead, get triggered and dislike my posts as per usual.
But I’m the only one here just about who makes this well of rational commentary with the right questions.
While you just claim the people like me are not for private freedoms, don’t care about people dying and reasonable gun control, and are just against all rights.
This confirms one of the 2 central tenets of Conservatism: not wanting to pay taxes, and being against liberals as a group.
The central philosophy of Conservatism is anti-big govt and freedom from govt oppression; e.g. censorship, arms to protect against govt tyranny, attackers, etc.
Those who do not understand Conservatism should not try to define it.
If that were true, then they would not be trying to use the government to stop; 2 consenting adults from entering the exact same contract as 2 other consenting adults, adults from consuming a plant, people from making decisions on what is best for their own bodies, people from utilizing legal technologies in what ever way they want safely, people from expressing themselves and protesting in a peaceful manner, etc…
“If that were true, then they would not be trying to use the government to stop; 2 consenting adults from entering the exact same contract as 2 other consenting adults,”
This is not the position of the right on this, also, Obama himself said he changed his mind mid presidency, so you’re not thinking at all right. The majority of the left has actually been anti gay marriage in the classic sense: Being against two consenting adults getting married. Republicans have been anti getting the government into ratifying a marriage through the government as the same as a heterosexual marriage and porting over laws. In no way should this occur. This is why republicans have been pro civil unions I might add.
“adults from consuming a plant,”
Democrats are also largely against this, for one, and for two, can we murder people? Why not? You will find if you watch Gowdy or debates about pot that republicans have actually during debate said while they do not think that pot is safe to the public, they are ticked off that it was classified as a level 1 drug, as opposed to pain killers which are causing the opioid crises being a level 2. To some degree the government has to make laws, and it is not encroaching to prohibit drugs, to the affect they are a danger to society. I will ask you: Should LSD be legal? Why? Why not?
“people from making decisions on what is best for their own bodies,”
It never was about their body, it’s about the baby, and here you are willing to contradict your religion for an idealistic phrase. Your weakness I might add.
“people from utilizing legal technologies in what ever way they want safely,”
Clarification needed.
“people from expressing themselves and protesting in a peaceful manner, etc”
Nope. Example needed. Protesting in a minor point is never productive. College debate is. Waiving a sign isn’t. Skipping out of work isn’t (I’m not saying all, but some protests involve this specifically). If you mean to say speaking out against breaking up rallies, breaking up a rally for the sake of breaking it up, is not protest or free speech, and in fact is an attempt to shut down someone else’s free speech. While you talk about this, the left is actively engaged in shutting down speakers they don’t like coming to campus, something a public school may not do when a student invites a speaker. I can give more examples. You are indoctrinated to no end over cliché phrases and lines.
You hear only what you want to hear from the right.
However, no one has presented any credible, conclusive evidence that the roll backs are helpful with regard to public safety and would lead to actual job creation. SAD! Oh have a good time!
However, no time has elapsed. SAD! Oh, have a bad time!
Well net job creation was negative (33,000 lost jobs) for the first time since 2010 last month. This was partly due to the hurricanes, but even without that would have been bad.
We are currently, and have been, at near full employment, wages finally started increasing the second half of 2016, there are over 6 million unfilled jobs, GDP is picking up; yet President Trump and the Republicans want to plunge us deeper in debt to make something happen that is already happening.
Where are the fiscal Conservatives?
“We are currently, and have been, at near full employment,”
No we aren’t, and no we haven’t been. The LPR is down, and it is not due to solely retirees and college kids. It is because less of the labor force is working. As of right now my wife and I would have $22,000 more in costs with her working vs a $22,000 income. The upper 10% often remove one earner from the economy. We are not at full employment, and this upper 10% is definitely in the scenario with one worker not working.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/09/11/sorry-obama-fans-reagan-did-better-on-jobs-and-growth/#9f681a655e19
During Obama’s presidency older workers stayed in the workforce at explosive rates, so they couldn’t be the reason for the LPR being stagnant.
“wages finally started increasing the second half of 2016,”
Key words “finally”. So after a good long while of not or in other words a good long while of bad performance which you refuse to blame Obama for and openly say he was bad. So we are only just now moving toward what could be a economic expansion to keep up with population growth, which we haven’t prior, whereas Reagan’s jobs increased more than population growth. This didn’t happen with Obama. Obama has not done well economically.
“there are over 6 million unfilled jobs,”
If true this is not a good thing.
“GDP is picking up; yet President Trump and the Republicans want to plunge us deeper in debt to make something happen that is already happening.”
It’s still historically below average, and nothing can change that most Obama’s year’s were in the 1% range, with I believe he averaged under 2%.
“Where are the fiscal Conservatives?”
They’ve been trying to pass tax policy and then you claim they don’t care about deficits.
They have been trying to repeal Obamacare then you say they want the poor to die.
You’ve created a no win scenario.
An easy way to get 2,000,000 people working again would be to offer tax credits of about $5,000 to working families in the income range of $70,000 – $150,000 total income. I’ve numerous times said why.
As said above, it would be a net cost of $22,000 to have my wife work out of an income of $22,000. This is not an exaggeration, and that is with half off daycare.
The vast majority of high income earners have one stay home earner. This would be the biggest part of why women earn 76 cents to the dollar, they are more likely to stay at home. This is why the EIC back in the 90’s increased the labor force in the income range they pushed it. It all adds up.
If you gave $5,000 of credit to 2,000,000 workers, to get their partner back in the work force it would cost $10 billion a year, and assuming equal GDP return of 10% since you’re adding 10% of the working class, you would have a 1.84 trillion dollar increase with 350 billion of revenues. Of course, I don’t expect 100%, and I already said it’s not all of high income earners as iti s. Let’s say it’s just 20%. You would have an expansion of 368 billion in GDP with 70 billion in revenues. Let’s say it’s 10%, you still come out ahead with 35 billion in revenues (assuming equal revenues as a pct of gdp to Reagan, 17.5%) and 184 billion in GDP growth.
This income range has to be targeted to get families back in the work force.
@Ron; please state the NUMBERS you used for your claims. I’ll wait. READY, STEADY, … GO!
Unemployment rate – 4.2%
Wages increased: 2.7% in 2013, 2.8% in 2014, 2.9% in 2015, 3% in 2016, 3.1% in 2017
6.17 million job openings as of September 2017
3.1% GDP growth in 2nd quarter of 2017 from 1.2% in the 1st quarter
I would cite my sources, but you would just try to discredit them.
Therefore, if you want to get educated, Google it!
Good. UnE is per U3, not U6. Not a useful measure of UnE, other than for historical comparisons. But people continue to use it as if it were the most valid stat on UnE. I prefer to report BOTH U3 and U6 numbers.
Wage icrease percents are virtually flat, but trending up. I see no good explanation for the inertia, other than the inertia of govt influence. TrumPresident’s elimination of stifling regulations may help immensely, but we won’t know for a few more quarters.
GDP is far too seasonal for me to bother with quarterly numbers. I’ll seek rolling year numbers ending at quarters and return to comment if there is a reason to do so.
I like a few sources, incl bls.gov. Google is biased by their ‘super-secret’ AlGore-ithms.
“Unemployment rate – 4.2%”
Absolutely irrelevant if the LPR is decreasing while people who would otherwise get a job are dropping out of the workforce, and that simply is occurring. Stop using this number without context.
“Wages increased: 2.7% in 2013, 2.8% in 2014, 2.9% in 2015, 3% in 2016, 3.1% in 2017”
ht tps://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/grading-the-obama-economy-by-the-numbers.html
While I do not agree with this source on all metrics, as it cherry picked a few things itself, it does a good job of explaining the drop out workers in the force, and using a chart for it. It also goes over wages quite well. What do you notice for Obama? He did bad with wage growth compared to his predecessors compared to inflation. Worse than George W. Many of these metrics show better for George W and that is the scary part.
6.17 million job openings as of September 2017
“3.1% GDP growth in 2nd quarter of 2017 from 1.2% in the 1st quarter”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/business/gdp-growth-in-2nd-quarter-is-revised-up-to-3-9.html?_r=0
Selective numbers, selective reasoning, and, disregards the annual average. The numbers bump around a lot, and we have had quicker 2nd quarter growths before, or other spikes. Obama still averaged less than 2%. You really need to analyze what I said about the EIC and getting people into the work force. There are tax credits that would get more in the upper 10% back to work, and even if the government was at a negative, the GDP brought in would be enough to push it in the positive. This worked during the Clinton years.
“I would cite my sources, but you would just try to discredit them.”
That’s what you do. Not him.
“Therefore, if you want to get educated, Google it!”
He’s asking you to show you work. He is educated on the matter on this one, and somehow, you’re not, or, you’re being willfully ignorant to the GDP growth. That’s even worse.
@bob; you have far more patience and focus on these issues than I… but I should have at least discussed briefly the reason for including the U6 numbers…
OF course, employment participation pctgs are helpful, but can be misleading when not taken in context.
The blips due to the Nat Cats thru the Gulf area are going to be smoothes out over the next few months, hence, I look at rolling year averages ending on quarter end points to eliminate the volatility and unique events.
Thanks for the insights in your comment/ post.
2 pretend economists who have proven in the past they don’t understand basic statistics or even averages. Both science deniers who reject almost all mainstream economics and even basic economics. Hilarious.
So a note to add here:
If there are 6,000,000 unfilled jobs, it’s pretty clear who could fill these jobs.
I will again blow all your minds on some additional commentary.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2016/03/28/forget-the-gender-pay-gap-look-at-the-gender-labor-force-participation-gap/#44c6c0c647b4
Ok, so I’m going to do something here which Ron didn’t notice yet nor did UW, while calling me a horrible imbalanced gun toting republican (over exaggeration of course)
Did you all catch when I referenced the EIC to get mothers in the market and mentioned giving even a $5,000 credit to the $70,000 to $150,000 earners? I am implying something that may have been missed. This means I also think that daycare being basically free for these earners is not a big deal, provided you also give enough assistance to higher earners as well to get them to work, because they then add to the GDP. The businesses who need that earner will be taxed at the business rate. When they hire someone they typically have at least twice that person’s income in revenues from them, or, in larger corporations, more than that. This means say you spend $5,000 to get workers with a $30,000 income into the workforce, and that is a low number, you now have at least $60,000 of taxable income. Let’s say with that $5,000 credit, we now have the upper income earner which is staying home in that scenario get a full $5,000 benefit, so, the cost truly is $30 billion. The $30,000 gets payroll taxes and medicare taxes though. $4,035 to the government is in that area. Then, the $60,000 minimum income the business receives is taxed at even 15% business tax: $9,000 of revenues. Congratulations. By paying $5,000 per worker you just got $9,000.
Now, you might say, Bob, that won’t happen. I beg to differ. Look at the LPR rates for women! 61% when they have a child. 61% at prime working age along with part time share as women! It’s obviously because of daycare. When those people work they add to the economy. This is a form of spending on the lower income aspect that makes sense, and, a form of tax credit on the upper income echelon that makes sense. Getting that up by spending $10 billion, which is not a lot of money, is worth it. Let’s say that Ron’s 6 million jobs all need $5,000 to get back to work. That’s a $30 billion cost for 6 million full time jobs. How many jobs did we get from the $700 billion stimulus? Didn’t Obama say create or save 3 or 4 million? This is just bad targeting. I say that so democrats understand that some things work, some don’t, and just because I just said some spending can get the LRP up for women, this does not mean all.
This would work. We need to do it.
Those 33,000 jobs will somehow be the black guy’s fault. Faux Newz will generate the spin.
The worst hurricanes we have ever seen are at fault. Until you mention climate change causing more severe storms, then there were worse in our past.
Florida’s has been adding 20-30k jobs a month but started losing about 15K jobs a month from June-Aug, Texas has been losing jobs since March. The hurricane conntributed, but didn’t make up the majority of it. Nationally July was 1/2 as high as a year previous, Aug significantly lower and the new numbers even worse. Wages have been increasing modestly, at about the rate of GDP and about the same rate as the last 2 years. The economy has slowed down. I agree we are close to full employment but the lack of more wage growth and the number of people increasingly working multiple jobs has done making interesting arguments that we are still short.
“The worst hurricanes we have ever seen are at fault. Until you mention climate change causing more severe storms, then there were worse in our past.”
Here we go with you focusing more on an aha with hypocrisy about republicans than you do any common sense.
The worst hurricanes that have hit us in the last 100 years is not synonymous with worst storms the Earth has ever seen due to climate change, nor does it prove your global climate change theory. This is not hypocrisy, it’s you being a brat. Also, Trump specifically said that at least the storm wasn’t as bad as Katrina…So…You’re wrong that he said they were the worst? Are you just not paying attention? He was lambasted for this Ron!
Republicans are consistent, as much as any other political group. Instead of finding moral high ground and hypocrisy let’s focus on laws. All you are doing is talking trash. It’s time to mature. You’ve been debating with me on here easily 5 years. How have you not grown at all by now out of this type of debate style?
“Scram, idiot. The GOP tax plan massively increases the debt, so don’t cite it as proof of deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility.”
I didn’t cite the tax plan. I made my own numbers, and I also said that it remains to be seen if Trump’s plan could get these earners back into the workforce. Also, the EIC did do this.
“Oh wait, I forgot there’s an English major pushing the Laffer Curve and debunked economic theories on Breitbart you can cite so that’s “real data” and you’re right, plus you used to be a liberal so you MUST be so SMART.”
I have not referenced the Laffer curve, and, also, I did not source Briebart. Further, you just recently accused me of attacking sources rather than data, you didn’t discount my data or address it.
This is simply common sense and math. What do you dispute about my numbers? I will also reiterate if you keep up harassment instead of debate, I will indeed file that police report.
I’m glad to see with you back dislikes are going rampant again. I seem to have noticed some likes disappeared, which means insurance journal has noticed it, and it was definitely ones in favor of leftists. One of Ron’s posts that had 2 likes now has 0. I really do believe you have to do with that.
As for my numbers and getting parents and married families back into work:
It is clear this occurs, the only question is to what degree and how we have solved some of it in the past to get dual earning couples back to work with kids. You can’t tell me that it benefits me to have my wife go to work. It doesn’t, and currently the tax system is part of the why, and it is a double whammy with the spending for the lower income which was done to get them back in the workforce as well. This has created a moral hazard, in which, it makes sense to not get into higher income fields, in my state, beyond $104,000 combined income. There is a reason why specifically beyond this income women don’t go back to work if there is one earner, or, they have lower skill jobs, you don’t typically find one engineer and one accountant working, you find the accountant mother gets out of the work force. This has happened for some time. I’ve done the math for myself personally. This is why my mom stayed at home as well. This is why my aunt ended up staying at home as well, if you are involved in higher income families (which does indeed tend to be somewhat familial) you would see this consistent.
There is indeed a reason why it is not until a certain threshold that mothers return to work, and, if you look into it, why the $50,000-$60,000 earners area has gone up so much over time, in that we targeted getting these mothers back to work. In this sense, I believe that it made sense for democrats to push some of this spending. This is one area in which you would have to be a contradictory person to disagree with me, this is not an extreme position to have. Are you really so young to not remember the 90’s Clinton EIC argument? Well, I already knew you were younger than I am, and it’s too young for me too technically, however, I’m smart enough to have seen it get retriggered by the Bush W tax cuts and increasing of the child tax credit which I was old enough to see. They hit home on the results of the EIC, he even said it was clear the government took too much and it was time to give back.
It is the same concept: Even if the government pays for her to get back to work, and they pay more than they receive, she creates more GDP, and that does get taxed with either sales tax, property tax, corporate tax, or business tax, in the products she is involved in, while she contributes to the economy. It is the same concept. You insist on absolutist types of belief, while talking down to any other ideal based on who you perceive has a motive to benefit. This is the source of chaos. I don’t care who has a motive. I don’t care who is moral or not. I care about what works.
You have demeaned me for years, and it has caused me to get ticked at other liberals here, who then use that to justify treating me like crap. It’s not ok. I have given you chances, and am yet again. I do not have to debate with you kindly as I am now, but I do, out of respect of humanity. If you want to debate me, do so. With numbers. Stop mocking ideologies that you believe are tied to my numbers. They aren’t. My numbers stand or fall on their own.
@UW: some workers are migrating out of FL, and a few from TX. Did you consider that in your comment? So, jobs in one state migrate to OTHER states with higher demand, thus higher pay. Is that a bad thing for you? I suppose it is if you want to focus on ONE state and not the big picture.
UW:
Great come back. You’ve called me names without facts alongside them. You discredited my sources and called my theories insane.
When are you going to direct my facts? You can insult me while you do, that’s normal, but give me something to work with buddy.
And no, I won’t accept “this guy says this! Your concept is disproven!”. Why do you believe we cannot get more people in the workforce? Do you believe there are not people who have left the workforce willingly? Do you not believe that women are removed from the workforce due to children? Do you not realize the EIC was to get them back? Why would it work less if we expanded it past $60,000 to high skill earners? Do you only want low skill jobs to come back?
Give me logic, or give me death! Sorry, I’m clearly not serious I’m mocking myself and logic adherence.
Give me something.
Polar, if true it would have shown up in the job numbers or will in the next months. Also as I’ve stated these states wouldn’t make the total jobs negative if the economy hadn’t slown down. Much of it will be because of the hurricane but there’s 1 reason and 1 reason only that you are writing every possible scenario to explain it away after doing exactly the opposite for exactly 8 years.
“Bob. Never, because I already have and got deny them,”
This is the first time I’ve used these numbers. You have not denied them or disproved them.
“scream “just the math” on why theory, post incorrect numbers off by thousands of percent”
Nope. You keep referencing that, and it was not off by thousands of percent, it was a typo when I moved the numbers. The math behind that typo, was 1000% correct.
“and say math doesn’t matter and then freak out when someone points out the data you cite shows the opposite of what you claim.”
This is incorrect and I never do this.
“I don’t just call you a total joke, that is a disgrace to thinking people who actually study this and work in it for no reason, I dismiss your sheet experiencing your unhinged nonsense for years.”
Oh knock it off, I have nothing to say to this. It is literally lunacy.
“You aren’t honest, competent or capable of looking at this”
Which you think of all conservatives or differing viewpoints. Ergo your issue.
“Your dismiss studies on the entire literature of subject matters without looking into it.”
Name one I have dismissed? I go off of numbers. Your climate change? I’m sorry, I don’t believe because you have studies you say prove your point. You recently said I go into source wars and don’t use data, yet here you are saying a valid argument is made by sources, not data. By your own words, you are doing what you said I do, and here I am with numbers, what just last week you said I never do, and you’re doing what you say I did, last week. You are literally insane, or you sow chaos intentionally.
“You are nothing but a Pseudo-intellectual, partisan hack.”
I take that as a compliment, in the first point, and you don’t know what the second point means. I just referenced the EIC and credited the democrats getting the poor back to work.
Would this be a partisan republican hack comment? You call me a pseudo intellectual because you cannot possibly say that I lack intelligence, so you try to call it fake. I am in fact smart. Debate me. Stop the lunacy.
What is wrong in my present numbers?
Nope Bob, I, and others showed that a typo was not the case there and in other threads. Again back to the lack of knowledge/ability, inability to admit it when you are wrong and pathological lying. But as always Lord Bob has decreed it so it’s Truth.
“Nope Bob, I, and others showed that a typo was not the case there and in other threads. Again back to the lack of knowledge/ability, inability to admit it when you are wrong and pathological lying. But as always Lord Bob has decreed it so it’s Truth.”
You are talking about when I mentioned the percentage of income left over within corporations, and I was not off in the math by thousands of percent. Go ahead and link what I said. I do not have an inability to say when I’m wrong, I’ve done it. You haven’t.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/10/11/428933.htm/?comments
Here is where we talked about conviction and colleges.
Here is an article that goes over how colleges find people guilty or not, and that it is government regulation which handles this. ACTU and you accused me of not knowing how colleges worked when I brought this up. You have not since admitted you were wrong. Do you really want to play games with me? I am far better on memory than you obviously, and far better in debate. Stop bringing up your random assessments of debates from almost half a year ago when we debate in present day, to say that I don’t know how to use numbers and that you don’t have to debate or disprove my numbers! No matter what way you cut the cake, this is immoral UW and tyrannical! It’s also a weakness and is why you don’t grow, whereas I do. I have now taken three items to show you that you are incorrect regarding it, I don’t have time for this. Stop being a jerk, get on point!
htt ps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/09/27/lawyer-why-the-lower-standard-of-evidence-in-college-sexual-assault-cases-is-dangerous/?utm_term=.36c67ee191ae
33,000 lost jobs will be adjusted next month WHEN THE DATA ENTRY DELAY ends. Data I/P is the key reason for fewer jobs.
Try bls.gov for helpful insights next time. You’re welcome!
http://www.bls.gov
@Capt P: Hooray! Fed Govt jobs are down! MAGA; drain the Federal Swamp!
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/federal-government-jobs-down-13000-year
Nope. They’re ‘fake news’ because the reports are preliminary and subject to revision when the complete dataset is I/P into bls.gov
“The former POTUS had 8 years to turn the economy around and never approached a 3% growth in GDP.”
False
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Hey, how’s your favorite indicator, LPR doing these days? Oh yeah, same as when President Trump took office and equal to or lower than 71 of the 96 months President Obama was in office.
Or is that no longer a relevant statistic?
Let me just put this Agent & Polar reply here:
Fake News!!!
Rabbit hole!!
Straw Man!!
Libbiterals!!
MAGA!!
Give me the list of names with their great-great-grandmother’s maiden names to prove a new point that has nothing to do with what you said…READY STEADY GO!
That last sentence. I have tears in my eyes. Thank you!
Pretty sure that’s 10 words
““The former POTUS had 8 years to turn the economy around and never approached a 3% growth in GDP.”
False”
True.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-27/barack-obama-now-only-president-history-never-have-year-3-gdp-growth
Agent is obviously talking annual GDP. A temporary spike is nothing to sell home about.
“Hey, how’s your favorite indicator, LPR doing these days? Oh yeah, same as when President Trump took office and equal to or lower than 71 of the 96 months President Obama was in office.”
What bills have the democrats allowed Trump to have? What has he passed? Generally, we wait longer than that to determine the affect.
“Or is that no longer a relevant statistic?”
Oh it is, but I would say it’s fair to wait until Trump’s policies are actually put into affect.
I mean, really, did he say the president had not hit a 3% growth in 96 months or 8 years?
This was willful on your part, or, it just shows how indoctrinated you are. By the way, I know who told you what you just said. They were hammering it home recently defending Obama on the 3% just like you did.
Liberals go to aid and defend Obama at all ends, as do you, yet you have been complaining that Trump gets any support early in his presidency. This is the hypocrisy. Not republicans pointing out what Trump does that they like, and ignoring over exaggeration from the left, which is clearly occurring.
Agent: “Our new President just hit it after 9 months in office”
Bob: “Agent is obviously talking annual GDP”
Dude. Seriously? That’s actually part of your defense? Come on.
9 months is obviously not the same as annual.
Agent said 9 months, he didn’t say annual.
If Trump’s GDP growth is >3% in 9 months, it’s equitable to reference Obama’s GDP growth over a similar time period.
If Agent was “obviously” talking about annual GDP growth, he should not have posted about it until Trump’s numbers came out in Jan 2018.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong claiming “Agent is obviously talking about annual GDP”
-Your immoral, a-hole, bratty poster
Disclaimer: I did not request bob’s reply calling me an immoral bratty a-hole be removed from this site.
“Thank you for admitting you were wrong claiming “Agent is obviously talking about annual GDP”
-Your immoral, a-hole, bratty poster”
Leave it to the brat to make a brat comment. Thank you, and then snark at the end.
Stop mocking my life choices etc and trying to emphasize my character aspects of debate to draw patterns, and I won’t rail on you so much.
That is why I had an issue with your comment to Polar as it is.
Would you go to your wife and bring up all the names she called you before when she said something in present day she legitimately thought was wrong, and then disregard her as a human as you did polar?
NO.
And you darn well know it, a-hole. You’re being a jerk. Admit it, move on. I do myself. You don’t. You seem to think you’re very special. Work on it.
Stick to using US Govt websites if you want to be taken seriously about GDP, other econ indices.
IIRC, GDP for ONE quarter out of 32 quarters of Obama’s terms in office was over 3%. ONE.. … out of 32.
So, THAT disproves Agent’s statement. You sure showed him, didn’t you?
“Stick to using US Govt websites if you want to be taken seriously about GDP,”
FAKE NEWS!!!! RABBIT HOLE!!! STRAW MAN!!!
Ron’s link used data from BEA. The BEA is the Bureau of Economic Analysis
“The BEA is part of U.S. federal government’s Department of Commerce that is responsible for the analysis and reporting of economic data used to confirm and predict economic trends and business cycles. Reports from the Bureau of Economic Analysis are the foundation upon which many economic policy decisions are made by government”
Read more: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bea.asp#ixzz4ufE5ZyFg
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
Trump’s rollbacks are more effective than those at the mega-size dept store chain…
for those who say nothing has been done/ will be done re: ACA;
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-sign-order-to-expand-health-insurance-options-for-self-insured-1507410483
“Executive action expected next week would roll back some Obamacare requirements…”
If Congress won’t act, TrumPresident has a phone and a pen. Where did I hear that phrase before?
I also recall a lot of complaining from the right about EOs and “I have a phone and a pen”. Amazing how things change when it is “your guy” in the White House.
Nope. No complaints from me on a DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT type of EO.
I would and did complain about EOs from BHO that TOOK AWAY LIBERTIES from US citizens, or GRANTED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES to Illegal Alien Trespassers.
The planned/ proposed ‘relief’ from the ACA’s most liberty-punitive provisions is a welcome EO for me and most US citizens.
MAIWCA – Make America Insured With Choices, Again.