|
|
On July 10 2012 10:08 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 08:50 farvacola wrote:On July 09 2012 08:49 Chunhyang wrote:On July 09 2012 08:05 Savio wrote:On July 07 2012 07:41 Signet wrote:The 538 blog ( http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ ) is the only site I know that calculates a percent odds for each state. He thinks Obama is more likely to lose Michigan or Pennsylvania than Wisconsin... NH/IA/CO each about 66% odds of going for Obama. OH/VA closer to 60% each (Ohio a little higher, VA a little lower) FL basically 50/50. Thx for a link to that site. It is fairly awesome. I second this. I heart statistics. BTW, anyone gonna LR the election? I will if no one with more zeal volunteers. I'm sure I'll be all over it. However, more importantly for me, is the Wisconsin Senate race  To be quite honest, the news sites are good at presenting the data when it comes to predicting outcomes and reporting on polls.
Part of the fun will be LR'ing the news outlet mistakes and incorrect predictions!
|
The comparison should be over Federal employees specifically. The Federal government has been adding jobs while State and local governments have been laying off workers (along with the post office). Combing them doesn't make sense in a 'what this person did while in office' comparison.
From BLS.gov's CPS, All Federal Employees except US postal service, in Thousands, not seasonally adjusted:
Start of Reagan's term (Feb 1981) = 2264.0
End of Reagan's 1st Term (Jan 1985) = 2224.1
End of Reagan's term (Jan 1989) = 2280.1
Net Adds 1st Term = -39.9
Net Adds both Terms = 16.1
Start of Obama's term (Feb 2009) = 2050.5
Current (June 2012) = 2209.0
Current (Jan 2012) = 2188.8
Net Adds = 158.5, 138.4
There's a bit of seasonality between Jan and June so I included both numbers.
The link you provided here: "More graphs comparing it to Reagan here: http://www.politicususa.com/comparing-employment-levels-government-reagan-obama.html" seems to include US postal workers in the Federal graphs. You can make an argument for doing that but it's a little misleading IMO.
|
On July 11 2012 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The comparison should be over Federal employees specifically. The Federal government has been adding jobs while State and local governments have been laying off workers (along with the post office). Combing them doesn't make sense in a 'what this person did while in office' comparison. From BLS.gov's CPS, All Federal Employees except US postal service, in Thousands, not seasonally adjusted: Start of Reagan's term (Feb 1981) = 2264.0 End of Reagan's 1st Term (Jan 1985) = 2224.1 End of Reagan's term (Jan 1989) = 2280.1 Net Adds 1st Term = -39.9Net Adds both Terms = 16.1Start of Obama's term (Feb 2009) = 2050.5 Current (June 2012) = 2209.0 Current (Jan 2012) = 2188.8 Net Adds = 158.5, 138.4There's a bit of seasonality between Jan and June so I included both numbers. The link you provided here: "More graphs comparing it to Reagan here: http://www.politicususa.com/comparing-employment-levels-government-reagan-obama.html" seems to include US postal workers in the Federal graphs. You can make an argument for doing that but it's a little misleading IMO.
Yes, state and local governments have been laying off workers because of balanced-budget rules. But why does that mean we should look at Federal only?
Surely, the fact that balanced-budget rules are killing public employment, and it's happening under Obama, is worth mentioning and noting?
Anyway, if you clicked on the link that's in my post, you'd see that it splits it up into federal, state and local.
Here's federal public employment:
![[image loading]](http://data.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/federal-employment-1981-1984.png)
![[image loading]](http://data.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/federal-employment-2009-2012.png)
|
On July 11 2012 01:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The comparison should be over Federal employees specifically. The Federal government has been adding jobs while State and local governments have been laying off workers (along with the post office). Combing them doesn't make sense in a 'what this person did while in office' comparison. From BLS.gov's CPS, All Federal Employees except US postal service, in Thousands, not seasonally adjusted: Start of Reagan's term (Feb 1981) = 2264.0 End of Reagan's 1st Term (Jan 1985) = 2224.1 End of Reagan's term (Jan 1989) = 2280.1 Net Adds 1st Term = -39.9Net Adds both Terms = 16.1Start of Obama's term (Feb 2009) = 2050.5 Current (June 2012) = 2209.0 Current (Jan 2012) = 2188.8 Net Adds = 158.5, 138.4There's a bit of seasonality between Jan and June so I included both numbers. The link you provided here: "More graphs comparing it to Reagan here: http://www.politicususa.com/comparing-employment-levels-government-reagan-obama.html" seems to include US postal workers in the Federal graphs. You can make an argument for doing that but it's a little misleading IMO. Yes, state and local governments have been laying off workers because of balanced-budget rules. But why does that mean we should look at Federal only? Surely, the fact that balanced-budget rules are killing public employment, and it's happening under Obama, is worth mentioning and noting? Anyway, if you clicked on the link that's in my post, you'd see that it splits it up into federal, state and local. Here's federal public employment:
I commented on the link from data.politicususa.com
Balanced budget rules are a State thing. Obama is the executive of the Federal government. They are related in an economic sense but have little to do with Obama's job performance, save that the stimulus bill was partially targeted at saving state / local workers.
|
On July 11 2012 01:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 01:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 11 2012 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The comparison should be over Federal employees specifically. The Federal government has been adding jobs while State and local governments have been laying off workers (along with the post office). Combing them doesn't make sense in a 'what this person did while in office' comparison. From BLS.gov's CPS, All Federal Employees except US postal service, in Thousands, not seasonally adjusted: Start of Reagan's term (Feb 1981) = 2264.0 End of Reagan's 1st Term (Jan 1985) = 2224.1 End of Reagan's term (Jan 1989) = 2280.1 Net Adds 1st Term = -39.9Net Adds both Terms = 16.1Start of Obama's term (Feb 2009) = 2050.5 Current (June 2012) = 2209.0 Current (Jan 2012) = 2188.8 Net Adds = 158.5, 138.4There's a bit of seasonality between Jan and June so I included both numbers. The link you provided here: "More graphs comparing it to Reagan here: http://www.politicususa.com/comparing-employment-levels-government-reagan-obama.html" seems to include US postal workers in the Federal graphs. You can make an argument for doing that but it's a little misleading IMO. Yes, state and local governments have been laying off workers because of balanced-budget rules. But why does that mean we should look at Federal only? Surely, the fact that balanced-budget rules are killing public employment, and it's happening under Obama, is worth mentioning and noting? Anyway, if you clicked on the link that's in my post, you'd see that it splits it up into federal, state and local. Here's federal public employment: I commented on the link from data.politicususa.com Balanced budget rules are a State thing. Obama is the executive of the Federal government. They are related in an economic sense but have little to do with Obama's job performance, save that the stimulus bill was partially targeted at saving state / local workers.
US postal workers are federal workers, so I don't see why they should be excluded.
Obama could give more aid to state and local governments as part of more stimulus, and he has proposed to do so. So it does matter, and Obama could affect it.
The fact that state and local employment is falling drastically is very note-worthy. Most people think that government has gotten bigger, but this shows that it isn't true. It also adds weight to the argument that more state and local aid is needed as part of stimulus for the economy. And that balance-budget amendments are bad because they retard countercyclical fiscal policy.
The fact that state and local government employment is falling rapidly isn't some throw-away or casual observation or something to be brushed aside.
|
On July 11 2012 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 01:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2012 01:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 11 2012 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The comparison should be over Federal employees specifically. The Federal government has been adding jobs while State and local governments have been laying off workers (along with the post office). Combing them doesn't make sense in a 'what this person did while in office' comparison. From BLS.gov's CPS, All Federal Employees except US postal service, in Thousands, not seasonally adjusted: Start of Reagan's term (Feb 1981) = 2264.0 End of Reagan's 1st Term (Jan 1985) = 2224.1 End of Reagan's term (Jan 1989) = 2280.1 Net Adds 1st Term = -39.9Net Adds both Terms = 16.1Start of Obama's term (Feb 2009) = 2050.5 Current (June 2012) = 2209.0 Current (Jan 2012) = 2188.8 Net Adds = 158.5, 138.4There's a bit of seasonality between Jan and June so I included both numbers. The link you provided here: "More graphs comparing it to Reagan here: http://www.politicususa.com/comparing-employment-levels-government-reagan-obama.html" seems to include US postal workers in the Federal graphs. You can make an argument for doing that but it's a little misleading IMO. Yes, state and local governments have been laying off workers because of balanced-budget rules. But why does that mean we should look at Federal only? Surely, the fact that balanced-budget rules are killing public employment, and it's happening under Obama, is worth mentioning and noting? Anyway, if you clicked on the link that's in my post, you'd see that it splits it up into federal, state and local. Here's federal public employment: I commented on the link from data.politicususa.com Balanced budget rules are a State thing. Obama is the executive of the Federal government. They are related in an economic sense but have little to do with Obama's job performance, save that the stimulus bill was partially targeted at saving state / local workers. US postal workers are federal workers, so I don't see why they should be excluded. Obama could give more aid to state and local governments as part of more stimulus, and he has proposed to do so. So it does matter, and Obama could affect it. The fact that state and local employment is falling drastically is very note-worthy. Most people think that government has gotten bigger, but this shows that it isn't true. It also adds weight to the argument that more state and local aid is needed as part of stimulus for the economy. And that balance-budget amendments are bad because they retard countercyclical fiscal policy. The fact that state and local government employment is falling rapidly isn't some throw-away or casual observation or something to be brushed aside.
Postal workers are *kinda* Federal workers. Their employment level really depends on how much mail volume the service gets (like a normal business) which has been in decline since 2006. So it is not something Obama has as much control over. Like I said you can make the argument to include it, but you need to be explicit that it is included and what the affect is.
As for government getting bigger it certainly has from a budget standpoint (much bigger) though not from an employment standpoint.
Yes state and local employment matters from an economic standpoint but I don't see how it relates to comparing two different presidential administrations. The Federal and State jobs are not like-for-like. Increasing Federal jobs doesn't put teachers in classrooms so the same thing isn't being done. The Federal government can spend more to make up for the States but I don't see how increasing Federal employment makes up for the States.
|
I wish news articles would cite sources... like where one can get this info.
In 2008, 235 Americans gave up their citizenship. In 2011, that number was 1,780. That is an absolutely stunning 700+ percent increase in the volume of expatriation since Barack Obama took office.
Source
And what about the amount of IRS Agents Obama plans to add? I've seen various estimates from 2000-16,500. Which is right? Who knows. Source
|
On July 11 2012 02:44 Epocalypse wrote:I wish news articles would cite sources... like where one can get this info. Show nested quote +In 2008, 235 Americans gave up their citizenship. In 2011, that number was 1,780. That is an absolutely stunning 700+ percent increase in the volume of expatriation since Barack Obama took office. SourceAnd what about the amount of IRS Agents Obama plans to add? I've seen various estimates from 2000-16,500. Which is right? Who knows. Source
Andrea Ryan is a known alias of objectivist anonymous, and Jim hoft is an idiot.
Hoft -- who has modeled for a John Deere catalogue and "played a cop on 'Unsolved Mysteries' twice" -- has "never had any training in politics or journalism," but now has the "#8 ranked political blog in the United States" that is "frequently mentioned on top national news shows."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/21/jim-hoft-dumbest-man-on-the-internet/170927
Edit: Here's all I could find on John nolte.
“Thanks to ‘Citizens United,’ though, what you now have are mainstream media corporations forced to compete on a level playing field with other individuals and corporations, who can now spend as much money as MSNBC and Politico and The Washington Post, etc. to affect the outcomes of our nation’s politics.
“And this is why the media so loathes ‘Citizens United’ and those beautiful super PACs that have blossomed as a result.”
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?tag=john-nolte
|
On July 11 2012 02:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:44 Epocalypse wrote:I wish news articles would cite sources... like where one can get this info. In 2008, 235 Americans gave up their citizenship. In 2011, that number was 1,780. That is an absolutely stunning 700+ percent increase in the volume of expatriation since Barack Obama took office. SourceAnd what about the amount of IRS Agents Obama plans to add? I've seen various estimates from 2000-16,500. Which is right? Who knows. Source Andrea Ryan is a known alias of objectivist anonymous, and Jim hoft is an idiot. Show nested quote +Hoft -- who has modeled for a John Deere catalogue and "played a cop on 'Unsolved Mysteries' twice" -- has "never had any training in politics or journalism," but now has the "#8 ranked political blog in the United States" that is "frequently mentioned on top national news shows." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/21/jim-hoft-dumbest-man-on-the-internet/170927Edit: Here's all I could find on John nolte. Show nested quote +“Thanks to ‘Citizens United,’ though, what you now have are mainstream media corporations forced to compete on a level playing field with other individuals and corporations, who can now spend as much money as MSNBC and Politico and The Washington Post, etc. to affect the outcomes of our nation’s politics.
“And this is why the media so loathes ‘Citizens United’ and those beautiful super PACs that have blossomed as a result.” http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?tag=john-nolte
I just looked up what troll means for the first time. I think your post serves as a prime example:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Source
My questions still stand to anyone who knows how to answer them.
Where is the best source for finding out how many people renounce US citizenship?
How does Obama planning to expand the IRS play into the "job creation" stats that have been discussed?
Also, how does military size play into "jobs created" in all this? Do they count? If so, under Bush those numbers would have gone up. Are they going down under Obama? And does that tie into Federal rate being flat? As in, removing soldier jobs while creating other jobs elsewhere... like those of IRS agents?
|
|
|
On July 11 2012 02:44 Epocalypse wrote:I wish news articles would cite sources... like where one can get this info. Show nested quote +In 2008, 235 Americans gave up their citizenship. In 2011, that number was 1,780. That is an absolutely stunning 700+ percent increase in the volume of expatriation since Barack Obama took office. SourceAnd what about the amount of IRS Agents Obama plans to add? I've seen various estimates from 2000-16,500. Which is right? Who knows. Source
Dig a little deeper and you will find:
bankrate.com, Judy Martel
Unfortunately it is still unsourced claims, but there is a logical reasoning behind it and it is *beep* of a lot less empty propaganda than the tripe from Andrea Ryan.
It seems the reason is americans living outside america and primarily in Europe are getting squeezed from their country of residency and a certain US tax originating from 1787 and more recently 1916... It is also likely that increased enforcement and the sunset of a 2001 act that increases deductables have an effect...
|
On July 11 2012 04:30 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:55 farvacola wrote:On July 11 2012 02:44 Epocalypse wrote:I wish news articles would cite sources... like where one can get this info. In 2008, 235 Americans gave up their citizenship. In 2011, that number was 1,780. That is an absolutely stunning 700+ percent increase in the volume of expatriation since Barack Obama took office. SourceAnd what about the amount of IRS Agents Obama plans to add? I've seen various estimates from 2000-16,500. Which is right? Who knows. Source Andrea Ryan is a known alias of objectivist anonymous, and Jim hoft is an idiot. Hoft -- who has modeled for a John Deere catalogue and "played a cop on 'Unsolved Mysteries' twice" -- has "never had any training in politics or journalism," but now has the "#8 ranked political blog in the United States" that is "frequently mentioned on top national news shows." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/21/jim-hoft-dumbest-man-on-the-internet/170927Edit: Here's all I could find on John nolte. “Thanks to ‘Citizens United,’ though, what you now have are mainstream media corporations forced to compete on a level playing field with other individuals and corporations, who can now spend as much money as MSNBC and Politico and The Washington Post, etc. to affect the outcomes of our nation’s politics.
“And this is why the media so loathes ‘Citizens United’ and those beautiful super PACs that have blossomed as a result.” http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?tag=john-nolte I just looked up what troll means for the first time. I think your post serves as a prime example: Show nested quote +In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. SourceMy questions still stand to anyone who knows how to answer them. Where is the best source for finding out how many people renounce US citizenship? How does Obama planning to expand the IRS play into the "job creation" stats that have been discussed? Also, how does military size play into "jobs created" in all this? Do they count? If so, under Bush those numbers would have gone up. Are they going down under Obama? And does that tie into Federal rate being flat? As in, removing soldier jobs while creating other jobs elsewhere... like those of IRS agents?
For the numbers I posted as well as the BLS monthly jobs report as well as most jobs numbers you hear on the news:
Government employment includes only civilian employees. Military personnel on active duty are excluded. Employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency also are excluded.
http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesfaq.htm
|
On July 11 2012 04:30 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:55 farvacola wrote:On July 11 2012 02:44 Epocalypse wrote:I wish news articles would cite sources... like where one can get this info. In 2008, 235 Americans gave up their citizenship. In 2011, that number was 1,780. That is an absolutely stunning 700+ percent increase in the volume of expatriation since Barack Obama took office. SourceAnd what about the amount of IRS Agents Obama plans to add? I've seen various estimates from 2000-16,500. Which is right? Who knows. Source Andrea Ryan is a known alias of objectivist anonymous, and Jim hoft is an idiot. Hoft -- who has modeled for a John Deere catalogue and "played a cop on 'Unsolved Mysteries' twice" -- has "never had any training in politics or journalism," but now has the "#8 ranked political blog in the United States" that is "frequently mentioned on top national news shows." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/21/jim-hoft-dumbest-man-on-the-internet/170927Edit: Here's all I could find on John nolte. “Thanks to ‘Citizens United,’ though, what you now have are mainstream media corporations forced to compete on a level playing field with other individuals and corporations, who can now spend as much money as MSNBC and Politico and The Washington Post, etc. to affect the outcomes of our nation’s politics.
“And this is why the media so loathes ‘Citizens United’ and those beautiful super PACs that have blossomed as a result.” http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?tag=john-nolte I just looked up what troll means for the first time. I think your post serves as a prime example: Show nested quote +In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Source
How the hell is farvacola a troll? You posted two articles and he commented on the authors of your articles. Not answering your question on the sources doesn't make him a troll.
|
If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance.
|
On July 11 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote:
If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance.
Yeah good riddance...only it will mean less overall revenues for the government and they'll have to make up for it in someother way, possibly by raising taxes on everyone else.
|
On July 11 2012 11:26 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote:
If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance. Yeah good riddance...only it will mean less overall revenues for the government and they'll have to make up for it in someother way, possibly by raising taxes on everyone else.
Yeah, because if they leave because of taxes they were such valuable contributors to our tax revenue in the first place.
|
On July 11 2012 11:39 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 11:26 1Eris1 wrote:On July 11 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote:
If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance. Yeah good riddance...only it will mean less overall revenues for the government and they'll have to make up for it in someother way, possibly by raising taxes on everyone else. Yeah, because if they leave because of taxes they were such valuable contributors to our tax revenue in the first place.
Even if a millionaire is using tax loopholes to reduce his payments, he's still paying a shitton of money. The wealthiest 10% pay something like 40-45% of our total taxes so it's a pretty damn big deal if they keep leaving.
edit: yeah, 45.1%
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us
|
|
|
On July 11 2012 12:03 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 11:39 Lightwip wrote:On July 11 2012 11:26 1Eris1 wrote:On July 11 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote:
If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance. Yeah good riddance...only it will mean less overall revenues for the government and they'll have to make up for it in someother way, possibly by raising taxes on everyone else. Yeah, because if they leave because of taxes they were such valuable contributors to our tax revenue in the first place. Even if a millionaire is using tax loopholes to reduce his payments, he's still paying a shitton of money. The wealthiest 10% pay something like 40-45% of our total taxes so it's a pretty damn big deal if they keep leaving. edit: yeah, 45.1% http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us
If a few moneygrubbers leave but more revenue comes from the rest of the tax base, the net revenue increases, exen after you factor in the decline of GDP induced by higher taxes.
So good riddance to those thousand moneygrubbers. I personally don't mind if they go live in some tax haven if they can't pay their fair share.
|
On July 11 2012 13:11 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 12:03 1Eris1 wrote:On July 11 2012 11:39 Lightwip wrote:On July 11 2012 11:26 1Eris1 wrote:On July 11 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote:
If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance. Yeah good riddance...only it will mean less overall revenues for the government and they'll have to make up for it in someother way, possibly by raising taxes on everyone else. Yeah, because if they leave because of taxes they were such valuable contributors to our tax revenue in the first place. Even if a millionaire is using tax loopholes to reduce his payments, he's still paying a shitton of money. The wealthiest 10% pay something like 40-45% of our total taxes so it's a pretty damn big deal if they keep leaving. edit: yeah, 45.1% http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us If a few moneygrubbers leave but more revenue comes from the rest of the tax base, the net revenue increases, exen after you factor in the decline of GDP induced by higher taxes. So good riddance to those thousand moneygrubbers. I personally don't mind if they go live in some tax haven if they can't pay their fair share.
Please, continue to argue how it is not a problem for capital to flee a country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BUSHvOBAMA_jobsREV.png)
