The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-unemployment-at-4.1-percent-in-april/article/3835861?custom_click=pod_headline_national-finance-news

Oklahoma City once again held the lowest unemployment rate in the country among large cities with 4.1 percent in April, according to preliminary data released Wednesday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The city's unemployment rate declined from 4.7 percent in March.
Oklahoma City has posted the lowest unemployment rate for large metropolitan areas for the past 13 months. The metro area also has had the lowest unemployment rate in the nation for 24 of the past 28 months, showing the strength of the local economy, said Eric Long, research economist for the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.
“It really speaks to the long-term trend of low unemployment we see in our region,” Long said.

Let's hope they can keep on wrapping duct tape around Chesapeake Energy.

I have a developer friend working down there. They are still hiring like gangbusters.

I have two friends that just went to work there last month. So far they say it is great.

They were hiring like gangbusters at Enron also.  I nearly joined them right before they went in the tank.

A friend of mine was hired at Williams Comm right before they went south.  They were hiring quite a bit of people back then too.

Healthy hiring isn't *always* an indicator of the health of a business, nor is it the only indicator.

You bet, Oklahoma is one of the few states without any recession going on. Thanks to our Gov. Mary Fallin. Anyone who really wants to work can find work in Oklahoma. The Tulsa Sunday paper is full of help wanted ads. BTW Mary Fallin's rating is now 71% favorable and going up. She is one of our best and most popular governors in the state of Oklahoma. The way she turned Oklahoma around and fired up a stalled slugglish state economy is remarkable! Her pro-business and pro-tax cut agenda is drawing in jobs.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)

Isn't that a word for word duplicate of other posts he did a year ago or more?

Sauer, fess up. Are you sleeping with her?

You must reallllly hate the Gov to insult her that way.

You really, truly are completely clueless, aren't you...?

There were a couple events in May that are gonna keep that going for quite a while.  After the slab/debris removal is complete....

Let the record note. He didn't deny it!

The library isn't open yet.

Instead of name calling- What exactly is incorrect about what I said? The gov.'s favorable rating is up to 71%, that's true - our state economy is booming, Oklahoma has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation and  there is no question about that. Mary Fallin is cutting taxes and bring in new jobs that's also true. In fact last year Mary Fallin brought in 500 good paying jobs to Tulsa. The Tulsa Sunday Newspaper is full of "help wanted" ads. What is incorrect about my comment? Mary Fallin  is doing everything right. Remember how it was with Brad Henry? The economy was in the tank under Henry's leadership, the state was in shambles. On the flip side look at Detroit, they just went belly up and filed for bankruptcy. Detroit was run by democrats for years and years with big unions calling the shots and this is the result- Detroit went bust.. (look at Michigan's economy) That is the result of high taxes and uncontroled state spending. Michigan's taxes are thru the roof and the economy is dead, unemployment is sky high-  Michigan is bleeding away jobs, Oklahoma is attracting jobs. Mary Fallin is doing a outstanding job as the states gov. Cutting taxes builds a strong economy, raising taxes as in Michigan builds a depression. Economy 101.

$100+ oil is the ONLY reason for the decent economy in Oklahoma. Mary Fallin has exactly nothing to do with that.

Michigan's Governor is a republican and mentioned as a candidate to run for President in 2016. He was a businessman who made his fortune as a venture capitalist.

He came in office the same time as Mary Fallin.

Of the 15 states with the worst unemployment rates 10 have Republican Governors and an 11th is an Independent that used to be a Republican.

Nevada 9.6% - Republican Brian Sandoval
Illinois 9.2% - Democrat Pat Quinn
Mississippi 9.0% - Republican Phil Bryant
Rhode Island 8.9% - Independent (former Republican) Lincoln Chafee
North Carolina 8.8% - Republican Pat McCrory
New Jersey 8.7% - Republican Chris Christie
Michigan 8.7% - Republican Rick Snyder
Georgia 8.6% - Republican Casey Cagle
California 8.5% - Democrat Jerry Brown
Kentucky 8.4% - Democrat Steve Bashear
Indiana 8.4% - Republican Mike Pence
South Carolina 8.1% Republican Nikki Haley
Connecticut 8.1% Democrat Dannel Malloy
Arizona 8.0% Republican Jan Brewer

Hey, Sauer. You know the problem with criminals? They were all bottle fed as children. They also were avid consumers of ice cream and other dairy products. There is a direct correlation between dairy products and crime.

That is about the depth of your political estimations of Fallin and Democrats.

He makes these comments and is shown that he is wrong so he waits for another thread and repeats the process.

It's almost pointless to spend your time with it.  Either he is this guy or it's a convincing act.

This is wildly off topic and I know meant as a joke, but strangely it is also true.

My dad was a Psychologist and Neurophysiologist and did research into that very idea. He found very high rates of cow milk allergies in incarcerated felons and very high instances of childhood bed wetting, which he also connected to cow milk allergies. 

You're saying Sauer is a chronic bedwetter?

So, now if we could correlate Tea Partiers, bedwetting and cows.....

Seriously, the addition of hormones to dairy cattle might have some bearing as well.

Michigan was run by democrats for years. The city of Detroit was run by solid democrats since 1960. A single republican gov cannot change direction on a dime,but he is improving Michigan slowly he got Michigan's "Right To Work" law passed against democrat and union howling- that act will encourage companies to stay in Michigan.

1) when you never had a bubble, you never have a burst. 

2) Oil is the primary factor - but also Oklahoma is a very cheap state to do business in.  Lax environmental laws, workers have minimal rights, and our people will work for less than citizens of nearly any other state.  In other words, our government has made Oklahoma a great state for business to prosper (but kept Oklahomans poor).

3) if Fallin gets credit for Oklahoma's economy, then Obama created millions and millions of jobs and nearly doubled the stock market.  Yay Mr. President... right?

/government is not THE factor in the economy.  Al Gore did not invent the internet.

Ten states with the highest average income 8 Democrats and 2 Republicans, and one of the two Republicans serves in a very liberal state, New Jersey.


1 Maryland  Democrat Martin O'Malley   
2 Alaska  Republican Sean Parnell   
3 New Jersey  Republican Chris Christie   
4 Connecticut  Democrat Dannel Malloy   
5 Massachusetts   Democrat Deval Patrick
6 New Hampshire   Democrat Maggie Hassan
7 Virginia Republican Bob McDonald   
8 Hawaii  Democrat Neil Abercrombie   
9 Delaware  Democrat Jack Markell   
10 California  Democrat Jerry Brown

Ten states with the lowest average income (Hey, here's a list we are on, Go Mary!) 7 Republicans and 3 Democrats all who serve in very conservative states in Arkansas and Kentucky and West Virginia.

40 Idaho  Republican Butch Otter
41 Oklahoma Republican Mary Fallin
42 South Carolina  Republican Nikki Haley   
43 New Mexico Republican Susana Martinez
44 Louisiana  Republican Bobby Jindal
45 Tennessee  Republican Bill Haslam
46 Alabama  Republican Robert Bentley   
47 Kentucky  Democrat Steve Bashear
48 Arkansas Democrat Mike Beebe   
49 West Virginia Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin   
50 Mississippi   Republican Phil Bryant   

Did you fall down a lot as a toddler?

In the last 50 years...republican Governors of Michigan 34 years, democrat governors of Michigan 16 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Michigan

Google is your friend.

And let's not forget that employed does not mean sustained.  17.2% of Oklahoma lives in poverty.

http://data.nationalpriorities.org/mashups/vv1n87jqixw8stsz/?gclid=CMDjiO2pvLgCFetZ7AodMR0Asw

Oklahomans work for less because our cost of living is amongst the lowest in the country.  That's why thousandaires like you and I live like Thurston Howell III.

To Democrats, low wages are the problem.  To Republicans, low wages are the solution.

You have just provided the proof.

How bad was the Oklahoma poverty rate under Henry? If you look at your own link you'll notice that Oklahoma has the lowest poverty rate of all the neighbor states: Texas=18.5, Arkansas=19.0, New Mexico=21.5, Georgia=19.1 and Louisiana is at 20.4%, the chart is from 2011 so I'm sure Oklahoma numbers would have improved. Since Mary Fallin came to power we had drops in the Oklahoma unemployment rate just about every month, the Oklahoma economy is strong and anyone who REALLY wants a job can find one. Mary Fallin is a true conservative, the republican governors of some other states are nothing but RINOS. Michigan's governor is new he cannot reverse decades of democrat economic damage in a few years.

Sure, wait till Obama & the  democrats pass that amnesty for illegal aliens AND THEIR FAMILIES your talking of about 30 million new legal workers in the labor force talk about wages falling, wages will drop like a rock. They say we have 11 million illegal aliens if each one brings in 4 family members- you do the math. The new illegal aliens could also draw medical care and SS benefits under the democrats amnesty plan. The republicans are against that. Who really cares about working stiff in the end. The democrats just use and abuse working people to  stay in power and make people dependent on gov't. The huge increase in population from the democrats  amnesty plan will shift the demographics of the nation permanently.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Obviously dropped on his head as an infant....

All the neighbor states? Do you even know where Oklahoma is? Kansas, Missouri and Colorado are neighboring states, all with lower poverty rates. Georgia and Louisiana are not. Both are poor Republican dominated states like Oklahoma, but they aren't neighbors.

In fact there are 15 states with higher poverty levels than Oklahoma. Do you want to know how many have a Republican governor? 11. Three of the four Democrats again are in very conservative Arkansas, West Virginia and Kentucky.

You mean as castaways on an island?

Mary Ann or Ginger?

 
Republicans most of all spread poverty, these list show that plainly. The party tricks and uses poor, fearful and ignorant white voters to further enrich the wealthy. Saur, you are a victim here and you can’t even see it.

Guido and his kind, the country club Republicans are laughing at you on the way to the bank. If government breaks and doesn’t work then it doesn’t spend money and they win. They don’t want government to work and they certainly don’t care about you. They just want lower taxes on their already large incomes.

Your thoughts on politics were paid for by the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and Karl Rove via programmers like The Heritage Foundation and “Club for Growth”. The Tea Party is NOT a grass roots group, it is a construct by people interested in parting fearful conservative white people from their money. The Glenn Becks, Sarah Palins and Dick Armeys of the world have gotten (more) rich off of the Tea Party. They don’t want politics to work, they profit from the fear and acrimony. You are the gullible victim who loves his persecutors for using and taking advantage of you. 

Sad.

I look like the Skipper, think I am the Professor, act like Gilligan, but want to be Mr. Howell.

Duh. Ginger obviously. Movie star sex and she can't cook so you don't get fat.

Swung by his feet maybe?

Really Sauer, Swake nailed it. You are doing a fine job for these folks. Just don't look behind the curtain.

You too are a sad case and you too don't realize it.

You probably would have starved to death (literally) but at least you would have died happy.
 
 ;D

Got it, Mr. Magoo it shall be.

I glad to see the gift subscriptions to HuffPo & Daily Koz have been well used.  You should be a prominent talking points writer for the DNC by now.

As for that poverty  chart that Custosnox posted~ I listed the states in the south and general area of Oklahoma with higher poverty rates than Oklahoma and 3 of those states border Oklahoma, and second that chart is 2 years old the data is likely from when Henry was the Gov. of Oklahoma- and Oklahoma's economy was poor under Gov. Henry. Third, these past two years have been very robust for Oklahoma under Gov. Mary Fallin, anyone who really wants a job can find one in Oklahoma. Mary Fallin cut taxes and brought in jobs from other states last year she attracted to Tulsa 500 good paying jobs. As I said before the Sunday newspaper is full of jobs, the Tulsa Bus plant can't find enough factory workers and are always hiring and they pay more than min. wage. I would like to see a current chart of Oklahoma's poverty rate not something that is old and took place before Mary Fallin's policies took effect. We are sitting pritty in Oklahoma, our economy is roaring back, even the Oklahoma housing market is strong, home values have been going up & up under Mary's leadership. Instead of people complaining and grumbling on this forum they should be happy that things are doing good in Oklahoma.

Ya know it seems like some posters on this forum want a poor economy with high taxes and out of control state gov't spending, the root cause of high unemployment and poverty. High taxes chase companies and business out of the state. Totally Crazy. Mary Fallin is doing a outstanding job as the gov. and is stearing our state in the right direction. I don't want to go back to Gov. Henrys days. Is it any  wonder that Fallin has a 71% approval rate. We need to all support Oklahoma and Mary Fallin's policys, get on board! :)

You weren't even living here when Henry was governor.  So how would you know?

I still don't believe you live here now...and wouldn't claim you.

Wow.

Since 2009

You still haven't proven it.

I have nothing to prove- Ask me if I care what you believe- I told you where I live and you don't believe it and I can't help that. Believe  what you want means nothing to me.

Yep, what I thought.

I know people who worked at that bus plant. I hope you get a chance to work there some day.

I don't really care where you live physically, mentally you're in a bad place.

There are people in other states that can't find any work at all, we're doing good in Oklahoma. People in those hard hit depressed economic states would die to get a job at the Bus plant, our Sunday paper is full of jobs. The national economy can be fixed and reversed  by doing the same policys that our governor is doing on the state level, lower taxes and get rid of choking regulations and get gov't off of people's backs- that's why the national economy is so bad Obama's policies are killing jobs and the national economy. As for tax cuts on the so called rich people those are the people who make the jobs, if you raise taxes on the rich it won't make a poor persons paycheck any bigger, but it will choke the economy and put jobs at risk. The next time you need a job ask a poor person for a job, I have not known of any poor person who hired anyone or who made a single job. Oklahoma's economy is booming and that can't be denied, unemployment in the state has plummeted since Henry left office. Gov. Fallin must be doing something right.

Cutting taxes increases the income into the state because that grows the economy  and helps it expand. Low taxes attract more jobs and companies to come to Oklahoma, they hire people who pay taxes and buy things and the cycle feeds off it's self. The more goods and services people buy the more jobs are made and you have  more people paying taxes, and state income keeps goes up. Raising taxes does just the oppiset, it chases out business and companies from the state, chokes the economy &   people have no work and pay no income taxes so the state has to raise taxes to make up for the loss of revenue and then more jobs & people flee so you end up with a state like Michigan or Ohio with skyhigh taxes and no jobs. Ohio cities even have city income taxes and some school districts in state of Ohio have school income taxes on top of all the other taxes. Ohio is one of only two states that allow for a school income tax. I lived in Columbus, Ohio and I paid a 2% city income tax, perhaps it's even more today.  That would be as if city of Tulsa had a city income tax and you had to file a federal tax form, state tax form and a city income tax form.

Please.  Stop.Watching.Fox.News.

That's a crock of bull.  I was a poor waif that made my own job and I know plenty of other entrepreneurs who have as well... and then became successful enough to hire people. So there! lol.  

One could say that Oklahoma's economy is booming, but there are a lot of places that seem to be doing much better, and it's not just a few people or (oil and gas) companies pushing up the average while the rest aren't doing as well.  

Low unemployment can be a good thing... but it is not the whole picture.  For example, in some places the economy is doing quite well and the "desirability" of the area is high, such that the influx of new people is greater than the pace of job creation, BUT that doesn't mean that the economy, money making potential and opportunity is worse than here.  Quite the contrary, could be better.  Which leads me to wonder "If Tulsa's economy is doing so well... why is the population growth practically stagnant?"  Heck, one might say that you have that impressive low unemployment because there are jobs (quality jobs?) chasing few people (Has that equated to an equally impressive higher than average median incomes or equally impressive lower poverty rate?).  Low growth stifles opportunity for those of us here who want to grow our businesses. Another side of that same coin is I was reading that when many employers look to move to a city, a major factor they consider is it's available workforce.  A slow growing or stagnantly growing workforce can be a detriment to that.    

Just some thoughts.  Perhaps it's my "the grass appears greener" when I look at other places that seem to really be booming compared to Tulsa.  People say that "well at least we don't have the booms and busts of such and such a place"  but I don't know if that is such a bad thing if over all the average is still better, faster, growth? Looking around at some of those "boom and bust" cities like Austin for instance. They were growing really fast compared to us before the recession (and we looked on jealously) , yet struggled more than we did during during the recession (and we patted ourselves on the back for a short while), yet they have already made up what was lost and have moved on past again, and are growing faster. Again, over all doing better than we are I would say.  Interesting to note, it appears, that while their over all economy is growing faster... the unemployment rate has also been inching up.

Mary Fallin has Oklahoma doing very well, but still Oklahoma is tied into the national economy and as long as the feds and Obama keep choking the national economy Oklahoma can't be as good as it can. The EPA is coming down with still more regulations for power plants and our gasoline. The EPA wants to increase the ethonal content of our gasoline from the current 10% to 15% and that will damage many cars, the EPA plans to ban the sale of pure gasoline. Federal policies  like that choke the economy all over. The national U-6 unemployment rate is still around 14%. Obama, Democrats, and federal agencys like the EPA keep the economy down like a wet blanket. Mary Fallin can only do so much, still Oklahoma is far better than other states.

wow

Just a big ol' bucket full of "take that chicken back behind the barn and have his way with it" crazy huh?

Leaving aside the argument about if ethanol damages cars, how does ethanol harm the economy? That would have us shift from oil, of which 40% is imported, often from places that don’t like us very much, to US grown corn. 

We import about 40% of our oil, currently 7.412 million barrels per day, with a price point of $108 per barrel as of today. That means we are sending $294 Billion a year to places like Venezuela, Russia and Saudi Arabia. If moving to E-15 lowers our imports by 5% that means we are sending $15 billion dollars less each year to those places and spending that money on corn from American farmers.

That helps lower the cost of oil overall (supply/demand), helps to heal our trade deficit and helps American farmers. 

FIFY

Better them than Rosneft, Aramco or PDVSA, don’t you think?

Do you ever even listen to yourself??  The illegals who came here did so to find work.  And they are working now - as in already in the work force.  You really ought to do something....can't even begin to imagine what it would be that would help...but do something...

And we are wallowing along at 43rd in the nation.  Along with those you quoted...so if we are doing so great compared to them (which we aren't - some are above, some below), you really need to expand your horizon to get a little broader view of reality.  

And your idea the anyone who wants a job can find one.  Well, you are the satirical comic here - and that is massively laughable....

Reality IS sad! 

And realistically, what is the difference?

This graph shows the U6 Unemployment rates for the last few decades. Look at the last two years of Bush and the four years under Obama then apologize to each of us for your stupidity.

http://www.portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

There's more:

January 1953 – Eisenhower takes office – U3 is 2.9%
January 1961 – Kennedy takes office – U3 is 6.6%, During Eisenhower U3 is up 3.7%
November 1963 – Johnson takes office – U3 is 5.7%, During Kennedy U3 is down .9%
January 1969 – Nixon takes office – U3 is 3.4%, During Johnson U3 is down 1.3%
August 1974 – Ford takes office – US is 5.5%, During Nixon U3 is up 2.1%
January 1977 – Carter takes office  - U3 is at 7.5%, During Ford U3 is up 2%
January 1981 – Reagan takes office – U3 is 7.5%, During Carter U3 is flat, no change%
January 1989 – Bush I takes office  - U3 is 5.4%, During Reagan U3 is down 1.9%
January 1993 – Clinton takes office -  U3 is 7.3%, During Bush I U3 is up 1.9%
January 1994 – 1st month of U6 – U3 is 6.6% and U6 is 11.8%
January 2001 – Bush II takes office – U3 is 4.2% and U6 is 7.3%, During Clinton’s term U3 is down 3.1% and U6 is down 4.5% from 1994
January 2009 – Obama takes office – U3 is 7.9% and U6 is 14.2%, During Bush II’s term U3 is up 3.7% and U6 is up 7.1%
U3 and u6 peak in Oct 2009 at 10% and 17.1%
Current  U3 is 7.6% and U6 is 14.3%
During Obama’s term so far U3 is down .3% and U6 is up .1%, figured from the peak of the recession which happed with 9 month of his taking office Obama’s U3 is down 2.4% and U6 is down 2.8%

Over the last 60+ years:

Republicans held the Oval Office for 36 years and U3 was up during their terms 11.5%
Only one Republican  president ended his term with a lower U3 then when he entered office, Reagan. The other five all saw unemployment rise

Democrats held the Oval Office for 25+ years and U3 was down during their terms 5.6%
No Democrat had higher unemployment at the end of his term then when he started, none. Carter was even and the other four all improved. Yes, even Obama. Not just counting from the peak of Bush’s recession but from when he took office.

Since 1994 when U6 started to be tracked Republicans held office for 8 years in which U6 went up 7.1%, Democrats held office for 12+ years since then and U6 has been down 4.4%

And the Democratic numbers would be even better if the economy wasn’t in such a shambles when Obama took over.

well, Aramco is the engine of Saudi wealth. The Saudi's then send upwards of $100 million a year to radical Islamic groups to spread Wahhabism which is the main reason for the radicalization of the Muslim world over the past couple of decades.

That might be a really big difference.

Rosneft feeds the increasingly dictatorial Putin government and PDVSA feeds the increasingly hostile Venezuelan government.

Those would be differences too.

Facts.  What a grumble.

Yeah....and the Koch brothers contributions to radicalization dwarf all that with their contributions and support to poisonous organizations in this country, which is the main reason for radicalization of the American world over the past several decades.  (Let's not forget Rupert Murdoch.)

Same reactionary extremists selling the American people a bill of goods about fighting the wrong war - Iraq - leading directly to the death of over 4,000 of our kids, PLUS the extra hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.  While we sit on our thumbs during genocide in Uganda, Rwanda, Congo (6 million or so), not only doing nothing to stop it, but supporting that obscene government bunch of gangsters (Congo).

Like I said...what's the difference?


It's one of those "sense of history" moments again.  Radical Islam is always being dragged out as if it just started about 15 years ago.  That particular adventure started about 1,000 years ago - and western Europe (our predecessors) had a big hand in that whole thing - AT LEAST equivalent culpability.  Kind of like the terrorist activities the Jews engaged in during the 20's in the mid-east....just how far back do we start keeping track?

Could quite easily make the case that many of the 20th century tyrants learned from history - US history in the 18th and 19th centuries - and used that as the "case study" for enslavement and genocide.  But then, we don't learn from history, while so many of the bad guys seem to do just that.

You are really Michelle Bachmann incognito, aren't you?

Fox news? What has that got to do about anything? This is about basic economics 101. Raise taxes you choke off the economy, lower taxes you grow the economy. This is not rocket science.

Ethanol pollutes more, cars get less gallons per mile using ethanol than on pure gasoline. It costs more money to produce a gallon of ethanol than gasoline. Ethanol is using a food product for fuel and that increases the cost of food. Ethanol is bad all around, the drop in fuel mileage is huge and the free market cannot support ethanol so it must be subsided by the government. If the free market cannot support a product without the government propping it up it's a failure. As for lowering our oil imports that's easy we need to drill for our own oil, we also have huge deposits of shale oil that are off limits to use. We can't drill in Alaska, we can't drill off shore, Obama cut drilling on public lands by 40%, is it any wonder oil is at $110.00 a barrel? Obama won't even allow the Keystone pipeline to come here. We are lucky the Alaska pipeline is built, in todays world we would not be allowed to build the Alaska pipeline. We have enough of our own oil so that we would not have to import a single drop of OPEC oil, but we now have  a self imposed oil shortage by not drilling for our own oil. We are also losing a lot of jobs by not drilling. BTW, The Keystone pipeline would make around 60,000 jobs.

I strongly support Michelle Bachmann  and I think she would of made a great president. I agree very much with her policies.

FAKE.

Nobody able to use a library card says something this momentously BSC.

HOSS?   Is this you?  Who's messing about on here?  Well done whoever you are until now.

There is no damned way someone's this twisted.

Its not rocket science for someone who's actually had Economics 101. That apparently doesn't include you.

I'm sure you do.  She has shown herself to be profoundly stupid.

You really haven't paid any attention to real economic cycles...particularly those of the last 80 years.  Go back to the library and stay away from the graphic novel section.

It would actually be econ 102, 101 is generally microecon.

But he still has no idea what he is talking about. I'm sure he also just loves that Ron Paul, and Ron Paul gives economists hives with an eye twitch.

Ironically, the periods of the most economic growth on the IS have been under relatively high tax periods.  There is no empirical evidence for the "low taxes grows the economy" argument.  The debate continues - but generally money taken in by taxes is quickly recycled into the economy... so it may be irrelevant to a large extent. 

23% of the employment in Oklahoma is directly related to the government ("small government").  If you included highway contracts, defense contracts, and education grants to TU and other private schools it probably tops 33%.  If you include "secondary jobs" (1/3 of all Walmart jobs and service jobs in general, medical etc.) it could be 50%.

I'm not arguing that is a good thing.  But it is only bad in and if the money is spent less efficiently by government than the private sector.  Waste is always bad, defining it economically is difficult.

Even more intriguing - best economic growth has always - at least since WWII - been when there was an initial tax cut for the recession, followed by a tax increase when the economy has basically bottomed out and started up.  From as short as 9 months to no more than about 18 months.  Except this last time...we didn't do what has been proven over and over, so we are kind of muddling along right now.  If the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire, we would have been in dramatically better shape than now.  And now isn't all that horrible.  

Cabbage-boy will never understand the facts, though.  He is an RWRE, has drunk the Fool-Aid, and follows the tenets of failure spewed by the agents of Murdochian Spewiness!

Everyone who ate pickles in 1776 is dead.  Pickles cause death.

"Most economic growth on the IS have been under relatively high tax periods."  High taxes promote economic growth.

That will always be the problem.  Your "waste" is my "beneficial" program.

Do the analysis - using your engineering training - it will get you past the Murdochian static and you will achieve enlightenment!  Possibly even Nirvana!

Sometimes correlations show the truth. As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Not letting convictions get in the way of truth is an important life skill.

That's a lot of philosophical bs but still, there is some truth there.

Sometimes they do, but not always.  It's way too easy to jump on the correlation band wagon. There is almost always more to it.  Too bad Paul Harvey isn't still around to tell the "rest of the story".

True.  Determining the truth can also be subject to interpretation of events.

Tell ya what, if Bachmann was the presidente today we'd have much lower unemployment, a major turn around in the economy and Cheap Gasoline Prices since we'd be allowed to drill for our own oil. We'd already have the Keystone pipleline under construction right now- Bachmann would put common sense people in the EPA instead of the radicals Obama put in there. Obama was in office 5 years and what has improved? Nothing. Next year the boondoggle called 'BamaCare starts and there goes our health care system- death panels (not doctors) will be calling the shots. There will have to be major health care rationing under 'BamaCare there is no other way to avoid that. The IRS will be in charge of the health care. If Bachmann was elected I bet gasoline will be under $2.00 right now or darn close to it and falling. Oil Speculators would get out of the oil market with all the domestic oil drilling going on. OPEC will be dropping prices in hopes of slowing down our domestic drilling expansion. We'd be sitting pretty right now if Bachmann was elected, instead we're still in the depression year number 5 with that doofus in the whitehouse. Most of that nation has been paying around $4.00 a gallon for gasoline for most of 'Bama's term in office. When Bush left office gasoline was $1.70 a gallon.

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/545/002/d7c.gif)

And pudding? PUDDING WOULD BE FREE FOR ALL WHO WANTED IT!!

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26442998/Photos/rancidbutter.jpg)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6m6bpxkjP4[/youtube]

You must have forgotten when gas prices in America hit $4.21 per gallon (it was under Bush). The prices were over $3 a gallon all of 2008 until the last month. The economy crashed and gas prices plummeted from $3.50 a gallon to $1.78 a gallon the last 60 days of the Bush presidency.

That is the context. I know that such thinking must be above your pay grade. You can't simply pick out one day or one example and post about it without having others show context.

I love the way you guys find obscure videos and pics. Since I don't watch current TV or search youtube much, this has become my daily giggle.

happy to be if service

Sent from my galaxy, far far away, with tapatalk

That's stupid....all of it...!

Stupid is what we got right now in the white house, from scandals on top of scandals to $4.00 a gallon gasoline to 8% unemployment with a U-6 real  unemployment rate of 14%. The black unemployment rate is in the 20's, the teen unemployment rate is also in orbit. There is no reason why we have to pay $4.00 a gallon for gasoline, when it could be under $2.00 a gallon. Bachmann would as president have done 180 degree oppiset of what Obama is doing. Obama's policys kill jobs and the economy as we have already seen and lived  for the past 5 years and as we'll  have  for the next 3 years till he's gone. If you do the oppiset of Obama you'll get a booming economy. Obama's policy's  are  choking the economy. Obama's policy's will turn the whole nation into a one big Detroit.

Sometimes I wonder how you can remain vertical.

WoW Just Wow. Face Palm Time. It's no wonder you wonder.

Wondering would be good for you. Wondering why just about everyone here thinks your posts are....fantasy... and certainly not of your own design. It isn't because we're all liberals, democrats or just dislike you. Its just that politics isn't right or wrong. Fallin isn't a genius, the president is not a stupid country wrecker, oil companies seldom have your best interests at heart and trees are some of natures best work. Giving Fallin and republicans all the glory and everyone else a hard time doesn't endear you to people who know better. Having convictions is great, never questioning them is holding you back.

Question what is being fed to you. Your current posts are like a collection of bumper stickers from a Tea Party garage sale.

You said it a lot more 'gently' than I would have.  I think bat smile crazy would be more accurate.

So how do you rationalize in Crazytown the fact that under Failin, we have now started back up in OK unemployment rate?  Doesn't that create a conflict in your world??  Is your head about to explode from the contradiction??

It would be nice if you told me where I was incorrect about what I said instead of name calling. Obama has the economy in shambles the nation is running on debt. We now have $17 TRILLION Dollars in debt. Kids who go to college  start out life with anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 in debt before they earned their first dollar how sound is that? That's  a plan  for economic collapse, and they can't find jobs. Today  in 7 states fast food workers are going on stirke complaining about living on $7.35 an hour,  it never supposed to be a wage to raise a family of 4 people on, the mim wage was designed to be a starting wage and you work your way up the ladder, or it's a wage for housewifes who want to get back into the job market, or to earn some extra income. Things are very bad today. People are trying to raise a family on $7.35 an hour as nationwide jobs bleed away. We need someone in the "T" Party for president I'd like to see Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann- or if  skin color matters (as it does to some people) why not  elect Herman Cain for president. Any one of those people would make a fine president and would turn our nation around. BTW In Chicago today gasoline once more went over the $4.00 a gallon mark. Enjoy the 'Bama Economy.

You'd be correct by slapping yourself.


Really hard.

Hillary will fix all that. Don't worry your little mind no more.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5469/9137749838_756825e136.jpg)

Where to even start...there are so many things.  And we HAVE told you - repeatedly.  

First, let's go to your $17 trillion...yep - we had $900 billion debt (all numbers approximately to within a few percent) when Reagan took office.  Today there is $17 trillion.  When Obama took office, it was about $14 trillion.  Stop for a second - do a little bit of math and see what number you find for the increase from Reagan to Obama (clue: $14 - .9 is roughly $13 trillion).  THAT is the debt increase while Republicans have held office over the last 33 years.  Simple enough...think you can handle it?  When we clear this little reality-disconnect hurdle, we can continue to the next point.

Part deux of that little exercise - Bush's last deficit was $1.9 trillion - after increasing every year throughout his term.  Obama's first deficit was about $1.6 trillion.  Do you see the trend there?  Let me spell it out - it was a DOWN trend.  And while Obama's pledge of reducing the deficit by half in his first term was not quite reached (about 40% reduction), that is a huge improvement over what anyone else has had happen in their first term...EVER !!  Even better than the reductions during Billy Bob's first term - the previous 'best' - and he got a tax hike to help.  If Obama has a fault in deficit reduction, it is that he didn't have stones enough to stand up and let the Bush reductions expire, like should have happened - based on 80 years of proof of how that works!  

So, see if you can digest this.  We can them move on to some more reality...but it's best to take little steps at this point in your development.

Clinton left office with a surplus. Don't forget that.

Not sure where your numbers come from but these are from the treasury department.  Lets not deal in "about" and "approximately."
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2008&endMonth=07&endDay=29&endYear=2013

When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.77 trillion, and by the end of his 8 years, it grew to $9.229 trillion -- an increase of exactly $3.453 trillion.

Currently we are at $16.73 trillion.  That is a $6.10 trillion dollar increase in a little over 4 years.  During that time, government debt rose by $721,407,501,045 and private sector debt rose by $6,787,545,796,868.

Under Bush, the total debt rose by $431.6 billion a year (an atrocious and unsustainable amount).  Under President Obama it has increased by $1.326 trillion a year, or roughly 3X the yearly increase under Bush.

While Sauerkraut posts from emotion and is typically easy to unmount, please attempt to do so with real numbers.

Reagan was 100% devoted to private sector growth.  He spent like wild, but he had the revenue to do so. Clinton was a marvelous leader, also devoted to the promotion of private sector growth.  He could make a speech and cause the stock market roar, and companies to hire. He was also concerned with debt, far more than his predecessors, and understood the threat it posed to economic prosperity.  Bush was a miserable spender, but he enjoyed an artificially stimulated economy. He had little or no control over the housing crisis, though I think he should have tried a little harder.  He was lazy, especially during his second term.

Obama started in the weeds, and thought it was possible to spend his way out of them (ignoring the Keynesian failures of the past).  He made the private sector the enemy, blamed them, his predecessors, foreign countries, natural disasters, the weather, global warming, other law makers and any other external factor he could find for his inability to process a solution.  Instead of cutting through impediments to growth, he grew layer upon layer of new economic uncertainty, like onion-paper suffocating small business growth, and baring entry with banking regulations that did NOTHING to stifle the lending habits towards big companies.  Entire industries flush with cash were unwilling to hire because there was no longer a clear forecast of employment cost, or a clear picture of growth.  The amazing thing, is that he was able to accomplish most of his economic mess with words alone!  Beyond that, he seems completely unconcerned with the reality, and utterly consumed with the politics. The remedy to every issue, or crisis is a speaking tour.  How long will Democrats pretend this is leadership?

Your numbers are wrong. Are you confused over when Obama took office?

Also, ask Europe what they think of going against the Keynesian model. Austerity is going just GREAT over there.

Right you are.  Let me recalc.

When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.77 trillion, and by the end of his 8 years, it grew to $10.62 trillion -- an increase of exactly $4.85 trillion.

Currently we are at $16.73 trillion.  That is a $6.11 trillion dollar increase in a little over 4 years.  

Under Bush, the total debt rose by $431.6 billion a year (an atrocious and unsustainable amount).  Under President Obama it has increased by $1.32 trillion a year, still roughly 3X the yearly increase under Bush.

Bush also owns the first year of Obama's deficits, it was his budget. And Clinton owns Bush's surplus his first year.

Bush's first budget took effect 10/1/2001, the debt was at 5.8 trillion, Obama's first budget started 10/1/2009 when the debt was at 11.9. Bush had an increase of 6.1 trillion in 8 years or a 105% increase. Obama is at 4.8 trillion in four years, a 40% increase, but then he has been tasked with cleaning up Bush's mess.

How convenient to try to make a point in favor of Obama.  Compare an 8 year debt increase by Bush directly with a 4 year debt increase by Obama.

Too bad Bush didn't inherit a $11.9 trillion debt.  Then his $6.1 trillion increase over 8 years would have only been (approximately) 51%.

If Bush could have kept a balanced budget, then Obama's $4.8 trillion increase over $5.8 trillion would have been (approximately) 83% in only 4 years.

I think people can do the math.  Well, most on here can, anyway.

I was just pointing out the obvious manipulation to distort events.

How is it manipulation?  The statement says 8 years of debt by Bush; 4 years by Obama.  That's stating fact.

If he'd have said the same thing and left the time frames off, I'd agree.  You're reading something that's not there, in my opinion.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Go from year to year to year to get the total addition or subtraction to the national debt.  Does away with all those "hand waving" things like Bush keeping the two wars "off budget"....  Goes clear back to the beginning.  And you can see that as of the last day of the last fiscal year of Bush's regime, the debt HE and his spending binge was responsible for, the debt was $11,909,829,003,511.75.  Sept 30, 2009.  Ok, so I was off about a trillion.  Up from the $5.7 trillion - that actually is an increase of about $6.2 trillion.   About and nearly are plenty good for this type of discussion.  Notice, I gave Reagan the benefit of a few bucks in his favor when it was really only $997 billion....


Ahh...SOO glad you dragged Reagan into it - of course, you DO realize WHY he had the revenue to spend like wild??  Well, he really didn't...he tripled the national debt in 8 years....actually 286% increase...in 8 years.  Not even Bush was quite that bad - coming in at 200% increase in 8 years.  But the fact that was that he had a big fat juicy tax cut when the recession started - FOLLOWED BY the biggest tax hikes in the history of the world until that time!  After the recession started to abate, of course - THE time proven method to deal with recessions.  You are making Obama look better and better all the time by comparison - let's see if the deficit gets to $24 trillion in the next 3 years or so...that's what it would take for Obama to tie Bush...let alone get close to Reagan.


Platitudes, Gaspar,....platitudes....that last paragraph is right from "The Script".  And demonstrably and visibly wrong at least to this point in Obama's regime - who knows what is gonna happen for the next 3 years....?

As for companies not willing to hire - well that is a really distorted distortion.  Personal experience - 35% in the last 4 years...from about 122k to 165k.  Companies that have the foresight and have a plan are and have been hiring to cover the increasing needs, as well as be prepared for future expansion.  Lots of companies hiring - not enough - but lots.







 

I'm not disputing the numbers.  I do believe the presentation is intended to skew the interpretation.  If you don't see it that way, fine.  I am not defending Bush's spending though.  I just think Obama is as bad or worse.

No.  I like it.  Goes with the theme. President Obama swooped into office blaming everyone before him, and he will squeak out blaming everyone around him, then he will enjoy a fabulous speaking career blaming everyone after him.

Swake makes a great point, president Obama is really not responsible for anything.  None of his budget proposals were ever considered by either party.  In fact last year his framework couldn't garner a single vote in the house 414-0 or in the senate 97-0.  His budgetary proposals have been considered unworkable by the legislative branch and incalculable by the Congressional Budget Office due to their lack of detail.

This means that the president can take no blame for the state of the economy when it comes to budget.  Of course the inability to present a cogent budget is not his fault either, because it was written by his advisors, overseen by Brian Deese who was the economic policy director for the 2008 Obama campaign. Before that he worked for The Center for American Progress, a think tank offering policy proposals, talking points, events, news and columns. It's not much of a surprise the Obama budget frameworks were of little substance.  Deese has a poly-sci and law degree with a mostly eco-political background.  The entire OMB office is staffed by these young political starlets (the Prius bumper-sticker club).

The one thing that President Obama cannot be denied is that he got Osama, and killed thousands of others with drones. Why do we have to focus on economy and budget when we got that?

Why don't you go back to predicting stocks. You are even worse at reality than you are stocks.

Point out the inaccuracy.

Gas-the educated, erudite....Sauer.

Anyway, Sauer, do you see the difference between your bumper sticker platitudes and reasoned (somewhat supportable) discourse? There is always spin and folks are committed to their viewpoints but it isn't just yelling out like at a football game. They actually have a basis for those viewpoints.

I am an Obama supporter and a confirmed moderate liberal, but I do admit the failures of the party, the candidate and the extremists who inhabit my realm of thinking. You cannote expect people to give you much credit when you portray Fallin and the republican state legislature as the saviours of the state and yet ignore their obvious failures and the role of the federal government in our prosperity.

Where did I say Obama isn't responsible for anything. I correctly pointed out that the budget that a president comes in with was passed by the previous president and is in place until the end of the federal fiscal year which is October 1st. I get that this concept may well be too hard to comprehend for you but I can't help that.

You've been predicting the end of the world since Obama took office, it keeps not happening. I get that you have a Bush photo in that pretty little locket around your neck and can't accept that he almost push the entire world economy into depression but that is the truth.

Republicans are bad at the whole economy thing, twice in the last 100 years they have created conditions for horrible world depressions and even leaving those two out they have left the economy in worse condition then when they took office with only ONE exception in the last 100 years.

The economy today, which not great, is far, far better than it was when Obama took office. When Bush II left it was far, far worse than when he took office. I understand that you think Bushy's little fake Texas accent is cute and all, but Bush  is a moron. That's been proven. He was really bad at the whole deciderer thing. Is that so hard to get?

The fact still remains that for Obama's deficit total increase to get even close to Bush, let alone Reagan, the debt will be $24 trillion at the end of his term.  At 3 more years and a trillion per year (the current pace), I'm betting on about $20-ish.  Which means they will be dramatically separated on percentage increases, but hand in hand for total in absolute terms. 

The biggest point to note from all that is that neither of them had/have an understanding of economics or the stones to do what it takes to actually fix issues.  Motivations obvious to date;  more money for the buddies, obstructionist policies by a minority (from both sides...), and a clear mandate to run this country into the ground so they can stand back and say, "I told you so....".  Kind of like a game of musical chairs in some ways.

Rational, functional, correct fixes have been available every step along the way - since the mid 80's.  And every step along the way, the people we elect, who are then bought and paid for by their "buddies", have chosen NOT to engage in any of them!

Sauer,  have you digested that first little batch of reality yet??

Do you understand it?

Very good commercial spot for OKC, and the state rep is a cutie...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN1bkUnKj1M#at=13[/youtube]

And yes, she's an R. But, you knew that.

I guess all I can say is  some people posting here would rather have 12% unemployment, and our Oklahoma state economy in shambles with  high taxes, and $4.50 a gallon gasoline in Oklahoma. Not I. ~  I perfer low unemployment, a robust economy, low taxes and  some of the cheapest gasoline prices in the USA. Hoss can "face palm" all he wants if it makes him feel better and he can't face reality. The sales tax free hoilday in Oklahoma shows what can happen when taxes are suspended or cut even if it's only for one day, spending and growth explode. Taxes choke an economy and free market.  :-X

Indeed very good points- It must also be remembered to that Bush was really a "RINO" for the most part. Obama spent more than any other president. What I'd like to see is a "T" party president  someone  who supports the private market place and does not choke them to death with taxes and regulations, the EPA is choking the economic engine  with global warming regulations and the planet is not even warming up it's been cooling down for the past 16 years. The high gasoline prices pull money from people's paychecks that could be spend on goods and services instead of ending up in the gas tank. In the future Obama's push with ethonal in gasoline is another disaster waiting to happen, that's bad news all around yet they just force it on the market place.

Holy crap.  You're living in fantasyland.  Thankfully it's not here.  At least not that you've proven.

The reality is that the economy IS getting better, despite what Gov Failin' is doing.

You can now go back to residing under the Governor's desk.

Says the guy residing under Obama's desk...

We all "perfer" them things. I don't know any who ain't.

Show me the picket signs of people demanding high unemployment.

I had a pretty nifty and witty reply to that.

I thought then, "why waste it on a lawyer".

 ;D

That is a flat out bald faced lie - what you want for OK - otherwise you would be wanting to go back to Brad Henry. 

And the tax free day has been going on for WAY longer than Failin'.

State and local politicians jump out in front of the cameras to announce new jobs coming to the state.  Sure, we know why.

It would be nice if they could do the same to explain what is being done to stop the loss of jobs too.



QEP Resources to shut down Tulsa office; approximately 70 jobs affected

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/employment/qep-resources-to-shut-down-tulsa-office-jobs-affected/article_9dd47240-1766-52a7-b87b-d5b2cf131110.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/employment/qep-resources-to-shut-down-tulsa-office-jobs-affected/article_9dd47240-1766-52a7-b87b-d5b2cf131110.html)

Probably Obama and the EPA chokin’ them to death with all sorts of regulations.  We need a president like Mary Failin’ or Dewby Bartlet (sic).  They’d be the job-gittinist pair ever in the White House!

Oil is $45 a barrel and natural gas is $2.72.  Doesn't matter who's governor or which political party is in charge, Oklahoma is in for a tough ride until those numbers change substantially.

Diversification is never a horrible idea.

Making the state a more attractive, less hateful place to live is something to try.

Our leaders could also start every conversation about a new idea with "Will this make Oklahoma look foolish or allow our state to once again be a national joke?"

I don't know, just throwing stuff out there.

This IS Oklahoma...

That is exactly how they start every conversation and since most of the time, it will, that's where the conversation ends and that's what they go with....

Theoretically, consistently low employment should lead to better wages and/or significant population growth. We are an anomaly...

You said that perfectly! Just kind of interesting to read the parts of this thread that were posted 2 plus years ago. Thankfully the gloom and doom and "the sky is falling" predictions of some didn't come true.