October 5, 201213 yr Age old question: how do you define "fair?" Not sure what Obama's dictionary says. Have a feeling it is very different than mine. He also said no one is entitled to be successful. What?
October 5, 201213 yr Here's where my economic ignorance comes in to play. Why wouldn't we repeat what we did to fix it then? Are those methods of fixing it in the 80's not applicable to our current situation? The situations were a lot different. If memory serves, when Reagan took office the top marginal tax rate was about 70 percent. The top earners were getting about 9 percent of the total earnings. Interest rates were very high (well into double digits). Inflation was also very high. The ferderal reserve had just jacked up interest rates to kill the inflation. That was a recession lead by too little money available for investment. In many ways we have a very different situation. Today inflation is low. Interest rates are low. There is plenty of money for investment but no demand to necessitate investment. The top earners share of earnings is in the high twenties. The things that were done in the eighties wouldn't work (Preident Bush tried them), because the problms are different. Think of it as in the 89s the economy had a broken leg, so putting a cast on it helped. Today it has an infection, so a cast on the leg wouldn't help.
October 5, 201213 yr Author Really? Better let them know as only a bit more than a third feel it's headed in the right direction. Track that data. It is always like that.
October 5, 201213 yr By the way, this argument being put forth by Welch et al is like the issue of the voting polls. When it's not going a particular way the polls are invalid. As soon as it IS their way (snap poll of debate) the polls are lauded.
October 5, 201213 yr Obama just gave a speech talking about making things fair for everyone. Is it fair to take money from those working to earn it? But doesn't every president do that? If Romney wins won't the government still take my money and give it to the poor? When Bush was president didn't the government take my money and give it to the poor? Shoot, research done from a BGPer said Reagan started the free phones for welfare recipients and that Clinton expanded it to cell phones in 1996. Hasn't working money paid for these phones since 1984? Why do Obama haters act like Obama invented welfare? I know for a fact that in Ky a person can't have unemployment for more than 6 months and if you aren't actively looking for a job they can take away your unemployment. What did Obama do to make people think he invented welfare?
October 5, 201213 yr The situations were a lot different. If memory serves, when Reagan took office the top marginal tax rate was about 70 percent. The top earners were getting about 9 percent of the total earnings. Interest rates were very high (well into double digits). Inflation was also very high. The ferderal reserve had just jacked up interest rates to kill the inflation. That was a recession lead by too little money available for investment. In many ways we have a very different situation. Today inflation is low. Interest rates are low. There is plenty of money for investment but no demand to necessitate investment. The top earners share of earnings is in the high twenties. The things that were done in the eighties wouldn't work (Preident Bush tried them), because the problms are different. Think of it as in the 89s the economy had a broken leg, so putting a cast on it helped. Today it has an infection, so a cast on the leg wouldn't help. What was done by Bush is different that what was done in the 80's. The main difference is the government grew dramatically under Bush. Plus, in the 80's mark to market account wasn't used.
October 5, 201213 yr Have been doing college visit today so just digesting numbers. August did not have a steep drop, September did. According to the BLS the bulk of the 'drop' in UE is in those unemployed less than 5 weeks. So that would seem to imply a lot few layoffs....but less use numbers from the weekly jobs thread.... August 2: 367,000 August 9: 361,000 August 16: 368.000 August 23: 374,000 August 30: 377,000 September 6: 367,000 September 13: 386,000 September 20: 382,000 September 27: 363,000 These are the 'revised' (final) numbers only. Which month is 'better'? Those unemployed for less than 5 weeks dropped 300,000 from August to September. Are the recently unemployed picking up new work that quickly? Well, 114,000 'new' jobs were created - for the month. But there are about 1,500,000 (1.5 million) layoffs each month. 'New' jobs address 1/10 of the newly unemployed. Who is hiring the other 9/10s.
October 5, 201213 yr Other odd statistics.... Average duration of unemployment in terms of weeks rose in September to 39.8 from 39.2 in August. So that is a negative. Median rose from 18.0 to 18.5 between August and September. September of 2011: 40.2 and 18.9 respectfully. So almost no change in these two telling statistics in a year. And the recent trendline is creeping up. These are not 'recovery' numbers.
October 5, 201213 yr Other odd statistics.... Average duration of unemployment in terms of weeks rose in September to 39.8 from 39.2 in August. So that is a negative. Median rose from 18.0 to 18.5 between August and September. September of 2011: 40.2 and 18.9 respectfully. So almost no change in these two telling statistics in a year. And the recent trendline is creeping up. These are not 'recovery' numbers. I have noticed that no one ever refutes/argues or replies to your employment numbers. Must be because you make too much sense.:sssh:
October 5, 201213 yr This is such a great day:irked:. The unemployment numbers are now BACK (down) to what they were when Obama took office. Forty four months to get unemployment to where it was when he took office is NOT economic recovery. So agian, are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? Yep. And regarding the unemployment rate; given the intractability of the Congress on initiatives like the American Jobs Act; I'm shocked and awed that it's below 8%.
October 5, 201213 yr I have noticed that no one ever refutes/argues or replies to your employment numbers. Must be because you make too much sense.:sssh: I don't argue them because I don't understand the math. I probably could, but given that my job is all about statistics and data....forecasting, historical analysis, trend analysis, strategic planning, I tend to seek non-numbers oriented aspects to argue for fun.
October 5, 201213 yr So in order for this conspiracy to ring anywhere near true we have to believe that people lied when surveyed. Not at all, there's always a chance to manipulate data collection results.
October 5, 201213 yr But that's the rub. If Romney takes over there is still going to be a third or so that feel the country is headed in the right direction. Regardless of the leader the dissension and end results will be similar. If Obama or Romney could fix it that fast it would already be fixed. Wouldn't it?[/QUOTE] Sure, with the proper policies and leadership.
October 5, 201213 yr Here's where my economic ignorance comes in to play. Why wouldn't we repeat what we did to fix it then? Are those methods of fixing it in the 80's not applicable to our current situation? Don't really know, this is such a different economy than in 1981.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.