and then.....

[Straw Man]

Here is the original source of this chart with comments
http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1819

I'm not familiar with this site but from this single item they seem non-partisan (i.e. they don't seem to favor Obama and don't seem to favor Repubs either - just seem to be providing graphics and explaining how they arrrived at their conclusion)

This chart was also republished here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obamas-job-creation-problem--in-one-chart/2012/08/02/gJQA58tsRX_blog.html

with some good online comments such as this one:

Here's some political reality, all of the president's went until Sep. 30, of their first year under the budget signed by the previous president. That is where the clock starts. Clinton lost 2 million private sector jobs in his last signed budget year. Dubya lost 8 million. The figures for Clinton should be lower, the figures for Dubya should be negative (6 million less). The figures for president Obama should be plus 3 million.
 
For those unable to do math believe this chart. Bush Sr. in 4 years created 4.4 million is at 7.5%, Carter in 4 years created 10 million with a lower population having the same 7.5%. Idiots may be fooled but this American can do simple math

[240 is Back]

so dubya created more jobs then obama then?

hmmmm.......

shit yeah.   borrowing trillions from the chinese to fund 2 elective wars was HELLA good for business.

it was only sustainable for 5-6 years... and in 2008, everything collapsed because he was cutting input (taxes) while increasing spending (war).  Then you toss in the compound interest on that shit... and voila, you have a 2nd depression.

Obama inherited it, and it has gotten better, according to WIlliard Romney.

[GigantorX]

shit yeah.   borrowing trillions from the chinese to fund 2 elective wars was HELLA good for business.

it was only sustainable for 5-6 years... and in 2008, everything collapsed because he was cutting input (taxes) while increasing spending (war).  Then you toss in the compound interest on that shit... and voila, you have a 2nd depression.

Obama inherited it, and it has gotten better, according to WIlliard Romney.

Oh man................

[Shockwave]

Oh man................

Don't bother, 240 is running short on troll material.

[tonymctones]

shit yeah.   borrowing trillions from the chinese to fund 2 elective wars was HELLA good for business.

it was only sustainable for 5-6 years... and in 2008, everything collapsed because he was cutting input (taxes) while increasing spending (war).  Then you toss in the compound interest on that shit... and voila, you have a 2nd depression.

Obama inherited it, and it has gotten better, according to WIlliard Romney.

hahah thats reaching even for you cracker jack.

[Straw Man]

Distractions - you can't talk about the issues can you? Learning from your Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama?

But okay dude, allow me to explain this to you with simple math, since you're apparently too dense to use your own mind:

Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000

Now say that the government decides to stop allowing you to use your HSA for all medical expenses; now you can only use your HSA for half of your medical expenses. Your point is that your tax bill won't change if you'll continue putting $5,000 into your HSA, which is true. But now you have $2,500 in additional medical expenses that are not tax deductible and thus will have to come out of your regular $45,000 income. That means that in order to keep your tax bill the same, you'll have to spend less on other things OR save less (outside of your HSA) in order to be able to afford that $2,500 in non-deductible medical expenses. So either way the tax change takes a bite out of your budget.

Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500

WRONG

this is what I've been telling you all along

your tax bill at the end of the year will be EXACTLY the same regardless of how you spend your non-HSA dollars

you seem to get this point but then you say, in your example, that if you have an additional $2500 in expenses that it somehow changes your tax bill and this is not correct

I don't know how to make this any more clear to you

The tax savings is triggered soley by the HSA deposit and it doesn't matter how you spend the rest of your money.  At the end ofthe year you have the very same tax liability.

It does not matter if you spent that $2500 or Advil or Beer - your tax bill DOES NOT CHANGE
 
It really seems you don't understand how income tax is calculated

That's the only explanation and the scary part (for you) is that you claim to do your own taxes

btw - totally irrelevent to the argument or the conclusions but no one is talking about the govt suddenly deciding that you can only use your HSA dollars to pay half of your medical expenses.  Why would they even care since you already got your tax savings by virtue of your deposit ?.  What they have said is that you can only use HSA $'s for legitimate medical expenses as prescribed or incurred by a doctor and you can't use them to buy asprin or some other OTC expense.  They no doubt did this to prevent abuse and use of tax deferred dollars for non medical expenses (hint - there is no way the govt is going to be able to track how you spend every dollar so they are putting so rules in place to prevent abuse).   For example, without this rule I could have taken tax deferred dollars and purchased creatine, protein powder etc...

[240 is Back]

is anyone here saying the boom of the 2002 to 2004 wasn't due to war spending?

[George Whorewell]

Guys that chart is crap.

ATM machines were not as prevalent prior to the Obama years.  Also, up until Obama took office, Somali pirates were not rummaging about on the high seas promoting murder and mayhem.

Obama has had a difficult time. You are not being fair.

[howardroark]

Straw Man - I don't know if I suck at communicating or if you suck at reading, but either way it ends up with you misconstruing my argument.

My point is that in order to have the same tax bill under the situation we're discussing, your newly non-deductible medical expenses would have to replace an equal amount of other spending in your budget. This is a simple problem of budget limitations.

Look at these two again:

Case 1
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000

Case 2
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500

See the difference? In Case 2, you have to displace other spending in your budget if you want to keep the same tax bill. In the end, it's all the same: the government taking a bigger bite out of your budget.

[howardroark]

is anyone here saying the boom of the 2002 to 2004 wasn't due to war spending?

Yeah. Me.

First of all, on an empirical basis, your argument is incorrect for the simple reason that the federal deficit has increased in absolute, real terms as well as a percent of GDP yet the economy now is weaker than it was during the boom then.

Secondly, increased government spending does not increase economic wealth, but diminish it by taking up funds that could be used in the private sector.

Thirdly, the only theory of the business cycle which adequately explains almost every boom-bust cycle in history is the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which pins the blame on easy credit policies perpetuated by government.

[garebear]

so dubya created more jobs then obama then?

hmmmm.......

Are jobs natural?

[howardroark]

Are jobs natural?

Unemployment is unnatural.

[Soul Crusher]

Unemployment is unnatural.

Not if you are a welfare parasite and tax sponge. 

[Straw Man]

Straw Man - I don't know if I suck at communicating or if you suck at reading, but either way it ends up with you misconstruing my argument.

My point is that in order to have the same tax bill under the situation we're discussing, your newly non-deductible medical expenses would have to replace an equal amount of other spending in your budget. This is a simple problem of budget limitations.

Look at these two again:

Case 1
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000

Case 2
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500

See the difference? In Case 2, you have to displace other spending in your budget if you want to keep the same tax bill. In the end, it's all the same: the government taking a bigger bite out of your budget.

the answer is you suck at communicating and still don't understand the basics of income taxes

how exactly does the 2500 in spending with non-HSA dollars INCREASE your tax liability

let's use your same example but let's at least use the correct HSA contribution which for an individual under 55 is 3100

Your gross wages are 50,000 and you put 3100 into your HSA leaving you 46,900 in taxable wages

explain to me exactly how your taxes on that 46,900 will change if you have 2500 in expense for non-allowable OTC medication

Try to keep in mind that your taxable wages of 46,900 NEVER CHANGES regardless of whether you spend the 2500 on aspirin or whether you spend it on beer and pot or whether you put it in a savings account (and in this case we'll ignore the taxes on your interest income)

[doison]

you make a great point here.   33, your response?

8 years of free fall?  The economy was in "free fall" for 8 YEARS?  You believe that was a "great point?"  



Yeah....the entire nation was in a fully collapsing free fall for an entire 8 years when Obama took office.  Nearly a decade of pure plummeting economic collapse..."increasing in momentum," i.e., ACCELERATING the entire time.  

[doison]

is anyone here saying the boom of the 2002 to 2004 wasn't due to war spending?

There wasn't a boom.  Both 2002 and 2004 were in the middle of our 8 year economic free-fall, remember?

[Straw Man]

8 years of free fall?  The economy was in "free fall" for 8 YEARS?  You believe that was a "great point?"  



Yeah....the entire nation was in a fully collapsing free fall for an entire 8 years when Obama took office.  Nearly a decade of pure plummeting economic collapse..."increasing in momentum," i.e., ACCELERATING the entire time.  

the chart he was referring to was not the GDP but the labor participation rate.

The chart 333 posted showed it peaked at just above 67%  in early late 1999/early 2000 and then began to drop.  I stabalized right around 66% and then "fell off a cliff" starting in 2008.  You've got to keep the scale in mind.  It peaked just above 67% and the chart which ends at the beginning of 2011 shows it at 63.5%.  You will also notice the it temporarily moved up in mid 2009, no doubt as the stimulus $'s started to work.

[doison]

the chart he was referring to was not the GDP but the labor participation rate.

The chart 333 posted showed it peaked at just above 67%  in early late 1999/early 2000 and then began to drop.  I stabalized right around 66% and then "fell off a cliff" starting in 2008.  You've got to keep the scale in mind.  It peaked just above 67% and the chart which ends at the beginning of 2011 shows it at 63.5%.  You will also notice the it temporarily moved up in mid 2009, no doubt as the stimulus $'s started to work.

You said "of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime."

If you're saying now that the free fall started in 2008, then "keep the scale in mind" regarding whether or not it could have been "stopped and reversed on a dime," because a one-year free fall could have been stopped....and the stimulus package was sold to the public for this exact purpose. 

[Fury]

You said "of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime."

If you're saying now that the free fall started in 2008, then "keep the scale in mind" regarding whether or not it could have been "stopped and reversed on a dime," because a one-year free fall could have been stopped....and the stimulus package was sold to the public for this exact purpose. 

LOLPWNT.

[Straw Man]

You said "of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime."

If you're saying now that the free fall started in 2008, then "keep the scale in mind" regarding whether or not it could have been "stopped and reversed on a dime," because a one-year free fall could have been stopped....and the stimulus package was sold to the public for this exact purpose.  

I said it started to go down in 2000 and really fell of a cliff in 2008 (when the huge job losses started under Bush)

I said keep the scale in mind because we're talking about a range of just over 67% to just under 63% which is where the chart stopped.   Even though this particular chart looks horrible we're still talking about a labor participation rate that still near the historical average for the past 20 years.  I thought you would understand what I meant by scale (it is a chart afterall) but I can see now that you did not understand that

Here's a longer term chart:  


http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000?years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_year=2010&from_year=1948
now maybe you can comprehend what I meant by the word "scale"

the scale has nothing to do with the fact that the figure had been heading down for 10 years and picked up speed in 2008 as the global economy started to tank.


  

[doison]

I said it started to go down in 2000 and really fell of a cliff in 2008 (when the huge job losses started under Bush)

I said keep the scale in mind because we're talking about a range of just over 67% to just under 63% which is where the chart stopped.   Even though this particular chart looks horrible we're still talking about a labor participation rate that still near the historical average for the past 20 years.  I thought you would understand what I meant by scale (it is a chart afterall) but I can see now that you did not understand that

Here's a longer term chart:  


ate_1948-2011.svg" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Labor_Participation_R ate_1948-2011.svg

now maybe you can comprehend what I meant by the word "scale"

the scale has nothing to do with the fact that the figure had been heading down for 10 years and picked up speed in 2008 as the global economy started to tank.

  

No...your exact post was (in its entirety),

of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime, especially considering how much priority the Repubs gave to helping improve the job market by cooperating with the Obama administration

[Straw Man]

No...your exact post was (in its entirety),

did it stop on a dime and reverse and go back up

Is that what you think I said?

[doison]

did it stop on a dime and reverse and go back up

Is that what you think I said?

Are you retarded?  

Here...in simple form:

It was NOT an 8 year free fall
It WAS a 1 year free fall
The STIMULUS was supposed to REVERSE the 1 year free fall
The stimulus failed and the 1 year free fall was NOT STOPPED ON A DIME


You argued that an 8 year free fall couldn't be stopped on a dime.  
The truth is that it was a 1 year free fall that was SUPPOSED to be stopped on a dime by the stimulus, but wasn't. 

[Straw Man]

Are you retarded?  

Here...in simple form:

It was NOT an 8 year free fall
It WAS a 1 year free fall
The STIMULUS was supposed to REVERSE the 1 year free fall
The stimulus failed and the 1 year free fall was NOT STOPPED ON A DIME


You argued that an 8 year free fall couldn't be stopped on a dime.  
The truth is that it was a 1 year free fall that was SUPPOSED to be stopped on a dime by the stimulus, but wasn't.  

maybe you missed my original post or should learn to read:

You said "of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime."

If you're saying now that the free fall started in 2008, then "keep the scale in mind" regarding whether or not it could have been "stopped and reversed on a dime," because a one-year free fall could have been stopped....and the stimulus package was sold to the public for this exact purpose.  

did I say it was in "free fall" for 8 years?

I said it started to go down and was building momentum for 8 years not that it was "free falling" for eight years

Is arguing semantics and not understanding the written word the best you've got?

you constantly repost the same charts
do you even know how labor participation is calculated

did you notice it stared going to down as soon at Bush got in  office and really fell off a cliff in 2008 (the last year of the Bush administration in case you had forgotten)

How to you stop a free fall that has been building in momemtum for 8 years and more importantly what does this have to do with Howie inability to understand even the most basic things about taxes

[doison]

maybe you missed my original post or should learn to read:

did I say it was in "free fall" for 8 years?

I said it started to go down and was building momentum for 8 years not that it was "free falling" for eight years

Is arguing semantics and not understanding the written word the best you've got?

YES!

You're fucking quote is "8 years of free fall with increasing momentum."  
You said it was "8 years of free fall" and during those "8 years of free fall" there was "increasing momentum."  

Saying something existed for "8 years" means it was in existence for those 8 years.  That's exactly what you said.  




And it's not arguing "semantics."  What you're proposing is "pragmatics," which I'm also not arguing.  I'm quoting your entire post word for word, not interpreting any particular word or phrase in any manner what-so-ever.  So yes, I suppose using the exact wording of your post in its entirety is the "best I've got."  

Regardless, you're apparently no longer arguing that it was in free fall for 8 years--only "free falling" for a year.  
In that case, I would argue that expecting a one-year free fall to "stop on a dime" is well within the range of reasonable expectation....and that's exactly what the STIMULUS was sold as....and failed to do.  


You can't argue both sides.  
If you want to argue that it was an "8 year free fall" and that's why it couldn't be reversed quickly, I will argue that it wasn't an "8 year free fall" (and it seems you agree with this).

If you want to argue that it couldn't be stopped on a dime, then I will argue that it was a one-year free fall (which you agree) and the STIMULUS was supposed to stop and reverse it.  If you want to argue that the stimulus did reverse the one year free fall....and things are peachy-keen now....I'll just agree too disagree, because I don't believe the economy is better today than it was when the stimulus was enacted.