Budget Deficit in Free-Fall

This is hilarious! Man, you sure are a brave one, inciting a fight from a chat room, what a riot! You should be careful though, seriously. This kind of talk can get you in real trouble.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 26 2007, 07:15 AM) [snapback]381020[/snapback]</div>

Changing the definition of "unemployment" are we? You're starting to sound desperate. chogan and danoday have both effectively and factually rebutted your claims. So, rather than concede that the facts support their argument, you're trying a new one.

Tell you what ... since they're facts obviously mean nothing to you, why don't you introduce some of your own? If you can.

Here's one to help you along: Total population in 2000 was just over 281 million. Total population now is estimated at 300 million.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jan 26 2007, 08:23 AM) [snapback]381049[/snapback]</div>

Oh but wait, that means all those jobs were created, doesn't it... hmmmm, i wonder if he has a point... no, no point there - as it was stated, Clinton lowered the unemployment percentage during a similar increase in the population of the US - in the 1990 census, the population was 249 million, so the growth rate has been pretty steady.

So which is better - creating jobs at a slower pace than the population growth, or creating them at a faster pace than the population growth?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 26 2007, 10:16 AM) [snapback]381074[/snapback]</div>

I don't know that the numbers tell the whole story. I know folks that were working in IT 5 years and are now stocking shelves at a big box somewhere. I know other folks that had great jobs in corporate America, and are now doing the same job, but as a contractor with much less benefits and smaller salaries. I know other folks that have just given up looking after several years of underemployment/unemployment, and are living off of home equity/occasional part time job until they can "officially" retire.

 

I typical berman style, he focuses on one thing and completely ignores the relevant arguments made against his point of view...

 

I can think of many screen names which would aptly describe myself, but some I wouldn't use because they would be inviting someone to ridicule me. I can think of some derogatory names one could use to describe me (and have been used on PC). Sometimes I refute the name caller with actual hard FACTS, and sometimes let their post speak for themselves. What I DON"T do is use an idiotic screen name, constantly invite criticism with almost every refutable post, never publicly acknowledge my mistake, then hide behind the skirts of the internet to 'call someone out' and expect to be taken seriously. Sir, it's a fools errand you're on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 26 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]381124[/snapback]</div>

Watching someone argue with some character whom I've put on ignore elicits the same emotions I get when someone whizzes past me in a brand new GM gas guzzler. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 26 2007, 04:15 AM) [snapback]381020[/snapback]</div>

OK, I'll bite on that one. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks a couple of numbers related to that. The most commonly used one is the total nonfarm employees. Since we're only looking at annual averages, I'm using the non-seasonally adjusted data. So, in 2000, there were (an annual average) 131,785,000 jobs. In 2006 (again, an annual average, but this number is preliminary) there were 135,371,000 jobs. Looks like 3,586,000 more jobs, eh?

Now let's adjust that for population growth. There were a bit over 281 million people in the U.S. in 2000, and a bit over 300 million now. That means that the population in 2000 was .936666666666% of the current population. So, let's multiply 135,371,000 by .936666666666%, and you'll find that the adjusted jobs number is 126,797,503. Adjusting for population, there are almost five million jobs less than there were in 2000. If you prefer using numbers corrected to 2006, there are 135,371,000 jobs today, and a population adjusted 140,695,729 in 2000.

Want to dig up the statistics yourself? Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data warehouse. Lots of good data to sift through.

One final note: Didn't Bush's state of the union speech claim that his administration has created 7.2 million jobs? Well, during the administration, the jobs number fell by 3.7 million, so Bush's 7.2 million job gain is a gross number. If you count the fact that the administration lost 3.7 million jobs, the net gain over the course of the past six year is only 3.5 million jobs (not adjusted for population). Wow, 3.5 million jobs created in six years is good, right? In 1994, a single year, the Clinton administration created 3,447,000 jobs (that number is NOT adjusted for population growth), and on average from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration created 2,882,375 jobs per year (again, not adjusted for population growth). In Bush's six years in office, he has averaged 597,666 per year.

As much as you'd like to try, Bush's job creation numbers just can't be defended. They're simply horrible, and actually paint a bleaker picture than the unemployment numbers portray. However, I look forward to a rebuttal that directly addresses the point, and defends your assertions. If you can't do that, concede that I'm correct.

I was going to suggest that you should go away with your tail between your legs, but decided not to make the joke!

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jan 25 2007, 03:27 PM) [snapback]380749[/snapback]</div>

Not exactly inexplicably. One crashed into the other - the pilot was disoriented (flying sand or something, I don't recall exactly).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan, 07:52 AM) [snapback]381095[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it's fitting. If you find it offensive maybe you should change your behavior.

Because physical threats are totally inappropriate, and as I said, can get you in big trouble.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 26 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]381124[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure, but it seems like you're implying that a certain someone's screen name (which is formed I believe from first initial, last name, and title) is idiotic. No matter how much we both disagree with this person's opinions, I don't think it's too cool to be calling someone's name idiotic, if that is the case here. To my knowledge this person has not called anyone else a name. Thanks for listening.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 26 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]381165[/snapback]</div>

I think this is very relevant to the real world. How about that admission that you are not correct? Going to do that, or are you slinking away?

C'mon... defend your position or give a proper concession and apology! Your future credibility is on the line, here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan, 09:13 AM) [snapback]381171[/snapback]</div>

I agree with the first part of what you say, but that certain someone has called me a "facilitator of evil" many times.

 

It must be nice to live in a delusional world...

The state of the economy is not as good as you seem to believe. Bush has not improved it. Actually, he stunted its growth. Numerous facts and statistics have proven every opinion you have about the economy wrong.

Please, tell us in what way the economy is doing well. In EVERY way, it's not doing as well as it was during Clinton's years. EVERY WAY.

As for the whole dog thing, when you had asked me to stop a while back, i did, explaining that i didn't see it as derogatory and thought it was just a nickname that was already in use and mutually accepted by all. To accuse me of finding it acceptable to use in a derogatory sense is insulting. Please, if you wish to do so, don't hide behind the curtain of the internet, spend several hundred dollars to fly out here and do so to my face.

Oh, and if you want to fly out here, i'll be more than willing to speak my mind straight to your face - it may even involve calling you some names (which i have refrained here, instead i've just pointed out the baseless claims you always make).

All we ask is that you please try to grow up a little - you did stop accusing people of being "facilitators of evil", even though i was accused that several times... that was a big step, and we all appreciate it. Now take the next step and actually participate in a debate instead of a whining session centered around your own delusions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 24 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]380266[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 26 2007, 09:31 AM) [snapback]381184[/snapback]</div>

You stated that unemployment was at an all-time low. I provided proof that your assertion was false. You stated that wages were up. I provided proof that your assertion was false. I used commonly available summarized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government agency charged with tracking that kind of information. I even provided a link to the data to further strengthen my claims.

I also chose (because I have a real job, and occasionally need to work) to refute only two of your points. I was hoping the other people reading this would take up your other inaccurate assertions.

Your defense to my response? That I'm nitpicky, don't have enough common sense, and have too much time on my hands.

Your assertions, Dr. Berman, were incorrect. Bottom line, you were making false statements that you can't back up with real data and real evidence. When confronted with evidence that clearly and undeniably refutes your claims about unemployment and wages, instead of rebutting with facts or conceding that my data is correct, you accused me of being nit-picky and not having enough common sense. That's uncivilized, insulting, deceptive, and shows everyone reading this forum what type of person you are.

So, once again, either rebut with facts or concede the argument and apologize.

It isn't my reputation that is on the line, here... it's yours.