The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Echoing previous statements from Nancy Pelosi, Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney confirms the administration's continued job creation strategy.


"I understand why extending unemployment insurance provides relief to people who need it, but how does that create jobs," Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler asked Jay Carney at Wednesday's WH briefing.

"Oh, uh, it is by, uh, I would expect a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam."

"There are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance."

"It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren't running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They're not going to save it, they're going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually."

"Every place that, that money is spent has added business and that creates growth and income for businesses that leads them to decisions about jobs, more hiring. So, there are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance, Carney said.

The failure in this logic is that employed people put far more money back into the economy than unemployed people.

Unemployment benefits do not represent an open loop, as we hopefully understand now.  The money must first come out of the economy in the form of wage deduction, loans, or just be printed.  It re-enters primarily in the form of payment on mortgage/rent and basic survival necessities such as food and energy.  While it does serve to maintain these industries, it does little or nothing stimulate job creation.

Secondly with each extension of benefits, pressure on businesses to hire decreases, as does pressure on job seekers to market, and general confidence in the economy.  The longer job seekers stay out of the market, the less likely they are to acquire employment.

I had a candidate tell me just last week, when I asked him about the hole in his resume, that he had been "waiting until the economy gets better to look for a job."  He then added that "he has 2 weeks until his benefits run out."  Do you think we will hire this guy?

Carney estimates that unemployment could create up to one million jobs this year.

Is there something untrue in what Carney said? No.

Is there something misleading in characterizing his remarks as "confirmation of a job creating strategy"? Yes

Are you losing credibility with each anti-Obama, anti-dem, negative spin? Yes

If you are so incensed by the practice, then by all means get your TP buddies in Congress to shut the valve on unemployment compensation and watch the economy dwindle to riot status.

I am currently unemployed but refuse to apply because I know the repercussions that ensue when employers with your attitude note gaps and punish accordingly without regard to circumstances. I did file against Cities Service Oil when they arbitrarily released me in exchange for a long term co-worker not suing them for gender discrimination back in the day. Seems she thought her tenure was more important than my degree. Like many people, it was for revenge and gave me a chance to catch my breath and start over.

I am sure it doesn't "create" jobs.  But keeps jobs.  I am sure if 10% of your households stopped paying their electricity bill then the power companies would want to lay people off.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on August 11, 2011, 01:31:22 PM
I am sure it doesn't "create" jobs.  But keeps jobs.  I am sure if 10% of your households stopped paying their electricity bill then the power companies would want to lay people off.

I agree, but to sell it as a jobs program is really sad. . .or at least sadder. It's an indication that "more of the same" is all we will be offered.

We should never be in a situation where increasing unemployment benefits is the first direction we run.  That is a reactive position. 

There are so many things we could do, should have done, can still do, but won't. There are so many things that we have done in the past, can do again, and have always succeeded, but won't consider.

We are simply stuck until the next election, and that's sad.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 11, 2011, 01:46:47 PM

There are so many things we could do, should have done, can still do, but won't. There are so many things that we have done in the past, can do again, and have always succeeded, but won't consider.

I agree with these sentences entirely. Sadly, though, I think those things that you're referring to are entirely different than the things I'm referring to.  Which is where the issue really lies.

Quote from: we vs us on August 11, 2011, 01:54:30 PM
I agree with these sentences entirely. Sadly, though, I think those things that you're referring to are entirely different than the things I'm referring to.  Which is where the issue really lies.

No.  The issue is that you and I are vastly different in our political views.  Diabolically diverse.  However the sad part is that we can both agree to the above.

That is why I believe we will be stuck until the next election.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 11, 2011, 01:46:47 PM
I agree, but to sell it as a jobs program is really sad. . .or at least sadder. It's an indication that "more of the same" is all we will be offered.

We should never be in a situation where increasing unemployment benefits is the first direction we run.  That is a reactive position.  

There are so many things we could do, should have done, can still do, but won't. There are so many things that we have done in the past, can do again, and have always succeeded, but won't consider.

We are simply stuck until the next election, and that's sad.

Well, it is a stimulus program targeted towards people that used to work.  I say its way better than mailing out another check to everybody.  Is stimulus a jobs program?  Is firing all government workers a jobs program?

Yes, Gaspar, there is in fact a rash of people who aren't actually looking for gainful employment, but are instead subsisting on around 40% of their previous pay, just because they're lazy.

But yeah, UI doesn't really create jobs, it just slows down the death spiral to a point where it can be controlled, presuming the political will to control it exists. I can understand why you don't like it, though. You seem to be eagerly anticipating a deflationary spiral, what with your comments about hard money the other day. I'm slowly becoming convinced that we'll see exactly that quite soon, so bully for you.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on August 11, 2011, 04:27:32 PM
Well, it is a stimulus program targeted towards people that used to work.  I say its way better than mailing out another check to everybody.  Is stimulus a jobs program?  Is firing all government workers a jobs program?

Sure it's better than a pigeon drop of a one time stimulus because it's recurring.  However, both means don't create productivity.  The government is paying people to be idle.  Of course, the next question is "What do you expect them to do?  Allow unemployed people to starve?"

Of course I don't want those people to starve.  But referring to unemployment as some sort of a jobs program illustrates a true disconnect with what creates jobs.  This administration consistently shows a complete lack of understanding of how to create jobs which is so poor, it's never been seen before by any previous administration.  

This has nothing to do with a bias against Democrats or liberal policy.  I'd call it out just as harshly on McCain were making the same mistakes right now.

We have good news.  As soon as President Obama gets back from his 10 days on the Vineyards, he is going to unveil his Jobs Plan.  This is the plan we've been waiting for. . . 3 Years in the making, this plan is designed to give lower and middle class voters a reason to vote jobs.

Seeking to jolt the economy, President Barack Obama will propose new ideas to create jobs and help the struggling poor and middle class in a major speech after Labor Day. And then he will try to seize political advantage by spending the fall pressuring Congress to act on his plan.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_JOBS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-17-07-07-10

Of course we've had hints as to what's going to be in the plan.  In a candid slip this week President Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack indicated that more food stamps will be part of the program, and White House Press Secretary Carney indicated that more jobs would be linked to more unemployment benefits. We can also make a reasonable assumption that the plan will include extending the payroll tax deduction, and $250 billion in extra stimulus money for green jobs.

I am so excited to hear what else in in the plan.  There is going to be fainting, and teleprompters, Henrietta Hughes, and it's just going to be like old times. This is going to be the longest 10 days for me. :D
(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/kreefax/kreefax0801/kreefax080100017/2388213-isolated-shot-of-an-excited-man-smiling-enthusiastically.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2011, 01:49:16 PM
We have good news.  As soon as President Obama gets back from his 10 days on the Vineyards, he is going to unveil his Jobs Plan. 

Well, that is good news.

Getting any plans from your people too?  Let's see all of their plans.  I bet they're super.

Your posts...

Quote from: Townsend on August 17, 2011, 01:59:12 PM
Well, that is good news.

Getting any plans from your people too?  Let's see all of their plans.  I bet they're super.

Your posts...

Eliminate Obamacare and deregulate the sale of private insurance across state borders.
Adopt the concepts of Cut, Cap, and Balance, and get our AAA rating back. 
Simplify the tax code (pick a plan as long as it doesn't raise taxes).
Heal unemployment by restoring it to it's previous limits.
Stop talking about businesses and the rich like they are enemy's, they are not, they are goals!
Then if their's time, eliminate almost all government agencies who's name starts with "The Department of. . ."

You are probably not real keen on that plan though.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2011, 02:44:43 PM

You are probably not real keen on that plan though.

If it was implemented by the government in power right now, you'd still be "not real keen" on it.

That's how you post.  It's why people tend to blow you off.

Quote from: Townsend on August 17, 2011, 02:54:47 PM
If it was implemented by the government in power right now, you'd still be "not real keen" on it.

That's how you post.  It's why people tend to blow you off.

Well that is something to think about.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2011, 03:02:18 PM
Well that is something to think about.

Well it sure is.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2011, 02:44:43 PM


Eliminate Obamacare and deregulate the sale of private insurance across state borders.
Adopt the concepts of Cut, Cap, and Balance, and get our AAA rating back.  
Simplify the tax code (pick a plan as long as it doesn't raise taxes).
Heal unemployment by restoring it to it's previous limits.
Stop talking about businesses and the rich like they are enemy's, they are not, they are goals!
Then if their's time, eliminate almost all government agencies who's name starts with "The Department of. . ."

Eliminate... even though that will increase costs by almost $300 billion.  Yeah, more deficit...just what we need.

Adopt...well, that certainly goes to the script.  All proven failures for over 30 years.

Simplify...yeah, right.  Like that could happen.  There is no vested interest of the richest to be served by simplification.  And do you REALLY, even after all this time think that going back to the pre-Baby Bush tax levels can be avoided??  (If so, you really need some reality juice.)

Heal unemployment... not sure I understand what that phrase means, but probably won't be possible to get rid of NAFTA and all the other "pro-business" items - and that does indeed mean the pro-rich items - that have burdened us for the last 3 decades.  And left us with chronic long term unemployment of huge numbers of what would be blue-collar workers.  If there were any blue-collar (manufacturing!!) jobs left.

Rich - no, not the enemy - just the group of people who have been using their money to buy power and wage class warfare on the bottom 99% in this country.  (You do realize that you are part of that 99% - they really don't want you either, except as 'foot soldier'.)

Eliminate government agencies...yeah, like the drunken orgy of deregulation we have also engaged in for the last 30 years has been SUCH and improvement.  Destruction of vast majority of private pensions in the country.  Steady reduction in pay in real terms for the last 30 years.  MASSIVE increases in the national debt - the REAL hidden inflation that neither side wants anyone to understand.  Yep, deregulation has been a boon!!

Step away from the Kool-Aid!!!

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 18, 2011, 08:29:07 PM
Eliminate... even though that will increase costs by almost $300 billion.  Yeah, more deficit...just what we need.

Tell me you don't still believe this fairy tale that Obamacare, as passed, will possibly save the government any money whatsoever.  Please demonstrate to all of us the chapter and verse which clearly spells this out.  You simply cannot increase the amount of healthcare coverage available in the country and bring on a previously unrealized risk group without necessarily raising the costs to government.  It takes piles of accounting shenanigans to show anything remotely close to savings.

Obamacare is and will prove to be such a disincentive to new hires that I predict overall payroll tax revenue and individual income tax receipts to the treasury will drop.

Just wait...

And no, that's not gloating.  This whole social experimentation issue that President Obama has is incredibly destructive, but he doesn't give a smile because he's well-employed and his well-being and that of his family is assured for life.  But hey, we've got a great celebrity for President.  It's obvious he understands even less than President Carter did about economics.  

Is that right wing talking points I'm seeing? Has anybody besides me been listening to this on the radio? Did I read this on some blogs?

Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:08 PM
Tell me you don't still believe this fairy tale that Obamacare, as passed, will possibly save the government any money whatsoever.  Please demonstrate to all of us the chapter and verse which clearly spells this out.  You simply cannot increase the amount of healthcare coverage available in the country and bring on a previously unrealized risk group without necessarily raising the costs to government.  It takes piles of accounting shenanigans to show anything remotely close to savings.

Obamacare is and will prove to be such a disincentive to new hires that I predict overall payroll tax revenue and individual income tax receipts to the treasury will drop.

Just wait...

And no, that's not gloating.  This whole social experimentation issue that President Obama has is incredibly destructive, but he doesn't give a smile because he's well-employed and his well-being and that of his family is assured for life.  But hey, we've got a great celebrity for President.  It's obvious he understands even less than President Carter did about economics.  

You believe the PROVEN LIE that cutting taxes will somehow reduce deficits, increase jobs, and float everyone's boat just a little bit higher!  Proven lie for decades.

I say that it can't be any worse than an even swap.  And that still is better than trillions in the hole that the other policy has given us.

And maybe Obama doesn't understand much about economics - but he does understand orders of magnitude more about it than Bush did.

Unemployment is probably the best way to create new jobs.  If everyone were employed, there would be no one to take any new jobs.
;D

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 18, 2011, 08:45:47 PM
I say that it can't be any worse than an even swap.  

Never challenge worse.

Bill Cosby I believe.

I had a wonderful stint of almost 3 years of not being able to find work, so am very curious where those 40% unemployment benefits are?  I want to move there next time I lose a job.  I got about 10%.  For just a few months (before the extensions of today).  But hey, that 10% was all the incentive I needed to stay on "the dole" and just lounge around waiting for something to happen.


And Gaspar...if you interviewed me, I would make it very plain that I would start immediately after the interview was over, if that was ok - in fact, let's just quit talking so I can start!  As would all of the other 8 to 10 close friends and family that have been out of work at one time or another in the last 5 years.  I guess you are just interviewing the wrong people.  Start looking at someone that has been out over a year.  You are much more likely to find a highly motivated person.

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 18, 2011, 08:50:33 PM
Never challenge worse.

Bill Cosby I believe.

Yeah, no matter how bad it gets, it can always get worse.  And even dying ain't the worse thing that can happen.

But it will have to go a LONG way to beat the Baby Bush years and the adverse effect of same!  And even longer to recover from the drunken orgy of spending and tax cuts for the rich we have endured the last decades.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 18, 2011, 08:45:47 PM
You believe the PROVEN LIE that cutting taxes will somehow reduce deficits, increase jobs, and float everyone's boat just a little bit higher!  Proven lie for decades.

I say that it can't be any worse than an even swap.  And that still is better than trillions in the hole that the other policy has given us.

And maybe Obama doesn't understand much about economics - but he does understand orders of magnitude more about it than Bush did.

Hah, hah, hah!  Complete obfuscation. You cannot prove your point so you resort to a canard that doesn't apply to me.

I've stated repeatedly here that paying the piper will mean everyone has to pay more in taxes at some point. But there is a cost to that!

When it comes to the actual effects of higher taxes on employment, just listen to what the corporate types are saying.  They are the ones who do and don't create jobs.  Take a read of why Cisco created a bunch of jobs in Ireland instead of here then get back to me.  That's the tip of the iceberg.

Why should "everyone" be forced into paying higher taxes?^

Quote from: Teatownclown on August 18, 2011, 09:04:13 PM
Why should "everyone" be forced into paying higher taxes?^

Because everyone want's something out of the gubmint.  Pay up sucka.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 18, 2011, 08:59:46 PM
But it will have to go a LONG way to beat the Baby Bush years and the adverse effect of same! 

Obama is working on it.
;D

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 18, 2011, 08:57:24 PM
Start looking at someone that has been out over a year.  You are much more likely to find a highly motivated person.

Maybe, maybe not.

Quote from: Teatownclown on August 18, 2011, 09:04:13 PM
Why should "everyone" be forced into paying higher taxes?^

Doesn't "everyone" benefit?

Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2011, 09:06:35 PM
Because everyone want's something out of the gubmint.  Pay up sucka.

Do you suppose some of us are willing to be means tested? Who else here would be willing to forego a portion of what's due if indeed there was financial justification?

What is your opinion of this idea? http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/raul-grijalva-on-job-boosting-bill-and-immigrant-rights-part-1 and http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/raul-grijalva-on-job-boosting-bill-and-immigrant-rights-part-2

Quote from: Teatownclown on August 18, 2011, 09:25:11 PM
Do you suppose some of us are willing to be means tested? Who else here would be willing to forego a portion of what's due if indeed there was financial justification?

If what I am due is based on what I have paid in, NO!

Will my grocery prices depend on my Form 1040?

If I pay cash for a car, does the engine cost extra?

One of my cousins is on disability.  She had to sell a car she owned outright (Bonneville) and buy a "lesser" car on credit because a Bonneville is a "Luxury car".

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 18, 2011, 09:42:18 PM
If what I am due is based on what I have paid in, NO!

Will my grocery prices depend on my Form 1040?

If I pay cash for a car, does the engine cost extra?

One of my cousins is on disability.  She had to sell a car she owned outright (Bonneville) and buy a "lesser" car on credit because a Bonneville is a "Luxury car".

Who said you'd qualify? Why would you be against someone who makes $25,000 a month foregoing a portion of their social service take? Someone making $100,000 a month taking in $2500 a month agreeing to take just $1500?

Quote from: Teatownclown on August 18, 2011, 09:45:59 PM
Who said you'd qualify? Why would you be against someone who makes $25,000 a month foregoing a portion of their social service take?

Based on that and lesser examples, I don't have a problem with means testing.  I'm quite certain there's a number of retirees getting hip and knee replacements compliments of the federal government who could afford to pay for it but might have to sell the condo in Boca Raton or Breckinridge to afford it.  Likewise with nursing home and other assisted care options.

Quote from: Teatownclown on August 18, 2011, 09:45:59 PM
Who said you'd qualify?

No one. I agree that I probably wouldn't but that's now.  What about 10 or 15 years from now?  What would be the qualifying level then?  Does it not matter if it doesn't affect you?   Not my problem?  I think that's part of how we got where we are today.

Quote
Why would you be against someone who makes $25,000 a month foregoing a portion of their social service take? Someone making $100,000 a month taking in $2500 a month agreeing to take just $1500?

On principle. If I pay a dollar for goods and services, I expect a dollar's worth of goods and services regardless of my savings account.  If someone is giving out gifts, then they can choose however they want to distribute them.

I wouldn't mind if they voluntarily didn't collect but object to it being mandatory.

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 18, 2011, 10:05:04 PM

On principle. If I pay a dollar for goods and services, I expect a dollar's worth of goods and services regardless of my savings account. 

OK. If I read this correctly, your attitude is if you come into a gaziliion dollars, you could give a smile about the poor, the uneducated, and the diseased?

Were you humoring me with the "voluntary" idea?

Quote from: Teatownclown on August 18, 2011, 10:09:20 PM
OK. If I read this correctly, your attitude is if you come into a gaziliion dollars, you could give a smile about the poor, the uneducated, and the diseased?

Were you humoring me with the "voluntary" idea?

You read it incorrectly.

If I came into a gazillion dollars, you can bet that I would be paying more tax than my gross income now.  Even at only 15% effective rate.  I believe a lot of my taxes go to help the unfortunate.  How much of my gazillion do you want each year to help the poor, uneducated, and diseased?

If I had a gazillion dollars, I could afford to be philanthropic and would likely be so to causes of my choice.  My choices may not be your choices.  Kind of like Warren Buffet and his crowd.  (I wonder if he gets to deduct his philanthropic activities when calculating his income tax.)

I was not attempting to humor you with the voluntary idea.  If you feel strongly enough that you don't deserve a benefit you paid for, there is no reason you should be forced to take it.  On the flip side, there is (presently) no reason to give me food stamps since I can buy my own food.  I believe this is consistent with my statement in another thread that if Warren Buffet thinks he should pay more tax, he should be able to do so voluntarily.

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 18, 2011, 10:50:24 PM
You read it incorrectly.

If I came into a gazillion dollars, you can bet that I would be paying more tax than my gross income now.  Even at only 15% effective rate.  I believe a lot of my taxes go to help the unfortunate.  How much of my gazillion do you want each year to help the poor, uneducated, and diseased?

If I had a gazillion dollars, I could afford to be philanthropic and would likely be so to causes of my choice.  My choices may not be your choices.  Kind of like Warren Buffet and his crowd.  (I wonder if he gets to deduct his philanthropic activities when calculating his income tax.)

I was not attempting to humor you with the voluntary idea.  If you feel strongly enough that you don't deserve a benefit you paid for, there is no reason you should be forced to take it.  On the flip side, there is (presently) no reason to give me food stamps since I can buy my own food.  I believe this is consistent with my statement in another thread that if Warren Buffet thinks he should pay more tax, he should be able to do so voluntarily.

And yet, even if they taxed you more, they would still be borrowing at horrifying rates to feed the less fortunate. It's always going to be politically unpopular to raise taxes, although you can catch the occasional billionaire claiming they are shocked by how little they pay in taxes.

Of course, Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates are always welcome to hire more income earners, with all this surplus income they wish the government would take, who will add to the overall tax base as a solution too.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2011, 12:05:33 AM
And yet, even if they taxed you more, they would still be borrowing at horrifying rates to feed the less fortunate. It's always going to be politically unpopular to raise taxes, although you can catch the occasional billionaire claiming they are shocked by how little they pay in taxes.

Of course, Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates are always welcome to hire more income earners, with all this surplus income they wish the government would take, who will add to the overall tax base as a solution too.

I have a horrible vision that the day may come in my lifetime that the only way I will get any Social Security payments from the fund I have been paying into for nearly 40 years is to be flat broke.  My vision for the future is that if my personal income is less than SS, SS will make up the difference and that is all.  If my personal income even matches SS benefits, I won't get any $ from SS.

Happy?

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 19, 2011, 08:08:23 AM
I have a horrible vision that the day may come in my lifetime that the only way I will get any Social Security payments from the fund I have been paying into for nearly 40 years is to be flat broke.  My vision for the future is that if my personal income is less than SS, SS will make up the difference and that is all.  If my personal income even matches SS benefits, I won't get any $ from SS.

Happy?

Don't get me wrong.  I agree with you.  You had to put money into this compulsory retirement savings plan which you could have put into your own well-disciplined retirement fund and you might have even been able to retire before now.  I'm further back in line than you, about 22 years from the current eligibility.  How do you think it looks for people my age?  I'm figuring I'll be doing a working "retirement" somewhere rather than holding my breath on getting my benefits.

I have never considered Social Security as a part of my retirement.  Don't even factor it into the equation. When I was very young and started my retirement fund, my father told me to ignore SS completely, just to regard it as an additional tax.

I however do intend to retire!  If SS still exists and pays for a grocery or two, then fantastic, but it plays no role in my investment strategy.

It is unfortunate that so many were fooled into thinking that SS would be a stable are reliable income source for retirement.  It's the worst of Ponzi schemes.

In fact, here is an explanation of the system that Charles Ponzi himself created:

You start by convincing a group of people, say five of them, to each give you some money, say $1,000, with the promise that each month thereafter, you're going to give them $50 back.   That works out to $600 over the year, or a 60% rate of return.   Not too shabby!   These people are a little skeptical at first, but the promised 60% rate of return seems worth the risk.     So you collect $5,000, but pay out $600 to each of these five people, $3,000 in total, leaving you ahead by $2000 at year end.   So far so good — stick with me...

Here's how you'll fund the $3,000 you're going to pay to those five people.

Not long after the first five, you find ten other people to also give you $1000, with the promise that they, too, will get $50 back each month thereafter.  You take in $10,000, and over the course of the year, you pay back the $3,000 to the first group of five people, leaving you with $7,000 from the group of ten, plus the full $5,000 from the group of five, for a total of $12,000.   But you still owe the group of ten $6,000.    That's OK, because after you pay them, you're still ahead by $6,000.

You can repeat the same funding mechanism to pay back that group of ten.    Find another ten people, or ideally, more than ten, promise each of them $50 a month, and pay them by using the incoming cash from yet another group of people.  Keep this going for a while and all the people earning 60% a year on their money might even turn you on to their friends.   It almost seems like a virtuous circle.

All the math for this will work out great provided you play by some simple rules.  You absolutely must keep finding more people to pay in.   You might need to start promising a lower return to new "investors", just to help the math.

Sure, that's not how it was intended to work, but that's how it does.  It cannot be fixed, because the number of people who pay in cannot support the number of payouts.  Sure you can adjust the amount in-out or the payout time-limit, but that is a temporary fix to a permanent problem.

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 18, 2011, 09:19:30 PM
Maybe, maybe not.

Ok, then...based on my experience with about double the 8 to 10 mentioned earlier, people I have known who were out more than 6 months were WAY more than ready to go back to work.  Even to the point of taking 'lessor' work to at least fill in the time.  My personal experience is that I have not met these slackers that are the fodder of RWRE propaganda and hype.  But then, I guess I just don't hang around with slackers...

Quote from: Gaspar on August 19, 2011, 08:59:56 AM
I have never considered Social Security as a part of my retirement.  Don't even factor it into the equation. When I was very young and started my retirement fund, my father told me to ignore SS completely, just to regard it as an additional tax.

I have been actively saving for retirement since I was in my young 30s.  Traditional retirement programs were going away as Reagan haters love to remind us.  What they don't remember was something called vesting.  It worked well for my father's generation when you worked for the same place for 35 or so years.  Those plans were not portable to your next job and you lost any company paid money which had not met the vesting timetable.  I have a little bit of that kind of money waiting for me from the Government Pension Guarantee organization since my employer from that era is long gone.  I put money in IRAs when they first became available.  I have put nearly the max into 401K programs at 4 different places in the last approximately 25 years.  I have always been conservative (yes, cheap too) with my money so my retirement savings have not rocketed into the stratosphere.  Nor have I lost everything due to the stock market.  I too have tried to count on SS as "beer money" but the closer I get, the more it looks like it will be a significant portion of my retirement income.  SS is already on a plan that starts full benefits at ages older than 65.  That doesn't bother me.   I will be eligible at 66.  (For the morbidly inquisitive, you should be able to figure my age now.)  Steps taken to save SS like raising the income cap from around  $20,000 to now around $106,000 were sabotaged by raiding the fund.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2011, 09:01:43 PM
Hah, hah, hah!  Complete obfuscation. You cannot prove your point so you resort to a canard that doesn't apply to me.

I've stated repeatedly here that paying the piper will mean everyone has to pay more in taxes at some point. But there is a cost to that!

When it comes to the actual effects of higher taxes on employment, just listen to what the corporate types are saying.  They are the ones who do and don't create jobs.  Take a read of why Cisco created a bunch of jobs in Ireland instead of here then get back to me.  That's the tip of the iceberg.

Not at all.  You readily dismiss the CBO out of hand without so much as a glimmer of evidence, shred of proof or any other valid information that might lead to enlightenment.  (You channeling guido lately???  Hope not!)

As far as paying higher taxes - yeah, it is inevitable since the lies of the last 30 years have put us into this hole.  And when you are listening to the corporate types, you are deluding yourself, also as has been proven not just over the last 30 years, but for at least 60 years (since 1950 or so).  What else would you expect them to say??  It is identical to asking a kid if it is a good idea to have candy for breakfast.  Of course he is gonna say yes!!  Duh!!

Look how embarrassing the situation had to get before Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, John Bogle, and other "richest of the rich" came forward - several years ago - to say how bad the situation was, and would get worse.    

The whole concept of a tax cut at the beginning of a recession, followed by tax hikes following soon after has been applied repeatedly and extremely successfully for at least those 60 years.  Until this last Bush adventure into true voodoo economics.  And you see where we are now.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 19, 2011, 12:27:10 PM
Ok, then...based on my experience with about double the 8 to 10 mentioned earlier, people I have known who were out more than 6 months were WAY more than ready to go back to work.  Even to the point of taking 'lessor' work to at least fill in the time.  My personal experience is that I have not met these slackers that are the fodder of RWRE propaganda and hype.  But then, I guess I just don't hang around with slackers...

It probably depends on how hungry you are.  My intention was to differentiate between those who wanted a job, any job and those who might be interested in working for a particular employer.  Which do you think an employer would prefer?

Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2011, 08:26:39 AM
Don't get me wrong.  I agree with you.  You had to put money into this compulsory retirement savings plan which you could have put into your own well-disciplined retirement fund and you might have even been able to retire before now.  I'm further back in line than you, about 22 years from the current eligibility.  How do you think it looks for people my age?  I'm figuring I'll be doing a working "retirement" somewhere rather than holding my breath on getting my benefits.

I'm less than 10 years from that age and I am definitely looking at that working "retirement".  There won't be any such thing as retirement for me.  Even with SS.  And it is directly due to the economic destruction laid on us for the last 30 years.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2011, 08:26:39 AM
I'm further back in line than you, about 22 years from the current eligibility.  How do you think it looks for people my age?  I'm figuring I'll be doing a working "retirement" somewhere rather than holding my breath on getting my benefits.

You better hope someone has a bunch of kids to pay your way.
;D

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 19, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
You better hope someone has a bunch of kids to pay your way.
;D

What's interesting is that demographically we're not in as bad a shape as everyone thinks we are.  The Boomer generation is about 75 million people all told, but the Millenials -- born 1980ish to 2000 -- are going to be 80 million or more. If we can manage to swap Boomer for Millenial employment, the SS structure should remain viable. Xers like me are just along for the ride  ;D

Quote from: we vs us on August 19, 2011, 01:18:16 PM
What's interesting is that demographically we're not in as bad a shape as everyone thinks we are.  The Boomer generation is about 75 million people all told, but the Millenials -- born 1980ish to 2000 -- are going to be 80 million or more. If we can manage to swap Boomer for Millenial employment, the SS structure should remain viable. Xers like me are just along for the ride  ;D

Make it financially attractive to retire and I'm your man.  I like what I do at work but I can find plenty to keep me busy in an alternative career (retired).

We got a few more hints yesterday from Mr. Axelrod on CNN yesterday (as President Obama hosted the CEO of MSNBC for dinner on the Vineyard).

Looks like more government stimulus projects are in the works.  Roads, railways, and runways?

SWEET!

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5273/5812730156_486c7614eb.jpg)

You're just pissed he's doing something that might improve the economy. You'd rather have the economy in the tank until the election next year so your side can chalk up another W. At least that's what the sum of your completely incoherent positions seems to indicate.

Quote from: nathanm on August 22, 2011, 09:08:58 AM
You're just pissed he's doing something that might improve the economy. You'd rather have the economy in the tank until the election next year so your side can chalk up another W. At least that's what the sum of your completely incoherent positions seems to indicate.

Wow!  Ya got me! 

What the blazes is he doing to improve the economy?  :D

Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 09:20:37 AM
What the blazes is he doing to improve the economy?  :D

Take advice from Avis. Try harder.

Quote from: nathanm on August 22, 2011, 09:08:58 AM
You're just pissed he's doing something that might improve the economy. You'd rather have the economy in the tank until the election next year so your side can chalk up another W. At least that's what the sum of your completely incoherent positions seems to indicate.

I don't know of anyone who really wants the dour economic outlook to continue.  I would have far preferred that President Obama would have come up with policies which helped turn the economy around and he'd be one of the more successful examples of a recovery administration we've seen.  Unfortunately, time is running out for him and I'm afraid the stimulus he is going to propose will look more like a bag of...*ahem*...vote purchases.  Tax rebates for lower wage earners, more projects for union trades, more cash for clunkers, some rebates on thermal windows or solar panels made in China.

It's not partisan for me, Nate.  The numbers have been near flat forever which says we've not really gained substantial ground on jobs or GDP since January 2009.  We are now in the 30th month of this administration so blaming the previous administration for the continued malaise isn't possible.  Granted, the administration has limited options at it's disposal, but this President has consistently been uninspiring and underwhelming on matters of the economy from day 1.  

Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 11:23:08 AM
I don't know of anyone who really wants the dour economic outlook to continue.  I would have far preferred that President Obama would have come up with policies which helped turn the economy around and he'd be one of the more successful examples of a recovery administration we've seen.  Unfortunately, time is running out for him and I'm afraid the stimulus he is going to propose will look more like a bag of...*ahem*...vote purchases.  Tax rebates for lower wage earners, more projects for union trades, more cash for clunkers, some rebates on thermal windows or solar panels made in China.

It's not partisan for me, Nate.  The numbers have been near flat forever which says we've not really gained substantial ground on jobs or GDP since January 2009.  We are now in the 30th month of this administration so blaming the previous administration for the continued malaise isn't possible.  Granted, the administration has limited options at it's disposal, but this President has consistently been uninspiring and underwhelming on matters of the economy from day 1.  

It has always seemed like a secondary concern for him too.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 11:23:08 AM
I don't know of anyone who really wants the dour economic outlook to continue.  I would have far preferred that President Obama would have come up with policies which helped turn the economy around and he'd be one of the more successful examples of a recovery administration we've seen.  Unfortunately, time is running out for him and I'm afraid the stimulus he is going to propose will look more like a bag of...*ahem*...vote purchases.  Tax rebates for lower wage earners, more projects for union trades, more cash for clunkers, some rebates on thermal windows or solar panels made in China.

It's not partisan for me, Nate.  The numbers have been near flat forever which says we've not really gained substantial ground on jobs or GDP since January 2009.  We are now in the 30th month of this administration so blaming the previous administration for the continued malaise isn't possible.  Granted, the administration has limited options at it's disposal, but this President has consistently been uninspiring and underwhelming on matters of the economy from day 1.  

Are you "in" or what?

Obama Jobs Plan Meets Early Resistance From Republicans

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/republicans-already-balki_n_932453.html

Quote from: Teatownclown on August 22, 2011, 12:42:30 PM

Are you "in" or what?

Obama Jobs Plan Meets Early Resistance From Republicans

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/republicans-already-balki_n_932453.html

He should have kept it a secret until it was signed.  You know. . ."You have to pass it to see what's in it."

That seems to be the best strategy for him.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 12:44:14 PM
He should have kept it a secret until it was signed.  You know. . ."You have to pass it to see what's in it."

That seems to be the best strategy for him.

Leading from the rear was the previous admin strategy, wasn't it?

Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 11:23:08 AM
I don't know of anyone who really wants the dour economic outlook to continue.  

You should read some of the stuff the Republicans were saying during the debt ceiling debate. McConnell came out and said his entire purpose in life right now is to stymie anything Obama does, including repairing the economy. Maybe it's just the leadership, I don't know, but it's a terrible attitude to have, and too many of the right wing foot soldiers are saying things that sound just like what McConnell has been saying.

Quote from: nathanm on August 22, 2011, 01:26:16 PM
You should read some of the stuff the Republicans were saying during the debt ceiling debate. McConnell came out and said his entire purpose in life right now is to stymie anything Obama does, including repairing the economy. Maybe it's just the leadership, I don't know, but it's a terrible attitude to have, and too many of the right wing foot soldiers are saying things that sound just like what McConnell has been saying.

I think it was along the lines of his biggest goal was to make Obama a one term President.

The state of national politics is incredibly sad.  With all the legislators making around $15,000 a month and many of them are already independently wealthy, they don't seem to have the slightest sense of urgency in solving serious problems with the economy, do they?

Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 02:44:17 PM
they don't seem to have the slightest sense of urgency in solving serious problems with the economy, do they?

A few of them do, but it is true that almost nobody in Washington is talking about jobs. Get more people employed and/or out of the underemployment trap and you do most of the work needed fix the economy pretty much automatically. Sadly, Obama's "preannouncement" of sorts regarding his new jobs plan is the closest thing to any real talk about the issue we've heard in months.

To some degree, there have been other issues sucking all the air out of the room. There is and has been far too much talk about the 2012 elections. There was far too much time wasted on the debt ceiling. Even the Libyan situation is probably getting more attention than it really deserves, at least in proportion to how it affects our daily lives. On the one hand, I'd like to see more coverage of the Murdoch scandal, but once again, it would be distracting from more immediate concerns.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:08 PM
Tell me you don't still believe this fairy tale that Obamacare, as passed, will possibly save the government any money whatsoever.  Please demonstrate to all of us the chapter and verse which clearly spells this out.  You simply cannot increase the amount of healthcare coverage available in the country and bring on a previously unrealized risk group without necessarily raising the costs to government.  It takes piles of accounting shenanigans to show anything remotely close to savings.

Obamacare is and will prove to be such a disincentive to new hires that I predict overall payroll tax revenue and individual income tax receipts to the treasury will drop.

Just wait...

And no, that's not gloating.  This whole social experimentation issue that President Obama has is incredibly destructive, but he doesn't give a smile because he's well-employed and his well-being and that of his family is assured for life.  But hey, we've got a great celebrity for President.  It's obvious he understands even less than President Carter did about economics.  

More shameless partisan hack bull mularky from Conan the Libertarian... go figure.   You falsely characterized this president as an empty suit from the very beginning... it's your meme... these heartfelt feelings seem to bestow upon you the psychic ability to read his mind and know his motivations and thoughts.... it's obvious your political chattering class mindset has pompously convinced itself that we have a president who knows nothing about economics or the constitution... frankly, Conan, it is you who knows nothing about what draconian "supply side" economics has done to citizens in this country you don't give a smile about... let me know the last time you last took a low paying job to work/organize with Catholic parishes on the southside of Chicago... http://www.tampabay.com/news/article871662.ece  

If you don't understand the concept of health care reform, it was PRIMARILY to enable tens of millions of uninsured Americans the ability to rise from the ranks of the uninsured, not to cut the deficit.  I will be happy to see the "pre-existing condition" sentenced to the dustbin of history, where it belongs... Am I unhappy that Obamacare turned out to be compromised to the point where it morphed into something much closer to Hillarycare and Romneycare than anything Obama said as a candidate?  Yep, I was for voluntary compliance.... but I guess when Republicans like Mitt Romney support an individual mandate, it's called "personal responsibility," but when a Democrat does it... whoa Nellie!.... that's "social experimentation."   ::)

Jeez Jeff, bloviate much?

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2009/04/chris-crocker-leave-britney.jpg)

Two unions are on strike against Verizon Communications in protest of proposed company policies that the unions themselves helped bring about. The new Obamacare law, which both unions supported, dramatically hikes the cost of Verizon's employee health care plan. Efforts to pass some of that cost on to employees have sparked outrage.

Verizon's health care plan is what President Obama commonly referred to as a "Cadillac plan" – expensive and luxurious – during his push to get health care legislation through Congress. The new law will levy a 40 percent tax on all health care plans with individual coverage worth more than $10,200 and family coverage worth more than $24,000.

Though the tax will not go into effect until 2018, "Verizon is required to account for this cost now," according to company literature distributed to employees. "Accordingly, we will need to modify plan designs to avoid the impact of this tax."

Verizon says it current pays $4 billion annually to cover nearly 900,000 employees' health care. Its hundreds of thousands of unionized employees, though, pay nothing towards their health care premiums. The company estimates the "Cadillac tax" will add about $200 million to those annual costs. "The unions and our employees must work with the company to find ways to address these economic realities," Verizon insists.

But far from working with the company, 45,000 Verizon employees from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Communications Workers of America went on strike on August 7 in protest of proposed changes to their health care benefits. The CWA called those changes "outrageous." The IBEW called them "retrogressive."

But both the IBEW and the CWA, like the vast majority of Big Labor, supported President Obama's push for health care "reform." The two unions did their part to bring about a law that increased the health care costs of one of their members' largest employers, and are now furious that they're being asked to shoulder some of that burden.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/19/in-verizon-strike-unions-protest-obamacare-law-they-helped-pass/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoundryConservativePolicyNews+%28The+Foundry%3A+Conservative+Policy+News.%29

If you remember, Verizon warned that the plan would not and could not save money for either the company or the workers.  They pleaded with the President.  Now, it's margin call and time to reap.

Typical anti-union bs from Gas.... my grandfather was on the picket line for those "cadillac health benefits" back in the 80s and I can tell you as his primary caregiver 20 years later that those benefits made things so much less tense for the family and for me in particular.... there was a time about 30 years ago, when I thought organized labor was too powerful... but when we got President Clinton rather than President Gephardt, those views changed.... no workers in the wireless industry would dare try to unionize... the cards are stacked against them.

What will happen to me twenty years from now?.... guess Paul Ryan will give me a Ration Card.... er, uh.... voucher.
Then, rather than willing my possessions and property to family and friends, I will be forced sell all to a wealthy "job creator" to pay end of life medical bills.  

Go figure.

Gaspar, 900,000 employees?  I think there's an extra goose egg on the end there.

I said nothing anti-union above.  The article excerpt posted was about the unions protesting against the very Change they helped to adopt.

I never stood on a picket line for benefits.  I did jump jobs a few times because of better benefits/salary, but I wouldn't know what it's like to demand a wage or a salary from an employer.  I ask for a wage/salary, and then I ask for raises based on my perceived performance.  I am happy if they are granted, and sometimes when they are not, I seek a different job.

I am happy that my company is willing to pay for part of my health care.  They do not have to, but, in order to be  competitive and to give employees group healthcare purchasing power, they do.

Obamacare will make my healthcare more expensive.  We are estimating about 12%. It will also make healthcare more expensive for these union workers.  That is why they are protesting.

I understand that you are angry, and feel that my post is somehow anti-union.  It is not.  Granted, I do not favor the union concept because it builds dependency, and ransoms labor.

Had your father worked for the union now, and found that his healthcare costs were slated to rise based on legislation that his union spent his money to advocate, would he not be upset?

Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 09:18:07 AM
Gaspar, 900,000 employees?  I think there's an extra goose egg on the end there.

Yeah, there is!! 
I emailed the reporter.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 09:20:48 AM
I said nothing anti-union above.  The article excerpt posted was about the unions protesting against the very Change they helped to adopt.

I never stood on a picket line for benefits.  I did jump jobs a few times because of better benefits/salary, but I wouldn't know what it's like to demand a wage or a salary from an employer.  I ask for a wage/salary, and then I ask for raises based on my perceived performance.  I am happy if they are granted, and sometimes when they are not, I seed a different job.

I am happy that my company is willing to pay for part of my health care.  They do not have to, but, in order to be  competitive and to give employees group healthcare purchasing power, they do.

Obamacare will make my healthcare more expensive.  We are estimating about 12%. It will also make healthcare more expensive for these union workers.  That is why they are protesting.

I understand that you are angry, and feel that my post is somehow anti-union.  It is not.  Granted, I do not favor the union concept because it builds dependency, and ransoms labor.

Had your father worked for the union now, and found that his healthcare costs were slated to rise based on legislation that his union spent his money to advocate, would he not be upset?

Union members don't seem to understand that money isn't manna from Heaven.  I bet they will even be scratching their collective-bargaining heads when the rates skyrocket on their Verizon service to cover the new costs of their healthcare.

. . .and taxes.  We can't seem to learn the lesson that corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do.

If I am a company and my business plan calls for a 12% net margin, I am going to make that, no matter how you tax me.  I will simply raise the cost or lower the quality of my product to account for any increase you impose.  I don't have to worry about being competitive, because I know that my competitors will do the same.

I now surrender that this cannot be taught.  For some people, basic business concepts are so alien that attempting to explain them is like trying to teach a dog to tie shoelaces.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 09:39:24 AM
. . .and taxes.  We can't seem to learn the lesson that corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do.

If I am a company and my business plan calls for a 12% net margin, I am going to make that, no matter how you tax me.  I will simply raise the cost or lower the quality of my product to account for any increase you impose.  I don't have to worry about being competitive, because I know that my competitors will do the same.

I now surrender that this cannot be taught.  For some people, basic business concepts are so alien that attempting to explain them is like trying to teach a dog to tie shoelaces.

Well that's just whack tea baggin' crap you are spewing there, Gaspar.  Absolutely no basis in reality for consumers paying all taxes.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 09:47:55 AM
Well that's just whack tea baggin' crap you are spewing there, Gaspar.  Absolutely no basis in reality for consumers paying all taxes.

Tie your shoes!

Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 09:18:07 AM
Gaspar, 900,000 employees?  I think there's an extra goose egg on the end there.

Actually that is correct.  The author tells me that this number is the total inclusive of employees and their family members.  As part of Verizon's evil corporate policy they cover immediate family members under their benefits package.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 10:04:35 AM
Actually that is correct.  The author tells me that this number is the total inclusive of employees and their family members.  As part of Verizon's evil corporate policy they cover immediate family members under their benefits package.

So is Verizon the good guys?

Quote from: Townsend on August 23, 2011, 10:07:04 AM
So is Verizon the good guys?

I guess that would depend on your world view.  

If you admire companies that provide employment, and good benefits to about 90K people, than yes.

If you view corporations as institutions who's only goal is to take advantage of workers and produce profits for fat old men, than they are not.

I suppose it's kind of a subjective interpretation.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 10:22:52 AM
I guess that would depend on your world view.  

If you admire companies that provide employment, and good benefits to about 90K people, than yes.

If you view corporations as institutions who's only goal is to take advantage of workers and produce profits for fat old men, than they are not.

I suppose it's kind of a subjective interpretation.

But is Verizon the good guys?

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 09:39:24 AM
. . .and taxes.  We can't seem to learn the lesson that corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do.

If I am a company and my business plan calls for a 12% net margin, I am going to make that, no matter how you tax me.  I will simply raise the cost or lower the quality of my product to account for any increase you impose.  I don't have to worry about being competitive, because I know that my competitors will do the same.

. . . . until one of your competitors discovers that diving under your 12% net margin to gain your market share is a good idea.  Or that pricing themselves higher than you will give them a perceived premium over your product.

You're describing business conditions in a theoretical environment, which is a static market where participants aren't competing.  In 99.9% of existing markets that's simply not the case.

The entirety of the GOP economic model at this point assumes that taxes are at such a level that they distort all markets, and are one of the primary drivers of price.  They are not.  By any measure, the tax burden is as tiny as its been in nearly a hundred years.  

Quote from: we vs us on August 23, 2011, 10:37:25 AM
. . . . until one of your competitors discovers that diving under your 12% net margin to gain your market share is a good idea.  Or that pricing themselves higher than you will give them a perceived premium over your product.

You're describing business conditions in a theoretical environment, which is a static market where participants aren't competing.  In 99.9% of existing markets that's simply not the case.

The entirety of the GOP economic model at this point assumes that taxes are at such a level that they distort all markets, and are one of the primary drivers of price.  They are not.  By any measure, the tax burden is as tiny as its been in nearly a hundred years.  

No mater what the tax level, if I have a 12% margin and my competitor has a 13% margin, and we compete on similar products, the battle is between us.

When you manipulate our taxes, that does not change.  Our business model, and the commitment we've made to investors and creditors remains.  We simply adjust our markup.

This is not a "GOP v.s. Democrat" issue.  This is how business works.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 09:20:48 AM
I ask for a wage/salary, and then I ask for raises based on my perceived performance.  I am happy if they are granted, and sometimes when they are not, I seek a different job.

I am happy that my company is willing to pay for part of my health care.  They do not have to, but, in order to be  competitive and to give employees group healthcare purchasing power, they do.

Obamacare will make my healthcare more expensive.  We are estimating about 12%. It will also make healthcare more expensive for these union workers.  That is why they are protesting.

You ask for a wage/salary... which is EXACTLY what the union is doing.  There is nothing in law or custom that requires ANY company to accede to any such request.  They either agree or disagree based SOLELY on the FACT that they feel they can continue to have satisfactory economic performance or not.  This is one of the purest forms of "law of supply and demand" that exists in the world.  The company can just say no at any time.  They have analyzed the cost/benefits and have decided that any of these benefits are appropriate.  And when economic conditions change, the negotiations end up with give-backs from the union members to the company.  The ebb and flow is continuous and does indeed go both ways regularly.

As it turns out, we have seen in recent years that the incompetence of many of these top managements have lead to bankruptcy where the top officers wrote themselves big bonus checks, gutted the company, and left the employees twisting in the breeze.  Some endured consequences (Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling).  Most did not.  GM, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, etc.

According to the RWRE propaganda, the company is the only entity to endure costs such as this, so health care reform couldn't possibly affect you in any way, if you are a W-2 employee.  But then, we all know that is just another one of those RWRE lies, and since all costs associated with you are declared by the company as part of your "Total Compensation" package, then health care reform will end up costing you less to the tune of a few hundred billion in Federal expenditures (think deficit and debt here).

12% increase in NOT a health care reform - it IS the increased costs we have seen since the "Harvard School of Business" methods achieved their lofty position in American society.  And the Republican controlled Congress passed a Medicare bill to give almost a trillion in subsidies to American pharmaceuticals - at your expense, of course.  

Here's an article about infrastructure being a way to go.

Not all that surprising since it's been done before.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/infrastructure-jobs-program-next-decade-201411918.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/infrastructure-jobs-program-next-decade-201411918.html)

Not sure what happened with the Verizon thing.  Group them as good?  Evil?

Anyway, there's that article up there.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 23, 2011, 10:45:37 AM
You ask for a wage/salary... which is EXACTLY what the union is doing.  There is nothing in law or custom that requires ANY company to accede to any such request.  

. . .

12% increase in NOT a health care reform

That was a thoughtful response. . .couple of points. . .

First of all, to ask for a raise or request more benefits, I do not leave my office and stand outside with a sign that says my company is unjust.  Nor do I yell profanity at fellow workers who wish to continue working.

Second.  the 12% is an estimate provided by our insurer.  It is based on several factors, but the primary reason they site is that they now have to cover pre-existing conditions.  Additionally, they warned that additional increases will be necessary but they cannot forecast these yet until they establish a baseline (uncertainty).

So, if unions would destroy VZW, why is it that at&t hasn't been destroyed by their mostly-unionized workforce? Unlike Verizon, their wireless division is mostly union. Even a lot of the retail stores are unionized.

Also, I think it's funny that you're complaining about a 12% increase in health insurance and calling it the result of Obamacare when for many companies health insurance cost has been going up 8-10% a year (and sometimes more) for the last two decades. There is a reason health care reform is and was seen as a dire necessity.

And if your competitor doesn't pass on increased taxes, you can't either, unless you want to lose business. That stinging sensation you just felt? That's the feeling of the invisible hand smacking you upside the head for trying to ignore it.

Quote from: Townsend on August 23, 2011, 10:47:37 AM
Here's an article about infrastructure being a way to go.

Not all that surprising since it's been done before.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/infrastructure-jobs-program-next-decade-201411918.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/infrastructure-jobs-program-next-decade-201411918.html)

Not sure what happened with the Verizon thing.  Group them as good?  Evil?

Anyway, there's that article up there.

"...the plan is likely to include tax credits for businesses that hire, a job-training program similar to one in Georgia that essentially lets companies "hire" unemployed people for free for an eight-week period, and infrastructure spending."

I'm truly intrigued by this.  I've long advocated the government getting something in return for unemployment benefits as paying for long-term idleness is adding daily to the deficit and debt and essentially killing the workforce. 

I'll have to do some Googling and see what all this entails.  Instead of a requirement of "Look for X number of jobs this week to keep your benefits", it becomes: "Go to work for your benefits".

Of course this will be seen as corporate welfare by those who are not well endowed mentally.  If it's a public/private partnership which gets the economy and u/e numbers moving in the right direction, I really don't care what people call it.

Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2011, 11:06:22 AM
So, if unions would destroy VZW, why is it that at&t hasn't been destroyed by their mostly-unionized workforce? Unlike Verizon, their wireless division is mostly union. Even a lot of the retail stores are unionized.

Also, I think it's funny that you're complaining about a 12% increase in health insurance and calling it the result of Obamacare when for many companies health insurance cost has been going up 8-10% a year (and sometimes more) for the last two decades. There is a reason health care reform is and was seen as a dire necessity.

And if your competitor doesn't pass on increased taxes, you can't either, unless you want to lose business. That stinging sensation you just felt? That's the feeling of the invisible hand smacking you upside the head for trying to ignore it.

The competitor has to eventually pass along that increase unless they can take advantage of loopholes you cannot take advantage of.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 11:13:05 AM
The competitor has to eventually pass along that increase unless they can take advantage of loopholes you cannot take advantage of.

You are forgetting that the purpose of a business is to provide employment, not make a profit providing goods and/or services to a customer.  When will you learn?

Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 11:13:05 AM
The competitor has to eventually pass along that increase unless they can take advantage of loopholes you cannot take advantage of.

Unless we've started in with a gross receipts tax I'm not aware of, that's not true at all. Corporate income tax is paid on net income (after generous deductions for depreciation and other non-cash expenses), not gross. Anyway, your competitor doesn't have to do anything. Amazon lost money for nearly 10 years before becoming profitable. Or perhaps your competitor might be comfortable with a smaller profit margin than you are. Or perhaps, as I alluded to earlier, they might just have built their business with cheaper money.

RA, no. The purpose of a public company is supposed to be to provide a return to shareholders. Instead, most large companies have been redirected into returning as much as possible to upper management, all other considerations be damned.

Or, more snarkily, Adam Smith says "wut?"

Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 09:25:58 AM
Union members don't seem to understand that money isn't manna from Heaven. 

It comes from Obama.  Haven't you seen the videos?
;D

Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2011, 11:06:22 AM
So, if unions would destroy VZW, why is it that at&t hasn't been destroyed by their mostly-unionized workforce? Unlike Verizon, their wireless division is mostly union. Even a lot of the retail stores are unionized.

Also, I think it's funny that you're complaining about a 12% increase in health insurance and calling it the result of Obamacare when for many companies health insurance cost has been going up 8-10% a year (and sometimes more) for the last two decades. There is a reason health care reform is and was seen as a dire necessity.

And if your competitor doesn't pass on increased taxes, you can't either, unless you want to lose business. That stinging sensation you just felt? That's the feeling of the invisible hand smacking you upside the head for trying to ignore it.

Wow!  You guys just see a thread that involves a "unionized company" and jump right into rebuttal without anything to rebut.  :D

Is there ANYTHING here to indicate that ANYONE said ANYTHING about unions destroying Verizon? 

This thread is about the union protesting increases in their healthcare costs as a result of Obamacare.  It has nothing to do with the union's relationship with Verizon. 

(http://www.fieggen.com/Dont_Link/StandardKnot3.gif)

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 10:44:26 AM
When you manipulate our taxes, that does not change.  Our business model, and the commitment we've made to investors and creditors remains.  We simply adjust our markup.

Or go out of business.

Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2011, 12:07:13 PM
Unless we've started in with a gross receipts tax I'm not aware of, that's not true at all. Corporate income tax is paid on net income (after generous deductions for depreciation and other non-cash expenses), not gross. Anyway, your competitor doesn't have to do anything. Amazon lost money for nearly 10 years before becoming profitable. Or perhaps your competitor might be comfortable with a smaller profit margin than you are. Or perhaps, as I alluded to earlier, they might just have built their business with cheaper money.

RA, no. The purpose of a public company is supposed to be to provide a return to shareholders. Instead, most large companies have been redirected into returning as much as possible to upper management, all other considerations be damned.

Or, more snarkily, Adam Smith says "wut?"

Gross, net, doesn't matter.  If company GE A has overseas operations which allow them to pull accounting shenanigans company B cannot take advantage of, company A has a distinct tax advantage and never winds up having to up-charge the consumer.  Instead they get a tax payer-funded edge on the competition.

That return to shareholders is the result of profitable operations.  Knock off the contrarian parsing, please!

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 23, 2011, 12:10:19 PM
It comes from Obama.  Haven't you seen the videos?
;D

Where does the line form for the Obamamoney?

Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2011, 12:07:13 PM
RA, no. The purpose of a public company is supposed to be to provide a return to shareholders. Instead, most large companies have been redirected into returning as much as possible to upper management, all other considerations be damned.

In the future I will PM you to let you know I am being sarcastic.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 12:15:10 PM
Where does the line form for the Obamamoney?

\

It's only available to Democrats.

;D

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 12:12:02 PM
Wow!  You guys just see a thread that involves a "unionized company" and jump right into rebuttal without anything to rebut.  :D

Is there ANYTHING here to indicate that ANYONE said ANYTHING about unions destroying Verizon? 

This thread is about the union protesting increases in their healthcare costs as a result of Obamacare.  It has nothing to do with the union's relationship with Verizon. 

So you're admitting that your posts about Verizon were what?

Quote from: Townsend on August 23, 2011, 12:21:44 PM
So you're admitting that your posts about Verizon were what?

If you would scroll back to reply #63, you may read what was posted. 

My response was not about Verizon.  Not sure what you've been bating at, but don't care.  My posts were related to the union protest at being required to pay a portion of the healthcare increase caused by Obamacare and supported by both of the unions in question.

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 23, 2011, 12:00:53 PM
You are forgetting that the purpose of a business is to provide employment, not make a profit providing goods and/or services to a customer.  When will you learn?

There's more than one way to skin a cat, my friend.

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 23, 2011, 12:18:32 PM
\

It's only available to Democrats.

;D

Yes, because it's only Dems who have pre-existing conditions and children who are in college.  /snark.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 12:34:18 PM
  Not sure what you've been bating at, but don't care. 

Sure.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 12:13:28 PM
That return to shareholders is the result of profitable operations.  Knock off the contrarian parsing, please!

Well, my point was actually that in the last 20 years or so, the goal has changed from making returns for shareholders to paying ever-increasing shares of the corporate income pie to top management, often by diluting existing shareholders.

There is "how things are supposed to work," "how we think things work," and "how things actually work." You're stuck on the first and second. It's interesting to me that you have no problem seeing the difference when we're talking about government, but have a harder time with it when the discussion turns to business.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 12:34:18 PM
My posts were related to the union protest at being required to pay a portion of the healthcare increase caused by Obamacare and supported by both of the unions in question.

And anti-employee Verizon is whining, while not-anti-employee at&t is not. Odd, that.

Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2011, 05:07:27 PM
Well, my point was actually that in the last 20 years or so, the goal has changed from making returns for shareholders to paying ever-increasing shares of the corporate income pie to top management, often by diluting existing shareholders.

There is "how things are supposed to work," "how we think things work," and "how things actually work." You're stuck on the first and second. It's interesting to me that you have no problem seeing the difference when we're talking about government, but have a harder time with it when the discussion turns to business.

Because your version is a total canard

Quote from: we vs us on August 23, 2011, 12:52:55 PM
There's more than one way to skin a cat, my friend.

The cat doesn't like any of them.

:D

Quote from: JeffM on August 23, 2011, 01:35:02 PM
Yes, because it's only Dems who have pre-existing conditions ...  /snark.

Unhealthy bunch, aren't they.

Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2011, 05:09:29 PM
And anti-employee Verizon is whining, while not-anti-employee at&t is not. Odd, that.

The only reason I have cell phone plan from AT&T is because they have coverage in some places I go that others don't appear to have coverage.  My present roll-over minutes are about 4500.

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 23, 2011, 08:19:29 PM
The only reason I have cell phone plan from AT&T is because they have coverage in some places I go that others don't appear to have coverage.  My present roll-over minutes are about 4500.

That would be another reason I have them, although now if I use 20 voice minutes a month I'm surprised.  I have about 5300 rollover minutes.

Quote from: Hoss on August 23, 2011, 08:48:50 PM
That would be another reason I have them, although now if I use 20 voice minutes a month I'm surprised.  I have about 5300 rollover minutes.

I thought the expiring rollover minutes kept my total around 4500.  I just checked my bill and I have 4903.  This month I added 447 but lost 440 to expiration.  My plan is for 450 minutes/month.

Quote from: Red Arrow on August 23, 2011, 09:12:14 PM
I thought the expiring rollover minutes kept my total around 4500.  I just checked my bill and I have 4903.  This month I added 447 but lost 440 to expiration.  My plan is for 450 minutes/month.

Mine's 550; likely why the disparity.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 05:16:53 PM
Because your version is a total canard

What is a canard? That an ever increasing proportion of the money generated by US corporations is being funneled towards insiders rather than reinvested or returned to shareholders? Or that health insurance premiums have risen by amounts greater than what we're talking about here in several of the past 20 years? Or that insurance companies themselves have said that only a small portion of the increases being requested are due to the health care law, while the vast majority of the increase is due to the ever increasing cost of procedures?

Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2011, 10:53:15 AM
That was a thoughtful response. . .couple of points. . .

First of all, to ask for a raise or request more benefits, I do not leave my office and stand outside with a sign that says my company is unjust.  Nor do I yell profanity at fellow workers who wish to continue working.

Second.  the 12% is an estimate provided by our insurer.  It is based on several factors, but the primary reason they site is that they now have to cover pre-existing conditions.  Additionally, they warned that additional increases will be necessary but they cannot forecast these yet until they establish a baseline (uncertainty).

They always are.  Even if somewhat strident at times.

Signs?  Different people react in different ways.  Signs are an expression of free speech.  Profanity is the last resort of the incompetent.

12% is pretty much typical.  One very close family friend enjoyed an increase of 300% last year.  All uncalled for of course.  I have experienced changes every year I have been employed and had insurance, for the last 30+ years.  All of them increases.  Ranging from a low of 5% one year (best year ever), to a high of 150% (not too good), with averages in the 10 to 15% range.  Last year was 23%.

One place I was working made a change from just reasonably expensive ($135 per month, modest benefits) to just pure stupid.  Ended the real insurance and went to a major medical only style policy.  $5,000 deductible, no office visits, or health maintenance type stuff.  You pay anything and everything up to 5k, then the plan pays 80% above that.  And it only cost $273 per month!! 

Guess what happened next?  Well, I left.  Many other of the best employees left.  The President was fired by the company owners about 8 months later.  But in the meantime, the huge dislocation of many people's lives due to this clowns stupidity was uncalled for and I feel, criminal.  But hey, that's just me...

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 24, 2011, 12:55:12 PM
One place I was working made a change from just reasonably expensive ($135 per month, modest benefits) to just pure stupid.  Ended the real insurance and went to a major medical only style policy.  $5,000 deductible, no office visits, or health maintenance type stuff.  You pay anything and everything up to 5k, then the plan pays 80% above that.  And it only cost $273 per month!! 

IMO, single payer would be one of the best things we could do for American business. We're very nearly the only country in the world that expects employers to shoulder the vast majority of the cost of health care, and it puts us at a disadvantage.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 24, 2011, 12:55:12 PM
Many other of the best employees left.  The President was fired by the company owners about 8 months later. 

It's good to hear that at least he was properly rewarded.

Well, as expected, it looks now like the "Plan" to create jobs is changing.  Axelrod alluded that it would be more of an "outline," and as of yesterday, according to Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest, it is now more of a collection of "reasonable ideas that can have a tangible impact."

Oh! I can't wait!

Quote from: Gaspar on August 25, 2011, 08:14:42 AM
Oh! I can't wait!

Sweet.  Thanks for all the updates.

Part of the fallout from the moronic debt ceiling negotiations is this supercommittee, which now essentially has carte blanche to cut any expenditures it sees fit.  It has very hard and very strict deadlines, and has the power to make most any cut it wants, including into the President's jobs initiatives, which would inevitably (and rightly) cost us money.

This is why, no matter what Obama says -- and no matter what the GOP says about him -- there will be no government movement to help with the economy until after the 2012 elections.

Quote from: we vs us on August 25, 2011, 09:54:52 AM
Part of the fallout from the moronic debt ceiling negotiations is this supercommittee, which now essentially has carte blanche to cut any expenditures it sees fit.  It has very hard and very strict deadlines, and has the power to make most any cut it wants, including into the President's jobs initiatives, which would inevitably (and rightly) cost us money.

This is why, no matter what Obama says -- and no matter what the GOP says about him -- there will be no government movement to help with the economy until after the 2012 elections.

You said "the President's jobs initiatives."   I think the White House would correct you as they have been doing in recent interviews by classifying it more as a set of ideas or concepts, things that could have some impact.

Your right. I forgot. Liberals think government spending creates jobs.

The only way he can really avoid criticism is to actually propose something that does create jobs, like taking steps to drastically reduce energy costs, or spur private sector growth by removing the erected elements that are the foundation for the current uncertainty. 

Quote from: Gaspar on August 25, 2011, 10:03:45 AM

Your right. I forgot. Liberals think government spending creates jobs.

Ha!  You got me!  Only the past 70 years of government and economic history back me up.  My bad!

Quote from: we vs us on August 25, 2011, 10:08:39 AM
Ha!  You got me!  Only the past 70 years of government and economic history back me up.  My bad!

I guess it depends on what side of the binoculars you look through.

Government is dependent on private sector commerce, not the other way around.

Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2011, 02:18:46 PM
IMO, single payer would be one of the best things we could do for American business. We're very nearly the only country in the world that expects employers to shoulder the vast majority of the cost of health care, and it puts us at a disadvantage.

Most of the world's other systems have evolved over several decades and have had some painful excursions during the process.  We could certainly learn from the mistakes of others, pick and choose the best, and end up with a world class system that would provide adequate health care to everyone.  (Goes to the "general welfare" statements in the Constitution.  Not to mention the concept of "equality".)  Of course that would mean the people in Congress would have to have a dramatically reduced entitlement.  Or the rest of us would get really good health care.

But we won't.

Quote from: Gaspar on August 25, 2011, 10:10:41 AM
I guess it depends on what side of the binoculars you look through.

Government is dependent on private sector commerce, not the other way around.

Did it ever occur to you that they could be interdependent, not independent?

Quote from: nathanm on August 25, 2011, 12:56:51 PM
Did it ever occur to you that they could be interdependent, not independent?

I'll answer that... no, it did not.


The only way he can really avoid criticism is to actually propose something that does create jobs, like taking steps to drastically reduce energy costs, or spur private sector growth by removing the erected elements that are the foundation for the current uncertainty. 

As far as removing erected elements...well, they have been systematically removed and neutralized for the last 30 years to the point where we are now in the condition we find ourselves.  But I bet cutting taxes some more and getting rid of even more government regulation is bound to help....not!

Unless the goal is the continued degradation of the US economy.  Which is pretty much right on target to the RWRE.  To the RWRE, lower wages and standard of living are the solution.  To the real world, lower wages and standard of living is the problem.

Hey, if it hasn't worked for 30 years, it ain't gonna work!  (A lot like our "war on drugs" - the American "100 Years War".)

Quote from: nathanm on August 25, 2011, 12:56:51 PM
Did it ever occur to you that they could be interdependent, not independent?

No.  Because you can easily test it.

Show me commerce without government. . .easy!

Show me a government with no commerce. . .impossible!

I agree that government is in many cases necessary to protect the rights of the individual against force, but that makes it no less dependent. 

Government's natural tendency is to cultivate dependence in the individual.  Even when this is not the stated goals of government, this is its feral nature.  It is up to individuals to guard against this through law (constitution in our case) and constant vigilance.

Those ready to embrace government dependence at every offering are simply sick.  Like alcoholism, they are addicts, and if left untreated this becomes a family disease.

Government is very much like the poppy.  Very easy to grow, it can be beautiful and its sap has thousands of valuable therapeutic uses, but it is easy to abuse and almost impossible to recover from.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 25, 2011, 01:26:59 PM
I'll answer that... no, it did not.


The only way he can really avoid criticism is to actually propose something that does create jobs, like taking steps to drastically reduce energy costs, or spur private sector growth by removing the erected elements that are the foundation for the current uncertainty. 

As far as removing erected elements...well, they have been systematically removed and neutralized for the last 30 years to the point where we are now in the condition we find ourselves.  But I bet cutting taxes some more and getting rid of even more government regulation is bound to help....not!

Unless the goal is the continued degradation of the US economy.  Which is pretty much right on target to the RWRE.  To the RWRE, lower wages and standard of living are the solution.  To the real world, lower wages and standard of living is the problem.

Hey, if it hasn't worked for 30 years, it ain't gonna work!  (A lot like our "war on drugs" - the American "100 Years War".)

You obviously didn't see the graph posted in another topic which illustrates the whole raft of regulations implemented since 2000 and their attendant cost.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 25, 2011, 02:14:23 PM
... the whole raft of regulations implemented since 2000 and their attendant cost.

There you go, it's Bush's fault.

;D

Quote from: Conan71 on August 25, 2011, 02:14:23 PM
You obviously didn't see the graph posted in another topic which illustrates the whole raft of regulations implemented since 2000 and their attendant cost.

Like the ones that make it easier for a corporation to file for bankruptcy, pay huge bonuses to the people who ran it into the ground, then sell off the remains and put all the employees out on the street.  Never owe a penny to any creditor in the future.

And make it very much harder for an individual to file and discharge all their debts.  And still owe a large percentage of the debt.

Yeah - costly.  Just more of the same class warfare we have been seeing for several decades.  

Oh Yay!

CBO estimates that under current economic policy, the unemployment rate is expected to stay at +9% though 2012!

And with that:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6032/6349970925_a7d070f9bd_b.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 09:08:21 AM
Oh Yay!

CBO estimates that under current economic policy, the unemployment rate is expected to stay at +9% though 2012!

I know, right?  I sure do wish the Republicans would hurry up and pass something that would stimulate growth . . . like maybe small business tax cuts or something! 

Quote from: we vs us on November 16, 2011, 09:26:29 AM
I know, right?  I sure do wish the Republicans would hurry up and pass something that would stimulate growth . . . like maybe small business tax cuts or something! 

Really?  The total count is now at 20 jobs bills stuck in the senate.
http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 10:01:25 AM
Really?  The total count is now at 20 jobs bills stuck in the senate.
http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

They're all very busy:

Congress Says Pizza Is a Vegetable

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/11/16/congress-says-pizza-is-a-vegetable.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/11/16/congress-says-pizza-is-a-vegetable.html)

QuoteCongress put its own unique spin on the food pyramid this week, declaring that tomato sauce on pizza still counts as a serving of vegetables in school lunches. The decision—tacked onto an agriculture spending bill—squashes an almost yearlong campaign by the Agriculture Department to make school lunches healthier. The campaign had argued that the volume of tomato sauce—and thus the nutritional value—should be measured before it's mixed with water and spread on a slice of pizza. However, food companies lobbied Congress to the tune of $5.6 million to maintain the status quo.

Quote from: Townsend on November 16, 2011, 10:05:55 AM
They're all very busy:

Congress Says Pizza Is a Vegetable

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/11/16/congress-says-pizza-is-a-vegetable.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/11/16/congress-says-pizza-is-a-vegetable.html)

Actually, that's kinda funny, because I had lunch at my daughter's school a couple of weeks ago and discovered that the "healthy" government meals they are receiving are the reason kids are fat!

On the menu was pizza or fried cheese sticks as a main course, and green jello or an apple as the fruit.  I asked the lunch lady about the vegetable choice and she said that the ketchup for the cheese sticks counted, as did the sauce on the pizza.  I opted not to bring up the fact that tomatoes are actually a fruit (gotta choose your battles).

Since you brought back the thread from the dead, I give you commerce without government:

(http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080527/080527-iraq-fuel-hmed5p.grid-6x2.jpg)

(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/0/2/4/8/0/5/us-navy-10146026393.jpeg)

(http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mog_05_29/m19_19143909.jpg)

Oh, sorry, that last one is food aid to a country that lacks a government, not commerce.

Wow! Nate.

Here's a random picture of a guy with a mustache.
(http://www.ourworldmyeye.com/wp-content/uploaads/moustache1.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 04:42:52 PM
Wow! Nate.

Here's a random picture of a guy with a mustache.

You're the one who wrote that commerce without government is easy.

Quote from: nathanm on November 16, 2011, 05:36:16 PM
You're the one who wrote that commerce without government is easy.

Actually I didn't write that, but OK.

Commerce does not require government, but government does require commerce, and will naturally grow to impede commerce because of the parasitic relationship.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 17, 2011, 08:03:58 AM
Actually I didn't write that, but OK.

Commerce does not require government, but government does require commerce, and will naturally grow to impede commerce because of the parasitic relationship.

It would be amazing if you actually believed that...because of course, it simply isn't true as human history has shown for thousands of years.  The truck in the above picture is the classic example that was obviously missed.

But then it wouldn't be in the script to acknowledge reality.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 10:01:25 AM
Really?  The total count is now at 20 jobs bills stuck in the senate.
http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

But where are all those stellar results from the Bush era job bills??  And massive tax cuts - you remember those - the largest boon to the richest in the history of the world?

Yeah,...why are we stuck on 9% unemployment with all that has been done to stimulate and thrill small business AND large??

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 08:13:42 AM
But where are all those stellar results from the Bush era job bills??  And massive tax cuts - you remember those - the largest boon to the richest in the history of the world?

Yeah,...why are we stuck on 9% unemployment with all that has been done to stimulate and thrill small business AND large??

We are stuck at 9% because businesses are afraid to make an investment in human capital.  Ask them why.

Of course you already know the answer.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 08:13:42 AM
Yeah,...why are we stuck on 9% unemployment with all that has been done to stimulate and thrill small business AND large??

According to many on the left, it's all because everyone on the right of far left wants the country and president to fail.  I don't buy that though.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 17, 2011, 08:28:30 AM
We are stuck at 9% because businesses are afraid to make an investment in human capital.  Ask them why.

Of course you already know the answer.

Yep.  Weak demand. 

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 09:03:11 AM
According to many on the left, it's all because everyone on the right of far left wants the country and president to fail.  I don't buy that though.

Have you ever listened to Limbaugh and Hannity??  That is exactly what they said for a very long time.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 11:19:11 AM
Have you ever listened to Limbaugh and Hannity??  That is exactly what they said for a very long time.

Limbaugh is on the air while I am earning a living so I rarely hear him in anything other than a sound bite.

I listen to Hannity occasionally.  Hannity obviously disagrees with almost everything Obama does however disagreement is not the same as wishing him to fail.  Allowing Obama to implement all the policies Obama wants without comment against them that Hannity believes would trash the country would be the path to letting Obama fail as a President.  Wishing to have a new president in 2013 is not the same as wishing Obama to fail, except for winning the next election.

I don't think it's necessary to "wish Obama to fail."  It seems he has that under control for himself.

The hope is that in allowing him to act as a proglodite won't destroy the economy. Through his first two years he had a congress willing to comply to his agenda of progressive spending, and the contraction of the economy in the face of perceived stimulus is what resulted.  With continued uncertainty as a secondary result, even in lue of expanding profits, and reduced competition base.  

I hate to admit it but most of the businesses I work with admit they are waiting until after the election and/or after the repeal of destructive legislation to make any expansion to workforce.  Why??  Because they have absolutely no mechanism to forecast costs, report those costs to investors, or secure funding based on those forecasts.

So, when you make statements that people or employers want to see Obama fail, you are in fact being accurate, but not because of the typical liberal psycho-group mentality that you profess.  

We want to see him fail, because we can no longer afford to see him succeed!

Quote from: Gaspar on November 17, 2011, 01:13:38 PM
I don't think it's necessary to "wish Obama to fail."  It seems he has that under control for himself.

The hope is that in allowing him to act as a proglodite won't destroy the economy. Through his first two years he had a congress willing to comply to his agenda of progressive spending, and the contraction of the economy in the face of perceived stimulus is what resulted.  With continued uncertainty as a secondary result, even in lue of expanding profits, and reduced competition base.  

I hate to admit it but most of the businesses I work with admit they are waiting until after the election and/or after the repeal of destructive legislation to make any expansion to workforce.  Why??  Because they have absolutely no mechanism to forecast costs, report those costs to investors, or secure funding based on those forecasts.

So, when you make statements that people or employers want to see Obama fail, you are in fact being accurate, but not because of the typical liberal psycho-group mentality that you profess.  

We want to see him fail, because we can no longer afford to see him succeed!

You realize that is all LIES!  There's no truth in any of what you are saying.  Those business owners are just partisan hacks.  It's the GOP allowing the wealthy to continually rob from the poor and lack of accountability to share-holders which is keeping unemployment high.  Oh, and you cannot hang any of this around President Obama's neck.  Know why?

BECAUSE IT'S ALL STILL BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 12:45:40 PM
Limbaugh is on the air while I am earning a living so I rarely hear him in anything other than a sound bite.

I listen to Hannity occasionally.  Hannity obviously disagrees with almost everything Obama does however disagreement is not the same as wishing him to fail.  Allowing Obama to implement all the policies Obama wants without comment against them that Hannity believes would trash the country would be the path to letting Obama fail as a President.  Wishing to have a new president in 2013 is not the same as wishing Obama to fail, except for winning the next election.

We are talking about explicitly saying the words that they wish him to fail.  And both said those exact words repeatedly.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 17, 2011, 01:13:38 PM
The hope is that in allowing him to act as a proglodite won't destroy the economy. Through his first two years he had a congress willing to comply to his agenda of progressive spending,

Please point out the progressive spending binge somewhere in the following chart. I've been looking and looking, but I can't seem to find it:
(http://nationalpriorities.org/media/uploads/charts/discretionary_spending_fy2012.png)

I never could find it, so I looked here. Still didn't find it:

(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.14.1.05.png)

I did manage to find the neocon spending binge is still going strong, though!

Quote
I hate to admit it but most of the businesses I work with admit they are waiting until after the election and/or after the repeal of destructive legislation to make any expansion to workforce.  Why??  Because they have absolutely no mechanism to forecast costs, report those costs to investors, or secure funding based on those forecasts.

Weird. Did they also have trouble making forecasts when fiscal policy changed repeatedly in the 2000s? Didn't the war screw up their forecasts? Why are they suddenly so reluctant to forecast?

Oh, what's that? It's not forecasting that's the problem at all, it's an inability to find lenders?

Quote
The Pepperdine University Private Markets Capital Project surveyed 559 privately held businesses and 1,430 lenders and investors nationwide and found that, although the majority (78 percent) of businesses had solid growth strategies, only 40 percent had access to the resources they needed to grow.

Stop making smile up, G.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 02:21:13 PM
We are talking about explicitly saying the words that they wish him to fail.  And both said those exact words repeatedly.

Not while I was listening.  As I indicated, my life does not hang on listening to every word Rush or Sean say.

Gallup is reporting that unemployment is back up to 2010 levels 8.9%.  Payroll to pop is down to 43% of the population.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2013, 03:20:26 PM
Gallup is reporting that unemployment is back up to 2010 levels 8.9%.  Payroll to pop is down to 43% of the population.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

The numbers not being seasonally adjusted makes them less meaningful. To compare to 2010 you have to compare to the same period in 2010. August 20th 2010 the rate was 9.3% compared to 8.9% so no, not the same. Also, this is from a telephone poll.

That all said, it does look like the employment numbers if not getting worse are at least not see any improvement right now.

Still loving those sequester budget cuts? Isn't austerity great?