DOW Loses Over 600 In One Day

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Polonius**

The problem isn't just outsourcing. I mean, that's the straw the broke the camels back, but the reality is that American manufacturing doesn't need nearly as much labor as it used to. US manufacturing output has gone up, even as the number of jobs (Absolute and relative) plummet.

http://blog.american.com/2011/01/the-demise-of-america%e2%80%99s-manufacturing-sector-has-been-greatly-exaggerated/

If that sounds familar, it's because it's exactly what happened to farming. less than 5% of American's grow food for sale, but nobody says we dont' grow anything in the US.

Besides, tarrifs (like nearly all taxes on goods) are highly regressive, which wouldn't hurt the core problem: lack of consumer spending.

**biccat**

Ouze wrote:He told Eric Cantor not to call his bluff, and Eric Cantor turned out to be the wiser on that one. Not only has he not improved the situation, he's sort of made it worse by buckling to extremism.

Not to derail the thread too much...but was this not the stupidest thing said in the whole "debt limit deal"? You can say "Don't call me on this" or "I'm not bluffing here," but when you admit you're bluffing and then ask the other side not to call you on it...what the hell? Imagine someone saying that in a game of poker, they'd get laughed off the table.

**Ouze**

Yes, that was pretty epic fail. Don't say that and then later compromise. Jesus.

biccat wrote:As for tax breaks, they aren't part of the spending problem. Heck, government revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

This is a factually incorrect republican talking point.

**Redbeard**

Polonius wrote:The problem isn't just outsourcing. I mean, that's the straw the broke the camels back, but the reality is that American manufacturing doesn't need nearly as much labor as it used to. US manufacturing output has gone up, even as the number of jobs (Absolute and relative) plummet.

But consumption has gone up too. It doesn't take as many people to make a toaster anymore, but now we also want an xbox and a microwave and an ipad and so on. A lot of the goods made offshore aren't made solely by machines, they're made by cheap labourers.

What's more, it's not just manufacturing jobs that are off-shored. Call any company's tech support line and odds are you're routed to India.

Besides, tarrifs (like nearly all taxes on goods) are highly regressive, which wouldn't hurt the core problem: lack of consumer spending.

Because unemployment isn't highly regressive? Because unemployment doesn't impact consumer spending?

**BearersOfSalvation**

Paul wrote:S&P have a job to do and blameing them for the market problems is like blaiming your doctor for your illness.

If my doctor examined me and told me that I was perfectly healthy, and kept rating me as perfectly healthy for a few years, then one day my leg fell off, and it turned out that a first year medical student could have told there was a problem with my leg from the tests, I'd damn well blame my doctor for the illness. S&P (and the others) rating extremely risky investments as safe was a huge contributor to the financial problems.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:As for tax breaks, they aren't part of the spending problem.

Yeah, that bad ol obama, getting us in expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...

**WarOne**

The unemployment rate too, isn't that relative to people who want jobs but cannot get them?

Does it account for those who do not want to work (as Limbaugh claims the number jumps from the national average of 9%-ish to over 20%-ish)?

Either way, unemployment is going to cost companies significant money as we get more people off the workforce.

http://blogs.ajc.com/business-beat/2011/08/09/georgia-employers-face-rising-unemployment-insurance-taxes/?cxntfid=blogs_business_beat

Georgia employers are almost certainly going to pay higher unemployment insurance taxes next year and jobless workers may see a cut in benefits.

That’s because the state owes $721 million to the federal government — money it borrowed to pay its share of unemployment benefits. Only the first interest payment — $22 million due next month — has been accounted for.

I sat down with state Labor Commissioner Mark Butler to see how he plans to repay the principal and make future interest payments. Butler has assembled a task force in his department to come up with a long-term game plan. The task force, which has been meeting since May, plans to offer its recommendations to Butler later this month. After he decides on a course of action, the ball will be passed to the governor and state Legislature, which will have to act when it convenes in January.

But before we get into what the task force is considering, here’s a little background.

Georgia, like most other states, started borrowing during the Great Recession so it could continue to pay benefits to laid-off workers. We’re not talking about extended federal benefits here, which give some jobless workers as many as 73 weeks of additional coverage after the state’s payments are exhausted. We’re talking about the state’s responsibility, which is the first 26 weeks of benefits.

To cover those 26 weeks, Georgia employers pay unemployment insurance taxes into a special fund. Annual payments average $187 per employee. But, with our abnormally high unemployment rate, the fund started running out of money in December 2009. That’s when the first borrowing occurred, and the tab is now $721,080,472.

To repay the money, the task force has been considering many options. Not all will be recommended, but more than one option will be needed to cover the debt. Ideas include:

– Raising employer taxes, which Butler said he will try to limit as much as possible so job creation is not stifled. Companies pay two unemployment insurance taxes. Because of the outstanding loan, the federal portion of the tax will rise next year by $21 per employee, officials said. The state’s portion of the tax, which increased 35 percent this year, could rise again. Butler already is empowered to increase the tax rate by another 15 percent, but he’s leaning against doing that.

– Cutting weekly jobless benefits, which average $260 now.

– Reducing the number of weeks — now 26 — that state benefits are paid.

– Revamping the current system. For example, employers only pay taxes on a worker’s first $8,500 of annual income. That could be raised under one proposal being considered.

– Borrowing money to repay the entire loan. But there are legal complications, including the likelihood that a constitutional amendment would be required to do that.

There is a sliver of good news amid these depressing options. For the past three months, the state has not needed to borrow more money, largely because initial claims have declined.

“We should have enough money to pay unemployment benefits [without borrowing] for the rest of the year,” Butler said.

Here’s hoping he’s right.

- Henry Unger, The Biz Beat

**Redbeard**

WarOne wrote:The unemployment rate too, isn't that relative to people who want jobs but cannot get them?

Does it account for those who do not want to work (as Limbaugh claims the number jumps from the national average of 9%-ish to over 20%-ish)?

Citing Limbaugh?

The unemployment figure is misleading. It doesn't include everyone, but saying that 'they don't want to work' is misleading. For many, it is that their benefits have expired, or that they are working, but are underemployed (not enough hours, or not what their skills indicate they should be doing), or that they have stopped looking because the answer hasn't changed. While I'm sure that there are people who don't want to work (and really, who wouldn't like to retire early), that's not a trait I'd ascribed to 10% of the population.

**gorgon**

Paul wrote: S&P have a job to do and blameing them for the market problems is like blaiming your doctor for your illness. They tell investors what they think the risk is and investors use that as part of a big bunch of data. The fact remains that the US government came painfully close to defaulting on debt. Now people don't trust them not to go over the edge for nothing more than an ideology.

Thank you. Ratings are about confidence, and S&P is saying they have less now. And realistically...wouldn't anyone?

mattyrm wrote: Can people not bring themselves to possibly accept any blame?

Nope. Apparently now S&P's to blame. It's just astounding.

(Man, the Brits on this board are nailing it.)

Redbeard wrote:The government could offer incentives to hire people. They could create disincentives to off-shoring jobs.

It'd take some bipartisanship and creativity, but we appear to be fresh out of those. I mean, I'm with you...but do you see it happening?

And while "it's all Obama's fault" is an astonishingly dumb opinion, I think it's accurate to say he hasn't shown the leadership this country needs right now. This Congress is an aimless, feckless disaster...which IMO puts pressure on the executive branch to seize the reins a little. And Obama hasn't shown that he's able to do that. He just isn't effective in his dealings with Congress.

**biccat**

Ouze wrote:Yes, that was pretty epic fail. Don't say that and then later compromise. Jesus.

It's not that he compromised, it's that the statement was just silly. If you bluff, you don't admit you're bluffing.

Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:As for tax breaks, they aren't part of the spending problem. Heck, government revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

This is a factually incorrect republican talking point.

Wow, so you counter a chart showing government revenue increasing with an editorial from the NYT?

What your editorial showed is that government revenue as a percentage of GDP decreased, but actual revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts. Which means that the economy was outgrowing the government. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Yeah, that bad ol obama, getting us in expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...

Hey, at least he kept his promise to withdraw troops from Iraq in 19 months and begin to drawdown forces in Afghanistan.

Seriously, how can you blame Bush for starting the wars and not pass at least some of the blame onto Obama for continuing them?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:
WarOne wrote:The unemployment rate too, isn't that relative to people who want jobs but cannot get them?

Does it account for those who do not want to work (as Limbaugh claims the number jumps from the national average of 9%-ish to over 20%-ish)?

Citing Limbaugh?

The unemployment figure is misleading. It doesn't include everyone, but saying that 'they don't want to work' is misleading. For many, it is that their benefits have expired, or that they are working, but are underemployed (not enough hours, or not what their skills indicate they should be doing), or that they have stopped looking because the answer hasn't changed. While I'm sure that there are people who don't want to work (and really, who wouldn't like to retire early), that's not a trait I'd ascribed to 10% of the population.

Compare U3 (official) with U6 (I think what WarOne's referring to).

A good explanation here.

U6 went from ~10% to over 15% from '09 to '11.

**Ouze**

biccat wrote:Wow, so you counter a chart showing government revenue increasing with an editorial from the NYT?

Hello pot? Kettle's on line 2 for you. Your link was to a study that's essentially a self-described conservative's blog, when he's not pushing for a Christian based government.

My source was a senior economic policy analyst for such well known liberals as Reagan and H.W. Bush, so I guess he's got their left-wing bias.

**Polonius**

biccat wrote:
Seriously, how can you blame Bush for starting the wars and not pass at least some of the blame onto Obama for continuing them?

It's actually pretty simple.

Once a war has begun, the options and their relative values change.

Buying a house in 2006 was most likley a bad decision, but continuing to make payments on it despite it being underwater might still be the best option for a household.

Likewise, invading Iraq may have been a bad decision in 2003. Staying in Iraq in 2011 might still be a good decision.

It's not logically impossible.

**biccat**

Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:Wow, so you counter a chart showing government revenue increasing with an editorial from the NYT?

Hello pot? Kettle's on line 2 for you. Your link was to a study that's essentially a self-described conservative's blog

Alternatively, a source that properly describes the government revenue. Compared to an op-ed that doesn't actually dispute what I'm saying.

But that's cool, whatever.

**Polonius**

Another way to look at the number is to see how many people actually have jobs:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/08/news/economy/unemployment_jobs/index.htm

Only 58% of Americans over the age of 16 are working right now, down from about 63% in 2008.

Here's a pretty interesting articleon the same measure:

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-employment-population-hits-a-new-low-why-it-matters-for-the-budget-debate-2011-8

**WarOne**

So the relative rate we could best count is the percentage who are actually working rather than saying unemployed, which could be a vague term depending how you spin it?

**Polonius**

well, you need to look at a lot of factors. The second article also introduced the "dependency ratio" which is essentially the percentage of the population dependent on the labor of others. It's going up, and is going up due to retirees rather than children, so there is going to be some organic increase in the e-pop.

Virtually every unemployment report for four years has alluded to huge numbers of people that aren't working but don't count. It's hard to really peg down the "would work if they could find a job" rate, but you can hint around it with more measures.

There's an underlying assumption to some conservative policies that, regardless of the economic situation, social welfare spending (unemployment, disability, relief) simply allows people to not work, and the unemployment rate would drop if you cut those programs, as people would be forced to work.

The underlying assumption to liberal policy is that people want to work, but can't, and should be supported to keep the economy going and prevent suffering.

The truth is probably in the middle. The consevative position is essentially supply side economics for labor, in whcih if there is enough supply demand will form. The problem is that a lot of the labor is really, well, worthless. Or not what anybody would want.

**Ouze**

biccat wrote:Alternatively, a source that properly describes the government revenue.

If you massage the data the way he does, you can make the numbers say what you like. For example, using your source, compare the president's budget vs the ryan plan budget. You're going to need to find a link from one of his other sides, as the way-more-reliable-the-the-NYT source you provided throws a 404 for the link. ok, I won't make you dig. Notice anything? Despite the fact they are describing literally the same things, they do so in different ways with different numbers. The president's plan includes the word "taxes" 3 times, and shows deficit and the debt as the bottom line. The "Ryan plan" doesn't include the word taxes once, prominently displays "The president's health care law" despite the fact it's zero'd out, and omits the debt and the deficit both... the reason for this, I suspect, is that the Ryan plan actually increases the debt more then the Obama's.

Not that I'm bagging on either Ryan or the Ryan plan, mind you. I think his plan is wrong, but he took the time actually put together a plan, and had the grapes to actually hang it out there. No one else can make a similar boast. I respect him, although I disagree with him.

Would that I could say the same about the deceptive partisan hack, the shill, the snake-oil salesman you sourced.

**WarOne**

Polonius wrote:well, you need to look at a lot of factors. The second article also introduced the "dependency ratio" which is essentially the percentage of the population dependent on the labor of others. It's going up, and is going up due to retirees rather than children, so there is going to be some organic increase in the e-pop.

Virtually every unemployment report for four years has alluded to huge numbers of people that aren't working but don't count. It's hard to really peg down the "would work if they could find a job" rate, but you can hint around it with more measures.

There's an underlying assumption to some conservative policies that, regardless of the economic situation, social welfare spending (unemployment, disability, relief) simply allows people to not work, and the unemployment rate would drop if you cut those programs, as people would be forced to work.

The underlying assumption to liberal policy is that people want to work, but can't, and should be supported to keep the economy going and prevent suffering.

The truth is probably in the middle. The consevative position is essentially supply side economics for labor, in whcih if there is enough supply demand will form. The problem is that a lot of the labor is really, well, worthless. Or not what anybody would want.

So could a balanced solution to the debt issue and employment in general be tied to a package of laws/initiatives/incentives that reduces federal spending in entitlements while also adding benefits to people who are seeking to hire, coupled with probably a whole host of things that while being anathema to both ends of the political spectrum has to be made reality in order to build confidence back in the market and the U.S. gov't?

**Polonius**

Part of the right wing strategy for the last decade, and it's worked remarkably well, is to pretend that there are no degrees of severity, particularly with bias.

So, when people accuse a source of being biased, they simply respond with "well, so is yours."

And from a naval gazing, philisophical sense, objectivity is impossible.

There are two approaches to this: try to discern what is the most objective and put more weight in that, or try to zero it out and go with what supports your position/looks better/is easier to sell.

This debate is a classic micocosm. A partisan blogger is almost assuredly a more biased source than the New York Times. Now, the content might be incorrectly applied (date v. op-ed), but resting on the "I know you are but what am I" defense is common, because it's so damned effective.

**Ouze**

WarOne wrote:So could a balanced solution to the debt issue and employment in general be tied to a package of laws/initiatives/incentives that reduces federal spending in entitlements while also adding benefits to people who are seeking to hire, coupled with probably a whole host of things that while being anathema to both ends of the political spectrum has to be made reality in order to build confidence back in the market and the U.S. gov't?

It depends. If you put Reagan in the title of the proposed law (like "The Reagan Plan to Punch Every American In the Junk Plan"), at evidence suggests a large percentage of the population will lobby strongly for it regardless of what it does.

**biccat**

Ouze wrote:Would that I could say the same about the deceptive partisan hack, the shill, the snake-oil salesman you sourced.

So are you simply deriding him because of his personal politics, or do you have a dispute with the numbers that were involved in the graph that I linked to?

Honestly, I have no idea who the hell the guy is, he just showed up as a result from a google search. I wasn't citing his site for it's analysis of the Obama versus Ryan plans. If you have some dispute with the site's numbers for government revenue from '00 through '10, then I am willing to reconsider my reliance on them. But since you haven't shown any reason to question those numbers (and the only 'source' you cited agrees with them), I see no reason to distrust the information.

I would also note that Bruce Bartlett lives in Ann Arbor, and therefore should be considered completely untrustworthy.

**Ouze**

My previous post, which you clearly read because you quoted a small section of it, clearly indicates my rationale for considering him a partisan hack.

**biccat**

Polonius wrote:This debate is a classic micocosm. A partisan blogger is almost assuredly a more biased source than the New York Times. Now, the content might be incorrectly applied (date v. op-ed), but resting on the "I know you are but what am I" defense is common, because it's so damned effective.

There's more to bias than simply the source. You also need to consider the information presented.

I would trust the HuffingtonPost claiming that the sun rose at 7:15 AM this morning over a Wall Street Journal editorial claiming "it's been dark all morning."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:My previous post, which you clearly read because you quoted a small section of it, clearly indicates my rationale for considering him a partisan hack.

So you don't care about accuracy, merely making a political point?

It's good to know where you stand.

**Ouze**

biccat wrote:
Polonius wrote:This debate is a classic micocosm. A partisan blogger is almost assuredly a more biased source than the New York Times. Now, the content might be incorrectly applied (date v. op-ed), but resting on the "I know you are but what am I" defense is common, because it's so damned effective.

There's more to bias than simply the source. You also need to consider the information presented.

You are the same guy who, when I posted why I thought you were wrong, immediately argued not against what he said, but the venue from which he said it, yes?

**Polonius**

WarOne wrote:So could a balanced solution to the debt issue and employment in general be tied to a package of laws/initiatives/incentives that reduces federal spending in entitlements while also adding benefits to people who are seeking to hire, coupled with probably a whole host of things that while being anathema to both ends of the political spectrum has to be made reality in order to build confidence back in the market and the U.S. gov't?

Well, the debt issue and unemployment are only tangentially related, in that both are symptoms of long term problems.

The solution to the debt issue is a broad based compromise, including cutting entitlements, raising the retirement age, ending the Bush era tax cuts, slashing discretionary as well as military spending, etc.

It'll be incredibly unpopular and almost never happen.

Unemployment will correct itself over time, but I dont' think there is much the government can do. Focused programs that teach job skills would help, but those have spotty track records. There are some jobs that can't be filled, even now. The global and national economies are only slowly growing, so it's hard to really increase the flow of money.

Economic growth comes from small companies. After a recession, large companies that survive are about as big as they're going to get. Small companies that grow into new markets and segments fuel the overall recovery. There are, in my limited knowledge, three impediments to start ups today:
1) Small business sell primarily to other small and medium sized businesses and consumers. Consumer spending is down, and likley to stay down as people pay off debt. That's hard to change.
2) Capital is hard to come by, as banks don't lend money, even though rates are low. You can't borrow, you can't grow.
3) The tax code broadly favors large businesses. It's more nuanced than that, of course, but the low effective "corporate rate" is mostly enjoyed by those businesses and industries that lobby. Modern oragnizations like LLCs get around that to an extent, but the tax code could be used to aid smaller business. This is where the real hiring could come from.

**biccat**

Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:
Polonius wrote:This debate is a classic micocosm. A partisan blogger is almost assuredly a more biased source than the New York Times. Now, the content might be incorrectly applied (date v. op-ed), but resting on the "I know you are but what am I" defense is common, because it's so damned effective.

There's more to bias than simply the source. You also need to consider the information presented.

You are the same guy who, when I posted why I thought you were wrong, immediately argued not against what he said, but the venue from which he said it, yes?

Ah, I believe I see the problem. You're responding to another poster. I've noticed that this happens often. Instead of replying to what I've actually posted, you're responding to what you think I've posted. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to respond to such a comment. If you want to continue in this manner, please post what you think I've posted so that I can defend that statement. Otherwise, we'll have to call it off.

And to respond briefly, I actually didn't argue against what he said based on the venue, I presented a comparison between the argument (my link) and response (your link). In short (I'm skipping the second paragraph where I expound on this difference and explain how your source doesn't dispute my point, nor does it support yours).

so you counter a chart showing government revenue increasing with an editorial from the NYT?

**Polonius**

biccat wrote:
Polonius wrote:This debate is a classic micocosm. A partisan blogger is almost assuredly a more biased source than the New York Times. Now, the content might be incorrectly applied (date v. op-ed), but resting on the "I know you are but what am I" defense is common, because it's so damned effective.

There's more to bias than simply the source. You also need to consider the information presented.

I would trust the HuffingtonPost claiming that the sun rose at 7:15 AM this morning over a Wall Street Journal editorial claiming "it's been dark all morning."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:My previous post, which you clearly read because you quoted a small section of it, clearly indicates my rationale for considering him a partisan hack.

So you don't care about accuracy, merely making a political point?

It's good to know where you stand.

To be fair, your response to him that the source was biased was not to confirm it's reliability, but to attack the credibilty of his source based on bias.

Eventually the value of the information came out, but the first response was to do as I described.

On the merits, as I pointed out in an earlier post, both point out the stunningly obvious fact that "tax revenues are often more tied to the economy than rates" and "when spending outstrips intakes, problems can occur."

Your original point was that the tax cuts aren't part of the spending problem, which I suppose is true in the sense that you can always spend less. It's a reframing of the issue to a tautology, but like all tautologies, it's not very useful. It also pre-supposes the idea that the goverment spends too much money, and that spending, in and of itself, is a problem. For most people spending more than you take in, rather than spending on it's own, is the problem. If I'm in debt because I never reduced my spending after taking a pay cut, than I suppose it's my fault for not reducing spending.

From the "why exactly am I in debt" standpoint, all that matters is that I'm spending more than I'm making. There's no real benefit to cutting spending vs. increasing intake.

**Ouze**

biccat wrote:So are you simply deriding him because of his personal politics, or do you have a dispute with the numbers that were involved in the graph that I linked to?

I repeat, I have posted why I find his methodology dishonest. You're welcome to scroll up if you'd like to read it.

biccat wrote:Honestly, I have no idea who the hell the guy is, he just showed up as a result from a google search. I wasn't citing his site for it's analysis of the Obama versus Ryan plans.

I'm aware of that. You raised the issue of bias, and so that "comparison" then became relevant.

biccat wrote:If you have some dispute with the site's numbers for government revenue from '00 through '10, then I am willing to reconsider my reliance on them. But since you haven't shown any reason to question those numbers (and the only 'source' you cited agrees with them), I see no reason to distrust the information.

It's your assertion, the onus is on you to prove the numbers are accurate. I'm not playing the "well, you show me another source so I can claim it's biased" game with you.

biccat wrote:I would also note that Bruce Bartlett lives in Ann Arbor, and therefore should be considered completely untrustworthy.

.... what??

**Redbeard**

Polonius wrote:
Well, the debt issue and unemployment are only tangentially related, in that both are symptoms of long term problems.

The solution to the debt issue is a broad based compromise, including cutting entitlements, raising the retirement age, ending the Bush era tax cuts, slashing discretionary as well as military spending, etc.

It'll be incredibly unpopular and almost never happen.

That depends on how it is addressed, and not everything can be compromised. Retirement age cannot just be pushed back, people can only age so much. Telling someone who is 65 that they need to work another five years is cruel to say the least.

Entitlements are philosophically more than just giving someone something for nothing. There's nothing that says people have to abide by the existing rules. When you have a stratified class structure, those at the top clearly benefit more from the society than those at the bottom. As a result, those at the top should be expected to contribute more, while those at the bottom need to be given an incentive to remain in this stratified system. One incentive is the threat of jail - you follow the rules, or you go to jail. But, as incentives go, if its a question of starving outside of jail or eating inside jail, that's not much of one. Entitlements are what the wealthy offer to the poor as incentives not to riot, rebel, or overthrow the system. It's all too easy to criticize entitlement programs and welfare mentalities, but they serve a valuable purpose. Any society is only as secure as it's worst off members. I think that's something a lot of people forget. The wealth distribution in this country is horribly screwed, and it would only take something stupid, like taking away food stamps, to encourage those who aren't doing well to seek alternative means to bettering their station.

At the same time, we have so many infrastructure problems that don't require a lot of skilled labor to address. Rather than take away entitlements, why doesn't the government require some community service as a condition of receiving them? You get a welfare check, if you're able bodied, sign up for some task. Helping paint a bridge, picking trash up off the streets, working a couple hours at a food kitchen. The government could easily draw some benefit from the money they're paying out for entitlements and the society as a whole would benefit. Not only that, but the welfare mentality would be addressed, people would get the feeling that they're working for their food again, and that has value.

**WarOne**

Redbeard wrote:You get a welfare check, if you're able bodied, sign up for some task.

How about for those who get a check because they have children and cannot support children without said check?

**biccat**

Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:If you have some dispute with the site's numbers for government revenue from '00 through '10, then I am willing to reconsider my reliance on them. But since you haven't shown any reason to question those numbers (and the only 'source' you cited agrees with them), I see no reason to distrust the information.

It's your assertion, the onus is on you to prove the numbers are accurate. I'm not playing the "well, you show me another source so I can claim it's biased" game with you.

I'm not playing a game here, I've satisfied the burden of production on the issue by showing a source that provides the information requested. Your burden then is to show why the information provided is inaccurate, either due to bias or by showing contrary data. You haven't done either.

Your attack of bias wasn't based on the information presented, but on other links. The only data you provided (assuming you intended to provide data by citing to the op-ed) confirmed the data I provided. At this point, you're simply disagreeing because you don't like the facts.

And to be generous, here's the source data. If there are errors in the information (that is, federal revenues didn't increase after 2003) then it should be in there.

Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:I would also note that Bruce Bartlett lives in Ann Arbor, and therefore should be considered completely untrustworthy.

.... what??

Anyone from Ann Arbor should not be trusted. A wretched hive of scum and villany. I'm sure Polonius would agree.