PDA

View Full Version : Surprise! Obama Is Creating More New Jobs Than George W. Bush



Lanie
01-05-2013, 11:59 AM
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/01/04/surprise-obama-is-creating-more-new-jobs-than-george-w-bush

When Bush began his first term in January 2001, total nonfarm employment was 132.47 million. When his second term began four years later, it was 132.45 million, or effectively zero job growth.

Obama's first term isn't technically over yet, but so far, employment has risen from 133.56 million in January 2009 to 134.02 million in the latest report, for December 2012. That's a net gain of about 460,000 or 0.3 percent. As paltry as that is, it beats Bush's first-term performance.

Purists might argue that because of the one-month lag in the official job numbers, it would be more appropriate to judge each president's first term from the February figures rather than those for January. But that gives Obama an even bigger edge. From February 2001 to February 2005, the economy created 164,000 jobs, for a 0.1 percent gain during Bush's first term. From February 2009 through December 2012, the economy created nearly 1.2 million jobs, a 0.9 percent improvement.

snip

txradioguy
01-05-2013, 12:29 PM
Explain to me then how this is possible when W had an unemployment rate of 4.7%.

That propaganda piece you posted also doesn't take into account the smaller pool of people that are actually looking for jobs...which is as small as its been since WW II.

Also they are counting jobs of people that didn't get fired or laid off in the gains.

That's akin to saying you got a tax cut because your rates didn't go up

This is just more leftist bullshit from one of CU's biggest leftist bullshitters.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

NJCardFan
01-05-2013, 01:30 PM
I think it's amazing that when Bush was in office, the unemployment rate went down to as low as 4.4% and the libs wailed and gnashed teeth on how high the rate was. Under Obama the rate went as high as 10% and the libs cheered as loudly as if the rate were 0.0. To people like Lainie, when the rate dropped to 8%, this meant that Obama was creating jobs. The logic is mind boggling.

LukeEDay
01-05-2013, 01:43 PM
Liberals are stupid. They live by the U3 rate but ignore the U6 rate. Typical lying sheep they are.

Rockntractor
01-05-2013, 01:46 PM
I'm going to tell everyone I know that is off work or working for next to nothing because of the progressive depression that it is only their imaginations and that they are doing much better than they were doing 5 and 10 years ago.

SarasotaRepub
01-05-2013, 02:07 PM
But I thought POTUS said the "Shovel Ready" jobs were there and then they weren't. Probably the BFEE!!! :biggrin-new:

Elspeth
01-05-2013, 02:40 PM
Lanie,

Two things:

1. The piece you cite is based on dodgy stats. From yesterday's Zero Hedge: (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-04/155000-jobs-added-december-unemployment-rate-78)


A surprisingly uneventful report, as BLS reports that 155,000 Jobs were added in December, right on top of the 156,000 expected, and in line with the number needed to keep up with the growth in the population, or at least the Old Normal growth. The unemployment rate was 7.8%, vs the 7.7% expected...The November unemployment rate was revised from 7.7% to 7.8%, just so headlines can proclaim the rate was unchanged, even though it was fractions away from a 7.9% print, compared to November initial 7.7%. According to the Household survey a materially less, or 28,000 jobs were added even as the number of unemployed rose by 164K. Average hourly earnings for all employees rose 0.3% in December from November, compared to the 0.2% expected. The confusion continues as the BLS reports retail jobs were mysteriously down by 19,000 even as every retailer announced it was hiring the kitchen sink, while manufacturing jobs supposedly rose by 25,000 while the ADP report reported 6 months of reductions in a row. Construction jobs increased by 30,000. The Underemployment rate, U-6, remains steady at 14.5%. ADP, which will certainly be revised lower now, remains a farce.


2. The plight of the long term unemployed is far worse than for those recently unemployed. The long term unemployed have less and less of a chance of being hired and many of these either are counted or will be counted as "discouraged workers", who are removed from the official numbers. NPR, hardly a conservative source, notes this:


Diminishing Prospects For The Long-Term Unemployed (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/05/168666356/long-term-unemployed-seem-to-be-staying-that-way)

The latest figures show December was another month of steady, moderate job growth. But for many people still struggling with long-term unemployment, the situation hasn't actually changed much at all.

For Alecia Warthen, the last eight months have been painfully stagnant.

She was the first person in her family to finish college, after growing up in one of the roughest sections of Brooklyn. She had earned an accounting degree and worked as a bookkeeper for most of the last decade.

Then she lost her job with the City of New York last April, and she's now telling local grocery stores she'll do anything for a job mop floors, stock shelves, bag groceries.

One morning she stopped by a Foodtown grocery store in the Bronx. She put in an application a few weeks before, but hadn't heard back. The man she spoke with immediately shook his head at her inquiry.

"They just closed one of my other Foodtown stores, and we're absorbing their help right now. So I have nothing open," he said.

"This is sad. This is so sad." Warthen said as she made her way back through the doors. "I'm going back home. Enough."

Warthen says she's applied for more than 100 jobs since her layoff and has had only four interviews so far. She's tried making clothes and curtains to sell until her sewing machine broke. She even peddled homemade body lotions and home-cooked meals. But nothing's helped...

...But...the main reason people are staying unemployed is a skill-set gap. Those growing sectors need skills many long-term unemployed people just don't have, especially those in their 40s and 50s.

Bonny Williams helps run New York Staffing Services, a job-placement center in Manhattan. He's found that the longer someone remains unemployed, the more that person will be perceived as someone without the right skills.

"It does look undesirable ... from an employer perspective," Williams says. "They'd rather spend the time with someone who's just coming off an assignment because they're looking as though they're job-ready, versus someone who may have been a bit stale being out of work for some time."

Williams says even though he is placing more workers these days, the people first in line to get the new jobs are the ones who've been out of work the shortest time.

That means prospects continue to look dim for people like Warthen. She has already started to pull money out of both her life insurance policy and retirement account. To save on electricity now, her house goes pitch black every night before 11 p.m.

So, basically, the government is playing with labor stats, and, for many workers, the chance of ever being gainfully employed again is minimal. Such is Obama's America.

Starbuck
01-05-2013, 02:53 PM
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/01/04/surprise-obama-is-creating-more-new-jobs-than-george-w-bush

When Bush began his first term in January 2001, total nonfarm employment was 132.47 million. When his second term began four years later, it was 132.45 million, or effectively zero job growth.

Obama's first term isn't technically over yet, but so far, employment has risen from 133.56 million in January 2009 to 134.02 million in the latest report, for December 2012. That's a net gain of about 460,000 or 0.3 percent. As paltry as that is, it beats Bush's first-term performance............

Looks good. Except that the population in 2000 was 282 million. Population now is 311 million.

That makes a huge difference. No one knows the exact number of people who want full time employment, but historically it has hovered around 47%.
47% of 311 million is 146 million, so that's how many jobs there need to be. We are 14 million jobs short.

It's true. Obama has created more jobs than Bush. He has hired federal employees at the rate of 101 per DAY! for the first 1420 days of his term. And that's a lousy way to establish growth.

The guy's a demagogue. And a lousy leader.

C'mon, Lanie. You have no case.

Molon Labe
01-05-2013, 07:32 PM
lol. What color is the sky in your world. Unemployments still around 8-14% depending on the metrics you use. And you can't count all the federal jobs created because a government job produces nothing.

Molon Labe
01-05-2013, 07:40 PM
Liberals are stupid. They live by the U3 rate but ignore the U6 rate. Typical lying sheep they are.

We can all thank Bill Clinton for that. He helped start the shuck and jive with Unemployment numbers, which is why his numbers always looked so peachy.

JB
01-05-2013, 09:19 PM
That's great Lanie.

Fredo enjoys a pittance in job growth, during an economic recovery no less. Bush had to deal with 9/11 and the housing crisis (no matter whose fault it was *cough*Democrats*cough).

Unemployment is still at 7.8% (terrible). Growth is about 2% (terrible). Your taxes just went up. Your wages went down during the recovery (regardless of the tax increase). Unimaginable and unfathomable crushing debt. And increasing. Worst creator of debt for any human being in any country at any point in history. Yearly deficit at $1.2 Trillion and climbing. Just raised taxes on 80+% of the country when he told us (and lied obviously) that he would only raise taxes on the top 2%. That class warfare lying SOB bullshit gave him a second term. You bought it, not me. No spending cuts offered, in spite of his "balanced approach" bullshit. No entitlements reform. Wants unfettered access to the debt ceiling for the next two years. Gas and food prices higher than ever.

Should I continue? Is this what you want for the country? Is this the path we should be on...practically no economic growth and the expansion of government...at your expense? If that's what you want, congrats, you got it.

Rockntractor
01-05-2013, 09:26 PM
That's great Lanie.

Fredo enjoys a pittance in job growth, during an economic recovery no less. Bush had to deal with 9/11 and the housing crisis (no matter whose fault it was *cough*Democrats*cough).

Unemployment is still at 7.8% (terrible). Growth is about 2% (terrible). Your taxes just went up. Your wages went down during the recovery (regardless of the tax increase). Unimaginable and unfathomable crushing debt. And increasing. Worst creator of debt for any human being in any country at any point in history. Yearly deficit at $1.2 Trillion and climbing. Just raised taxes on 80+% of the country when he told us (and lied obviously) that he would only raise taxes on the top 2%. That class warfare lying SOB bullshit gave him a second term. You bought it, not me. No spending cuts offered, in spite of his "balanced approach" bullshit. No entitlements reform. Wants unfettered access to the debt ceiling for the next two years. Gas and food prices higher than ever.

Should I continue? Is this what you want for the country? Is this the path we should be on...practically no economic growth and the expansion of government...at your expense? If that's what you want, congrats, you got it.

I don't understand why she has sided with evil.

JB
01-05-2013, 09:32 PM
I don't understand why she has sided with evil.No idea. North Carolina has some lib infestation so maybe she's been hanging around them.

Lanie, get yourself a decent conservative man and repent damnit.

txradioguy
01-06-2013, 08:31 AM
I don't understand why she has sided with evil.

Because what she does here is an act Rock. She pretends to want to try and get along with us and convince us she not a dyed in the wool socialist so she won't get banned.

In reality she's just as hard left as her brethren at the DUmp.

She "sided with evil" because what 44 stands for is what she believes in too. She just tries to wrap it in a sugary coating hoping we don't notice.


Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Lanie
01-06-2013, 12:55 PM
Lanie,

Two things:

1. The piece you cite is based on dodgy stats. From yesterday's Zero Hedge: (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-04/155000-jobs-added-december-unemployment-rate-78)




2. The plight of the long term unemployed is far worse than for those recently unemployed. The long term unemployed have less and less of a chance of being hired and many of these either are counted or will be counted as "discouraged workers", who are removed from the official numbers. NPR, hardly a conservative source, notes this:



So, basically, the government is playing with labor stats, and, for many workers, the chance of ever being gainfully employed again is minimal. Such is Obama's America.


Good point. I personally think employers are being cruel jerks for their attitudes. A lot of them got the nerve to look down on those who don't have work all the while they refuse to hire somebody who isn't working. It sort of makes me not feel sorry for them when they undergo burdens such as taxes. Truth is if they'd look at the applicant's resume and past work, they'd find that they either did have the right skill set or were not far from it. People talk about on the job training. That's almost a thing of the past. Truth is if the factory work was still here, employers would require a degree to do the job. Then, they'll complain because they don't have any employees. I'm just feeling less and less sympathy toward employers. If you're an employer who isn't like that, then I'm not talking about you.

As for my original argument, this isn't about the unemployment rate so much as it was about the actual job growth. More new jobs were created under Obama than under Bush. Not to mention when Bush got out of office, jobs were being lost as an unusually high amount.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/jan/wk2/art02.htm


In December, the number of unemployed persons increased by 632,000 to 11.1 million and the unemployment rate rose to 7.2 percent. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has grown by 3.6 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.3 percentage points.

For those of you wanting to blame it on Obama getting elected.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/jun/wk2/art01.htm


The number of unemployed persons increased by 861,000 to 8.5 million in May.
A year earlier, the number of unemployed persons was 6.9 million, and the jobless rate was 4.5 percent.
The unemployment rates for adult men, adult women, teenagers, whites, and blacks rose in May. The jobless rate for Hispanics was unchanged.
Among the unemployed, the number of reentrants and new entrants to the labor force rose in May, by 326,000 and 204,000, respectively.
The number of persons who had lost their last job increased by 268,000 over the month to 4.3 million. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed job losers has risen by 907,000.
These data are from the Current Population Survey program and are seasonally adjusted. To learn more, see "The Employment Situation: May 2008," (HTML) (PDF) news release USDL 08-0757.


So, we were losing jobs and losing jobs in 2008. It couldn't be ignored anymore. As for lower rates during earlier Bush years, keep in mind there were discouraged workers then as well. With Obama pushing for unemployment extensions and Bush doing no such thing, of course his unemployment rate will appear higher than Bush's. Those people who have extended benefits are not considered discouraged workers in the eyes of economists yet.


Overview of the recession from 2007-2009. Notice whose watch this was under for the most part.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/04/art1full.pdf

Lanie
01-06-2013, 12:58 PM
I don't understand why she has sided with evil.

Are you serious? You think I've sided with evil because I disagree with you? Please say you're not serious.

Lanie
01-06-2013, 01:03 PM
No idea. North Carolina has some lib infestation so maybe she's been hanging around them.

Lanie, get yourself a decent conservative man and repent damnit.

My neck of the woods is pretty conservative. I choose to hang out with my Catholic group whenever I do hang out. I don't spend a lot of time doing politics anymore. Most of my time is spent working. Don't tell the rest of the board that liberals work. It's our ultimate secret.

And with the way you, Rock, and Tx are acting in this thread, I'd rather go the rest of my life without ever having sex than have a conservative man.



Because what she does here is an act Rock. She pretends to want to try and get along with us and convince us she not a dyed in the wool socialist so she won't get banned.

In reality she's just as hard left as her brethren at the DUmp.

She "sided with evil" because what 44 stands for is what she believes in too. She just tries to wrap it in a sugary coating hoping we don't notice.


Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Why would I be banned for showing my liberal leanings? I told everybody here I was a liberal. So every once in a while I actually show it. It's up to the staff if they want to ban me, but honestly I've seen far more liberal and they had me around when I was far worse. When I actually was bad.

Why is it that if I'm "good," even compliment you on occasion, you don't have one word to say to me, but you come out of the woodwork if I do something you don't like? It's like you're waiting for my liberal side to come out so you can jump out of the bushes.

Lanie
01-06-2013, 01:17 PM
That's great Lanie.

Fredo enjoys a pittance in job growth, during an economic recovery no less. Bush had to deal with 9/11 and the housing crisis (no matter whose fault it was *cough*Democrats*cough).

You know what my first job was coming out of college? It last a few weeks. Trying to talk people into financing for a house when they probably couldn't get it because of their credit. If they could get it, the interest would be way too high. My own boss admitted it was bull, and I had to leave. Bush could have tried to regulate some of it, but he didn't.


Unemployment is still at 7.8% (terrible). Growth is about 2% (terrible).

The unemployment rate is higher partially because of extended benefits. Otherwise, they'd be considered discouraged workers and not counting on the charts, just like some of them did under Bush. Thousands of jobs were being lost a month under Bush by the end. That's not growth. We didn't want more years of Bush's economical ideas.



Your taxes just went up.

The tax cut for social security taxes expired. I don't mind this because we keep talking about saving social security. Why would we be taking money out of it to give people a tax break? Social Security is NOT an entitlement. The elderly worked their entire lives. They deserve it. At least I know where my money is going on this one. That's more than I can say when I pay taxes in my conservative state. I have no clue where that goes.


Your wages went down during the recovery (regardless of the tax increase).

Actually, mine personally went up. For the first time ever, I've been working a job with middle class wages. That didn't happen under Bush. I don't know how many times I was told under Bush to be thankful I even had my minimum wage job.



Unimaginable and unfathomable crushing debt.

Which Bush started by putting a war on the credit card. Whoever heard of lowering taxes during a war? Higher taxes can go toward paying off some of the debt. BTW, Republicans are not helping when they insist on money for the military that they don't ask for. So, we've pulled out of Iraq. That should help keep us from getting more into debt. We're working on getting out of Afghanistan, which will do the same. And no, I'm not saying defund the military, but they're not even asking for that money. Republicans were not helping when they put our federal money into abstinience only programs years ago.



And increasing. Worst creator of debt for any human being in any country at any point in history. Yearly deficit at $1.2 Trillion and climbing. Just raised taxes on 80+% of the country when he told us (and lied obviously) that he would only raise taxes on the top 2%.

But be honest, who were the house fighting so hard for? It was NOT for 80% of the country. It was for the rich.



That class warfare lying SOB bullshit gave him a second term. You bought it, not me. No spending cuts offered, in spite of his "balanced approach" bullshit. No entitlements reform. Wants unfettered access to the debt ceiling for the next two years. Gas and food prices higher than ever.

You act like we started the class warfare. Reagan started it when he wrongly labeled people as welfare queens (when most of them were really single mothers trying to survive). Bush claimed that we just wanted to punish the rich for being rich. Romney claimed we all just wanted to mooch. I think the Republicans started this crap. Don't pretend your side is innocent.



Should I continue? Is this what you want for the country? Is this the path we should be on...practically no economic growth and the expansion of government...at your expense? If that's what you want, congrats, you got it.

What I want is a balanced approach where we pay taxes to help the debt. Give tax breaks where it's needed. That would be the poor, but it would also be to companies promising to hire more people or at least not let go of who they have. I want an approach that keeps companies from going overseas. I want regulation in our companies, but not too far.

I want so called entitlement programs, but I also want more programs helping people get off of them. Bush didn't fight for that. Obama did. He encouraged more education to help people get the skills they need to get a job.

Starbuck
01-06-2013, 01:59 PM
:DDsmilie_panic: Lanie has struck back! RUN!!

OK. But I'd still like to hear the response to my post, which you must have missed......I guess.

A solid argument, is, after all, a solid argument. And if you have an argument to present I'd like to hear it. Who knows? You might be able to convert me to an Obama fan.:friendly_wink:

DumbAss Tanker
01-06-2013, 02:11 PM
Meaningless bullshit, Lanie, and if you actually thought it through you'd know it (Of course, being that you're a Liberal, I realize that actually analyzing one of your Party's talking points is alien to your thought process, like asking a Eurotrash soccer fan what his cheer really means). "Saved or created" is as meaningless and devoid of real content as calling Obama policies "Tastes great, less filling!" By that kind of retarded claim, everyone who had a job when Bush took office and still had one when he left would be a job Bush 'Saved,' and the 'Created' part includes every Christmas temp and 60-day construction boondoggle job in the last four years...even if the SAME PERSON might have held four or five of those 'Obama-created' jobs in that time.

I don't think you're gonna have to worry about that sex with a Conservative man thing too much, brainless cheerleading stops being attractive when the woman doing it gets out of her mid-twenties and loses the cheerleader body.

Starbuck
01-06-2013, 02:27 PM
Meaningless bullshit, Lanie, and if you actually thought it through you'd know it (Of course, being that you're a Liberal, I realize that actually analyzing one of your Party's talking points is alien to your thought process, like asking a Eurotrash soccer fan what his cheer really means). "Saved or created" is as meaningless and devoid of real content as calling Obama policies "Tastes great, less filling!" By that kind of retarded claim, everyone who had a job when Bush took office and still had one when he left would be a job Bush 'Saved,' and the 'Created' part includes every Christmas temp and 60-day construction boondoggle job in the last four years...even if the SAME PERSON might have held four or five of those 'Obama-created' jobs in that time.
All that is true, DAT. Obama, demagogue that he is, will claim, it seems, almost anything and find people who will believe it. Last week he declared that he had cut 1 trillion dollars in spending...(?)...........I heard him declare that GM was a profitable investment and claim that money had been paid back....(?). None of that is true, of course, but learning the whole truth might mean someone has to do more than listen to headlines, and that, of course, may mean they would have to listen to (shudder) Fox News or CNN or BBC.

I fear the free market economy has been destroyed. Lanie believes that companies should be made to make promises regarding how many people they will hire. I have to wonder how many others believe that.
Lanie took a job out of college with a company that preys upon uneducated or undisciplined people, and she believes that job should be regulated out of existence by the President.
And Lanie ignores the fact that it was the Democrats in the legislature that supported the nit-wit mortgages that resulted in the real estate crisis.

The miracle of being a liberal requires that you either know nothing, or discard what you know and just go with your feelings.

Lanie
01-06-2013, 02:40 PM
Looks good. Except that the population in 2000 was 282 million. Population now is 311 million.

That makes a huge difference. No one knows the exact number of people who want full time employment, but historically it has hovered around 47%.
47% of 311 million is 146 million, so that's how many jobs there need to be. We are 14 million jobs short.

It's true. Obama has created more jobs than Bush. He has hired federal employees at the rate of 101 per DAY! for the first 1420 days of his term. And that's a lousy way to establish growth.

The guy's a demagogue. And a lousy leader.

C'mon, Lanie. You have no case.

Recovery is slow. It's even slower when the house is at odds with the senate and President about what to do. Hopefully, more people can get accepted into school and get a job. It's been brought up that people aren't getting hired due to th elack of skills.

Lanie
01-06-2013, 02:55 PM
I fear the free market economy has been destroyed. Lanie believes that companies should be made to make promises regarding how many people they will hire.

In return for extra tax breaks. It's not like I'm advocating jail. You all seem to believe in the totally hands off theory, which is crap and always have been. Back when things were completely hands off, you had people getting paid nothing for hours of work, child recruitment, and Karl Marx advocating a revolution. Things are better now that the so called free market is more regulated. People get paid more to survive, children are not recruited (in this country), and we have a middle class. Marx didn't consider the possibility of a middle class because there was no middle class back then. All he saw was rich people constantly exploiting the poor. Now, because of regulation of the so called free market and the establishment of a middle class, there's no way a revolution would ever happen in this country now. Thing is I know there are people on this board who would love to do away with all our progress because you have a pseudo belief that employers will actually play fair now. Oh yeah, you'd keep the child labor laws, but I think a lot of you would love to get rid of minimum wage or basically anything that tells employers that they're not a god to be worshipped.



I have to wonder how many others believe that.

I don't know, but I know this much. The people who feel the rich always deserve more tax cuts and who argue that so called "job creators" should get a bigger tax cut didn't get voted in.



Lanie took a job out of college with a company that preys upon uneducated or undisciplined people, and she believes that job should be regulated out of existence by the President.

Where did I say that? I'm just saying my work situation is better than it was under George W. Bush. The attitude during the Bush years (when things were supposedly better) is that you should take two and three part time, minimum jobs to replace full time jobs. You shouldn't expect to be able to get full time work that pays enough to survive off of. THAT was the reality of the Bush years. People are going through it now, but there isn't this smug attitude that we should all get used to it and stay used to it. That was the smug attitude of some conservatives during the Bush years.



And Lanie ignores the fact that it was the Democrats in the legislature that supported the nit-wit mortgages that resulted in the real estate crisis.

What some of them did a very long time ago was try to enable people who had no credit to be able to get credit. That didn't mean giving people cards with credit limits that a person on minimum wage couldn't pay. It didn't mean mortgages that couldn't get paid due to the high interest rate, and then the bank selling the house for one thousand dollars because our government was bailing them out. I'm not talking about the great bail out that saved jobs. I'm talking about the constant bailouts of all banks. These banks make bad decisions KNOWING they'll be bailed out by the government. Where are the good conservatives in regards to these people taking our hard earned tax dollars? We pay our tax dollars to enable banks to take a house and sell it for a thousand dollars instead of renegotiating the original agreement or better yet not making the original agreement. You know it's true. But the banks deserve my sympathy?


The miracle of being a liberal requires that you either know nothing, or discard what you know and just go with your feelings.

Says the people who make a big deal out of struggling, single mothers wanting help, but don't have one word to say against companies wanting bailouts.

Rockntractor
01-06-2013, 03:15 PM
Are you serious? You think I've sided with evil because I disagree with you? Please say you're not serious.

I think you have sided with evil because you have joined with Satan.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/MZ5jxQAn6K-6.png

Starbuck
01-06-2013, 05:51 PM
In return for extra tax breaks. It's not like I'm advocating jail. You all seem to believe in the totally hands off theory, which is crap and always have been. Back when things were completely hands off, you had people getting paid nothing for hours of work, child recruitment, and Karl Marx advocating a revolution.

A company is not going to hire a permanent employee in return for a temporary tax break. For that matter, what the employer pays the employee is ALREADY a tax break. People will be hired who can make money for the company, not as a favor to the government.


Things are better now that the so called free market is more regulated. People get paid more to survive, children are not recruited (in this country), and we have a middle class. Marx..........

No. Wages are falling and have been falling with respect to inflation for a long long time. 10 years ago we all got regular pay raises. Now, almost no one does. Every study shows a decreasing purchasing power for our middle class. Marx? Let's keep the subject on Obama. I don't know anything about Marx, and can not discuss what he may have thought....



The people who feel the rich always deserve more tax cuts and who argue that so called "job creators" should get a bigger tax cut didn't get voted in.

While that is true, it has nothing to do with your basic premise that Obama has created more jobs than Bush. And I will even agree with that, if you do not take into account that in Obama's economy there is a requirement of some 12 million more jobs than there were in 2000 when Bush first took office. In other words, Obama needs 12 million more jobs to re-create the employment picture that existed in 2000. And about 4 million more than there were when he took office. Figure about 1 million jobs a year increase just to break even with the population's needs.




............ but don't have one word to say against companies wanting bailouts.

Most of your post was just obfuscation as you attempted to change the subject away from your basic, "Obama is successful" statement, and I suggest you start another thread for that. But I need to point out that this forum is the one place in the world where member are almost universally opposed to bailouts! Most members here want to tear their hair out when the subject of bailouts comes up! On the particular issue of bailouts, most of us have excoriated Bush, Greenspan, Obama, Bernanke, and anyone else who participated. For you to say we "but don't have one word to say against companies wanting bailouts" is a ridiculous statement.

Starbuck
01-06-2013, 06:00 PM
Recovery is slow. It's even slower when the house is at odds with the senate and President about what to do. Hopefully, more people can get accepted into school and get a job. It's been brought up that people aren't getting hired due to th elack of skills.

People are not getting hired because they lack skills? You really believe that? People are not being hired for lots and lots of reasons but "lack of skills" is hardly a major factor. People are not getting hired because companies do not want more people.

Recovery is slow because the house is at odds with the President and the senate? Then why wasn't progress more rapid back when the house and the senate had a super majority? I can tell you the answer to that one: It's because the House, Senate and President all went the wrong way, that's why.

txradioguy
01-06-2013, 06:06 PM
Are you serious? You think I've sided with evil because I disagree with you? Please say you're not serious.

Communism is evil. So are the people that defend and promote it.

So...

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

txradioguy
01-06-2013, 06:08 PM
Typical Bridget...confused and upset that we don't buy into her socialist propaganda.

Must suck for her getting smacked with facts all the time.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

JB
01-06-2013, 07:06 PM
And with the way you...are acting in this thread...I replied to you with facts and you have a problem with that?

OK, from now on I'll just call you silly nicknames, deflect your comments and make all my responses to you on a personal level. You know, typical douchebag stuff.

Zathras
01-06-2013, 07:44 PM
Are you serious? You think I've sided with evil because I disagree with you? Please say you're not serious.

We think you've sided with evil because you don't seem to mind what the Empty Suit and his sidekick Captain Gaffer are doing to America with their policies. I also think you're a taker, not a maker, for the very same reason.

Lanie
01-06-2013, 07:57 PM
I think you have sided with evil because you have joined with Satan.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/MZ5jxQAn6K-6.png

Just for that, I'll eat a bacon sandwich to your face. lol.


Communism is evil. So are the people that defend and promote it.

So...

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

This isn't communism. We still have businesses and open markets. History shows that any time somebody came up with an idea to help those less fortunate (the New Deal, Medicare), there was always somebody there to claim it was communism.

How many times has this country worked with Britain, Australia, Israel, and others of a similar government? They all have set ups you all would consider to be communist.


I replied to you with facts and you have a problem with that?

OK, from now on I'll just call you silly nicknames, deflect your comments and make all my responses to you on a personal level. You know, typical douchebag stuff.

I think I responded to your facts. I'm talking about the fact that you told me to repent and find myself a conservative man. I don't want a conservative man, not if they're going to declare I'm evil. They can't declare that I'm evil unless we're role playing.

Lanie
01-06-2013, 08:02 PM
Tx, before I get back to Starbuck, I need to ask you about something.

A long time ago, you said that banning me would be like a Christmas present to you. Later on, you said you never advocated banning me. Now, you're saying I pretend to be conservative so nobody will ban me.

Please clarify your position. Do you want me banned or not? I just think you've been a little bit less than honest on this subject.

JB
01-06-2013, 08:03 PM
So, we've pulled out of Iraq. That should help keep us from getting more into debt. We're working on getting out of Afghanistan, which will do the same.No it won't. For crying out loud, you think that matters. The Democrats just added $4 Trillion to the debt over ten years just a few days ago.

Fredo wants unfettered access to the debt ceiling. He just said yesterday that he won't entertain any package two months from now that does not raise the debt ceiling. Turn off MSNBC and get the truth about what is happening in this country.

JB
01-06-2013, 08:05 PM
...not if they're going to declare I'm evil.No one declared you evil. Look back, someone said you were siding with evil. There's a difference. You can very easily not side with evil. You can't very easily unbecome being evil. Roger? :cool:

Lanie
01-06-2013, 08:23 PM
A company is not going to hire a permanent employee in return for a temporary tax break. For that matter, what the employer pays the employee is ALREADY a tax break. People will be hired who can make money for the company, not as a favor to the government.

I don't know if I can agree with that, Star. I've read where so called corporate welfare (tax break for companies) lead out to more jobs being created. Employers argue they can't hire or keep workers due to taxes. Bush said from the beginning these tax cuts were not permanent. I think that sometimes a tax break does lead out to job growth, not aways though.

I've been told straight out "I didn't start a company to create jobs." That was said to me by one of the most good looking conservative men who ever posted on here. Oh well. Anyway, we're trying to keep the entire country afloat. Romney had the nerve to say that he thought his paying less taxes was fair because he was supposedly still a job creator. Why should we go out of our way to please the companies when they're saying all along that they're not doing what they do to create jobs? My concerns are the country as a whole, not pleasing one group of people. Why should we go out of our way for people who take their jobs overseas? They put people out of work, then complain because people sign up for social programs.

I've actually supported so called "corporate welfare" in the past because it did show to create jobs. If I think it will support the country as a whole, then I'll probably support it.



No. Wages are falling and have been falling with respect to inflation for a long long time. 10 years ago we all got regular pay raises.

We've had a rough ten years (and only four of them were under Obama). However, my point stands. If we didn't put some rules regarding how much we had to pay an employee, we'd still have people getting paid for pennies. Okay, they might get paid dollars.


Now, almost no one does. Every study shows a decreasing purchasing power for our middle class. Marx? Let's keep the subject on Obama. I don't know anything about Marx, and can not discuss what he may have thought....

Okay, here's what you need to know. He lived during a time period when employers exploited their workers. There were no safety standards, no standards about age of employees, and no wage standards. People could very well get badly hurt or even die for a job they got paid little to nothing for. Stuff like this lead out to some horrible ideas, and Marx was one of those people who had a horrible idea about what to do. FDR and other progressives had better ideas. Regulate business and create a safety net. This helped people work their way into what we now call the middle class. That's the point I was trying to make.



While that is true, it has nothing to do with your basic premise that Obama has created more jobs than Bush. And I will even agree with that, if you do not take into account that in Obama's economy there is a requirement of some 12 million more jobs than there were in 2000 when Bush first took office. In other words, Obama needs 12 million more jobs to re-create the employment picture that existed in 2000. And about 4 million more than there were when he took office. Figure about 1 million jobs a year increase just to break even with the population's needs.

I still think he could get more done if he didn't have to deal with a Republican house. I really wish we could have gotten a matching President and House/Senate, even if it meant Romney winning and Republicans taking completely over. At least they would have been able to work together for solutions.



Most of your post was just obfuscation as you attempted to change the subject away from your basic, "Obama is successful" statement, and I suggest you start another thread for that.

You brought up the mortgage crisis. In turn, I brought up the fact that banks were relying on bailouts by the government instead of renegotiating with those who were struggling or better yet, not making those deals to begin with. They did what they did because they knew the government would bail them out. They're not held responsible for their actions.




But I need to point out that this forum is the one place in the world where member are almost universally opposed to bailouts! Most members here want to tear their hair out when the subject of bailouts comes up! On the particular issue of bailouts, most of us have excoriated Bush, Greenspan, Obama, Bernanke, and anyone else who participated. For you to say we "but don't have one word to say against companies wanting bailouts" is a ridiculous statement.

People here wouldn't support the great bailout, which actually saved a lot of jobs. Consequently, I support that because people needed to keep their jobs; maybe not so much with the auto industry.

However, whenever people are getting their homes foreclosed, you all are like "Well, they should have kept their payments up." It's never "The bank is unethical for making deals they know the other guy couldn't keep, relying on bail outs." If you have something bad to say, it's almost always about the little guy, not the bigger guy.

Lanie
01-06-2013, 08:24 PM
No one declared you evil. Look back, someone said you were siding with evil. There's a difference. You can very easily not side with evil. You can't very easily unbecome being evil. Roger? :cool:

Roger. I'm not siding with evil though. Sheesh.

Lanie
01-06-2013, 08:26 PM
No it won't. For crying out loud, you think that matters. The Democrats just added $4 Trillion to the debt over ten years just a few days ago.

Fredo wants unfettered access to the debt ceiling. He just said yesterday that he won't entertain any package two months from now that does not raise the debt ceiling. Turn off MSNBC and get the truth about what is happening in this country.


I don't agree with raising the debt ceiling.

Don't you think that higher taxes would help out with paying the debt? Everybody is so against raising taxes. How do you expect to pay for anything?

patriot45
01-06-2013, 08:36 PM
I don't agree with raising the debt ceiling.

Don't you think that higher taxes would help out with paying the debt? Everybody is so against raising taxes. How do you expect to pay for anything?

Duh, here on Earth we know that higher taxes are not going to be used to pay down debt. It will be used to get more losers to vote DUmmy. Stop spending on the moochers!

JB
01-06-2013, 08:37 PM
I'm not siding with evil though.The second you side with a Democrat anywhere, you are. ;)


Don't you think that higher taxes would help out with paying the debt?For a year Fredo campaigned on "The top 2% should pay more taxes". His BS got him reelected. He just raised taxes on 80+% of the country. He lied. He's a liar. A scumbag. He's evil.

The thing is, these new taxes and these existing taxes that have just been raised are not going to pay for the debt. You tell me how the new 3.8% tax to pay for Fredocare is going to pay down the debt.


Everybody is so against raising taxes. How do you expect to pay for anything?Let's try cutting spending. Let's not run yearly deficits of $1.2 Trillion.

Madisonian
01-06-2013, 09:27 PM
Everyone, including our dear Lanie, points to 2007 as the start of the recent fall in our economy.
Now for the history majors out there, what event in American politics took place in January 2007 which again, almost every economic graph confirms, coincides with this date?

For some help, here is the U6 graph.

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75|bg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1, 6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9. 6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8, 10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2, 10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7, 9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8. 7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1, 7.9,8.4,8.2,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8. 8,9.2,9.0,9.1,9.2,9.7,10.1,10.5,10.8,11.1,11.8,12. 7,13.5,14.2,15.1,15.7,15.8,16.4,16.5,16.5,16.7,16. 8,17.2,17.1,17.1,16.7,16.9,16.9,17.0,16.6,16.5,16. 5,16.6,16.9,16.8,16.9,16.6,16.1,15.9,15.7,15.9,15. 8,16.2,16.1,16.2,16.4,16.0,15.6,15.2,15.1,14.9,14. 5,14.5,14.8,14.9,15.0,14.7,14.7,14.5,14.4,14.4&chds=-0,20&chg=7.6923076923076925,10,7.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:|||||||||||2001|||||||||||||||||||||2003||| ||||||||||||||||||2005|||||||||||||||||||||2007||| ||||||||||||||||||2009|||||||||||||||||||||2011||| ||||||||||||||||||||1:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20 |2:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20

JB
01-06-2013, 09:35 PM
...what event in American politics took place in January 2007...I know they gave 110 percent in trashing the country they did.

Molon Labe
01-06-2013, 10:05 PM
Over 88 to 100 million people not in the work force. How again is this administration creating jobs?

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/there-are-100-million-working-age-americans-that-do-not-have-jobs


. According to the Federal Reserve, the number of unemployed workers in America is currently 12,673,000. If you dig deeper into the numbers you quickly see that this is not true. A lot of those workers that were formerly classified as "unemployed" have now been moved into the "not in labor force" category. Since the start of the last recession, the number of Americans not in the labor force has risen by more than 8 million according to the Obama administration. The total number of working age Americans not in the labor force now stands at 87,897,000....



So when you add 12,673,000 and 87,897,000, you get a total of 100,570,000 working age Americans that do not have jobs.

Yes, there are certainly millions upon millions of working age Americans that do not have jobs and that do not want jobs.

But you have to be delusional to believe that there are nearly 88 million working age Americans that do not have jobs and that do not want jobs
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Not-In-Labor-Force.png


12,500,000 unemployed workers plus 88,419,000 Americans that are "not in the labor force" equals 100,919,000 working age Americans that do not have jobs.

txradioguy
01-07-2013, 03:41 AM
This isn't communism. We still have businesses and open markets. History shows that any time somebody came up with an idea to help those less fortunate (the New Deal, Medicare), there was always somebody there to claim it was communism.

The New Deal and Medicare...part of the Great Society were HUGE leaps towards Communism. Obama is trying to take us left in a way that hasn't been tried since FDR and LBJ.

No the way markets are regulated it's not open and free...it's cronyism on the level of China.

You yourself said you were glad the "free" market was more regulated.

Both can't operate at the same time in the same space.

What you and 44 and the rest of the Libs are wanting...CRAVING is Communism.

And that is evil.


How many times has this country worked with Britain, Australia, Israel, and others of a similar government? They all have set ups you all would consider to be communist.

No they have givernments based in Socialism. And all three work of parlimentary systems of Government. Big difference.

Not surprised as a techer you failt to notice the difference.




I think I responded to your facts. I'm talking about the fact that you told me to repent and find myself a conservative man. I don't want a conservative man, not if they're going to declare I'm evil. They can't declare that I'm evil unless we're role playing.

No decent Conservative man would date you...so you don't have to worry about that.

RobJohnson
01-07-2013, 06:20 AM
You know what my first job was coming out of college? It last a few weeks. Trying to talk people into financing for a house when they probably couldn't get it because of their credit. If they could get it, the interest would be way too high. My own boss admitted it was bull, and I had to leave. Bush could have tried to regulate some of it, but he didn't.



The unemployment rate is higher partially because of extended benefits. Otherwise, they'd be considered discouraged workers and not counting on the charts, just like some of them did under Bush. Thousands of jobs were being lost a month under Bush by the end. That's not growth. We didn't want more years of Bush's economical ideas.




The tax cut for social security taxes expired. I don't mind this because we keep talking about saving social security. Why would we be taking money out of it to give people a tax break? Social Security is NOT an entitlement. The elderly worked their entire lives. They deserve it. At least I know where my money is going on this one. That's more than I can say when I pay taxes in my conservative state. I have no clue where that goes.



Actually, mine personally went up. For the first time ever, I've been working a job with middle class wages. That didn't happen under Bush. I don't know how many times I was told under Bush to be thankful I even had my minimum wage job.




Which Bush started by putting a war on the credit card. Whoever heard of lowering taxes during a war? Higher taxes can go toward paying off some of the debt. BTW, Republicans are not helping when they insist on money for the military that they don't ask for. So, we've pulled out of Iraq. That should help keep us from getting more into debt. We're working on getting out of Afghanistan, which will do the same. And no, I'm not saying defund the military, but they're not even asking for that money. Republicans were not helping when they put our federal money into abstinience only programs years ago.




But be honest, who were the house fighting so hard for? It was NOT for 80% of the country. It was for the rich.




You act like we started the class warfare. Reagan started it when he wrongly labeled people as welfare queens (when most of them were really single mothers trying to survive). Bush claimed that we just wanted to punish the rich for being rich. Romney claimed we all just wanted to mooch. I think the Republicans started this crap. Don't pretend your side is innocent.




What I want is a balanced approach where we pay taxes to help the debt. Give tax breaks where it's needed. That would be the poor, but it would also be to companies promising to hire more people or at least not let go of who they have. I want an approach that keeps companies from going overseas. I want regulation in our companies, but not too far.

I want so called entitlement programs, but I also want more programs helping people get off of them. Bush didn't fight for that. Obama did. He encouraged more education to help people get the skills they need to get a job.


So to sum it up, everything bad that ever happened in your life was Bush's fault.

Your posts are so full of lies I won't waste my time.


I also want more programs helping people get off of them. Bush didn't fight for that. Obama did. He encouraged more education to help people get the skills they need to get a job

Clinton made people work or go to college to continue getting welfare benefits. Obama stopped this.

Stop with the lies.....

Oh yeah....your lies are Bush's fault. :evil-grin:

Lanie
01-07-2013, 09:24 AM
No decent Conservative man would date you...so you don't have to worry about that.



You weren't desent enough to answer my question. lol.

You are so a waste of time.

LukeEDay
01-07-2013, 09:26 AM
Everyone, including our dear Lanie, points to 2007 as the start of the recent fall in our economy.
Now for the history majors out there, what event in American politics took place in January 2007 which again, almost every economic graph confirms, coincides with this date?

For some help, here is the U6 graph.

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75|bg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1, 6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9. 6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8, 10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2, 10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7, 9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8. 7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1, 7.9,8.4,8.2,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8. 8,9.2,9.0,9.1,9.2,9.7,10.1,10.5,10.8,11.1,11.8,12. 7,13.5,14.2,15.1,15.7,15.8,16.4,16.5,16.5,16.7,16. 8,17.2,17.1,17.1,16.7,16.9,16.9,17.0,16.6,16.5,16. 5,16.6,16.9,16.8,16.9,16.6,16.1,15.9,15.7,15.9,15. 8,16.2,16.1,16.2,16.4,16.0,15.6,15.2,15.1,14.9,14. 5,14.5,14.8,14.9,15.0,14.7,14.7,14.5,14.4,14.4&chds=-0,20&chg=7.6923076923076925,10,7.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:|||||||||||2001|||||||||||||||||||||2003||| ||||||||||||||||||2005|||||||||||||||||||||2007||| ||||||||||||||||||2009|||||||||||||||||||||2011||| ||||||||||||||||||||1:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20 |2:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20

Yep, and the Dem congress is responsible for it. But yet they are insisting it was the Repub congress that did it.

Lanie
01-07-2013, 10:46 AM
So to sum it up, everything bad that ever happened in your life was Bush's fault.

Your posts are so full of lies I won't waste my time.



Clinton made people work or go to college to continue getting welfare benefits. Obama stopped this.

Stop with the lies.....

Oh yeah....your lies are Bush's fault. :evil-grin:

Considering the fact that you twisted the words of my post, I'd say you're the liar.

I guess if you personally blame Obama for something, then you're blaming everything bad that ever happened in your life on him.

My point was that this idea that everybody's wages went down under Obama is bull. Mine went up for the past year.

As for Obama and college.

http://www.prlog.org/10644608-obama-encourages-moms-to-go-back-to-school-get-10000-free-to-go-to-college.html

Who is mostly on welfare? Single moms.

I'll answer some of the others later. That is if they know how to debate without getting personal.

txradioguy
01-07-2013, 10:24 PM
You weren't desent enough to answer my question. lol.

There was a question in all that babbling?


You are so a waste of time.

Feelings mutual.

txradioguy
01-07-2013, 10:25 PM
Considering the fact that you twisted the words of my post, I'd say you're the liar.



Gotcha...so now quoting you is akin to twisting your words?

Typical Libtard.

NJCardFan
01-08-2013, 12:01 AM
Duh, here on Earth we know that higher taxes are not going to be used to pay down debt. It will be used to get more losers to vote DUmmy. Stop spending on the moochers!

Precisely. As Jim Rohn put it, "If you rob Peter to give to Paul, you will always have the support of Paul." This is exactly how Obama got re-elected.

LukeEDay
01-08-2013, 12:23 AM
Duh, here on Earth we know that higher taxes are not going to be used to pay down debt. It will be used to get more losers to vote DUmmy. Stop spending on the moochers!

Here, here.

Lanie
01-08-2013, 01:13 AM
There was a question in all that babbling?



Feelings mutual.


I should never have to repeat myself.

I want clarification.

You once said that my being banned would be a Christmas present to you. You later said you never advocated my getting banned. Now, you ramble about how I supposedly pretend to be a conservative to keep from getting banned. You talk about my being banned again.

Not that you have a say so, but which is it? BTW, I will be recording the answer for a later date when you flip flop again. Freakin flip flopper.

txradioguy
01-08-2013, 02:08 AM
I should never have to repeat myself.

I want clarification.

You once said that my being banned would be a Christmas present to you. You later said you never advocated my getting banned. Now, you ramble about how I supposedly pretend to be a conservative to keep from getting banned. You talk about my being banned again.

Both are correct. There is a difference between the two that I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between.

You getting the boot WOULD be a Christmas present for me...but even when you've been at your absolute worst I've never EVER campaigned to have you banned. Not even when I was a mod.

You'll end up doing it on your own at some point.

You go tend to reveal just enough of your Liberal ignorance to let us now your claim of being "moderate" is an act. You pretend to be moderate to keep from being banned as the troll you really are.

What's so hard to understand?

You're tolerated here only for your entertainment value more than anything. An example of the liberal mindset kept on display as a reminder of what not to be like.



Not that you have a say so, but which is it? BTW, I will be recording the answer for a later date when you flip flop again. Freakin flip flopper.

Record away you ignorant assclown.

You never have nor will you ever catch me pulling one of your stunts and flip flopping on anything.

How many times now have you said you were leaving for good only to come back a few months later?

What is it 4-5 times now?

Accused anyone of needing psych help then lying about the fact that you did?

Better clean up your own fucking back yard Bridget before you go making accusations about others.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Starbuck
01-08-2013, 03:27 AM
Why should Lanie never have to repeat herself? All the rest of us do. Maybe Lanie is not aware that people do not hang on to her every word.:smile-new:

RobJohnson
01-11-2013, 12:34 AM
But I thought POTUS said the "Shovel Ready" jobs were there and then they weren't. Probably the BFEE!!! :biggrin-new:

Even the President admits that his shovel ready jobs were not shovel ready.....yet the tax payers will be paying for them for years.

Rockntractor
01-11-2013, 12:40 AM
Even the President admits that his shovel ready jobs were not shovel ready.....yet the tax payers will be paying for them for years.

The shovels will come out when the death panels come in, actually Lanie's party and their record breaking abortions have already got the shovels out burying dead babies that will never walk their first steps.

Rockntractor
01-11-2013, 12:41 AM
The Democrat party, turning our future into medical waste.
I'm sure lot's of jobs have been opened up by Obama running these incinerators.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/n_005.gif

RobJohnson
01-11-2013, 12:58 AM
Considering the fact that you twisted the words of my post, I'd say you're the liar.

I guess if you personally blame Obama for something, then you're blaming everything bad that ever happened in your life on him.

My point was that this idea that everybody's wages went down under Obama is bull. Mine went up for the past year.

As for Obama and college.

http://www.prlog.org/10644608-obama-encourages-moms-to-go-back-to-school-get-10000-free-to-go-to-college.html

Who is mostly on welfare? Single moms.

I'll answer some of the others later. That is if they know how to debate without getting personal.

Everyone that knows me, knows you hit the nail on the head, I am just a liar.

You can dance around the facts all you want. College is an option for those on welfare. Under Clinton and Bush it was MANDATORY....those on benefits either had to work, or go to school......there was finacial aid available then, just like there is now.


The welfare reform law was very successful. In the four decades prior to welfare reform, the welfare caseload never experienced a significant decline. But, in the four years after welfare reform, the caseload dropped by nearly half. Employment surged and child poverty among blacks and single mothers plummeted to historic lows. What was the catalyst for these improvements? Rigorous new federal work requirements contained in TANF.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309300/obama-ends-welfare-reform-we-know-it-robert-rector#


I get a raise every year. The 3% for this year will help cover the 2.2% in the payroll tax increase, and my higher deductable & cost on my health coverage. I will still come up short. When you do the math, is it really a raise?


My point was that this idea that everybody's wages went down under Obama is bull. Mine went up for the past year.

If this was your point....why was it not the title of your OP?

NJCardFan
01-11-2013, 02:43 AM
Thankfully my step increase kicks in this year because both my health insurance is going up(to over $200 per month) and my taxes have already gone up.

RobJohnson
01-11-2013, 03:11 AM
Thankfully my step increase kicks in this year because both my health insurance is going up(to over $200 per month) and my taxes have already gone up.

I live where Harry Reid does all he can to keep people from working. It keeps people voting for his party and the free shit.

Highest unemployment in the United States.....Nevada.

txradioguy
01-11-2013, 04:10 AM
1.7% pay raise for me...2% rise in FICA tax.

RobJohnson
01-14-2013, 06:06 AM
1.7% pay raise for me...2% rise in FICA tax.

That's fucked up.

I have one less facebook friend due to this thread. Liberals don't last long on my facebook page. They should see my twitter feed. :evil-grin:

txradioguy
01-14-2013, 09:16 AM
That's fucked up.

I have one less facebook friend due to this thread. Liberals don't last long on my facebook page. They should see my twitter feed. :evil-grin:

Yeah and we're paying more for gas than back in the states and AAFES is looking at raising their prices about the same percentage as what our raise was this year too.

Rockntractor
01-14-2013, 10:19 AM
My goal is to someday reach poverty level, it is a tough climb but someday we'll make it.

Lanie
01-14-2013, 03:00 PM
That's fucked up.

I have one less facebook friend due to this thread. Liberals don't last long on my facebook page. They should see my twitter feed. :evil-grin:

Well, perhaps if you didn't call me a liar, I wouldn't have gotten nasty. Your loss.

And BTW, people need to stop being hypocrites (both sides). If you want social security to be saved, step number one is to put money into it. Lunch is not free.

Starbuck
01-14-2013, 03:21 PM
Well, perhaps if you didn't call me a liar, I wouldn't have gotten nasty. Your loss.

And BTW, people need to stop being hypocrites (both sides). If you want social security to be saved, step number one is to put money into it. Lunch is not free.

Some truth to that, but we've all got a suspicion that our lunch money is being used for things other than buying our lunch. Go hunting for who spent it, and George W's name comes up along with some others. Some sources exonerate Clinton because he presided over a growing economy (the dot com economy), others are not so charitable.
Whatever. It's no longer in the bank. And that's where you are right; we gotta add to it.

So. Knowing that, where do you stand on government spending and the debt ceiling?

Lanie
01-14-2013, 06:11 PM
Some truth to that, but we've all got a suspicion that our lunch money is being used for things other than buying our lunch. Go hunting for who spent it, and George W's name comes up along with some others. Some sources exonerate Clinton because he presided over a growing economy (the dot com economy), others are not so charitable.
Whatever. It's no longer in the bank. And that's where you are right; we gotta add to it.

So. Knowing that, where do you stand on government spending and the debt ceiling?

That's a tough call, and I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I fear that raising the debt ceiling too much more will make the economy crash. OTOH, I fear that letting over two million people go without will not only lead out to more hungry and homeless people, but could lead out to a crash (because bills will not get paid). I do think as long as we have these programs, we'll have to pay some more taxes. There is no way we can have medicare, social security, and other programs to help others with taxes constantly cut. There's no way we'll be able to pay the debt with taxes always being cut. Even with goods, if taxes are raised, people are throwing a fit.

The Democrat solution is to just tax the rich. It's not going to work because the rich just can't be taxed enough. What the majority of voters want is this safety net without paying for it. It can't happen.

RobJohnson
01-14-2013, 10:57 PM
Well, perhaps if you didn't call me a liar, I wouldn't have gotten nasty. Your loss.

And BTW, people need to stop being hypocrites (both sides). If you want social security to be saved, step number one is to put money into it. Lunch is not free.


If you want to give President Obama a free pass for lying about the tax cuts, that is fine.

Unless the system is privatized and I have control of my contributions, I won't ever see a penny of social security in the first place.

RobJohnson
01-14-2013, 11:06 PM
It's not going to work because the rich just can't be taxed enough. What the majority of voters want is this safety net without paying for it. It can't happen.

More taxes? Taxes destroy jobs.

Yesterday's safety nets have turned into lifetime hammocks for millions of Americans.

I think it would just be easier if everyone that was able to work for a living, did so.

It does make it a little harder for liberals to buy votes.

RobJohnson
01-14-2013, 11:09 PM
Yeah and we're paying more for gas than back in the states and AAFES is looking at raising their prices about the same percentage as what our raise was this year too.

Those that serve our nation seem to get screwed first. Sucks.

Starbuck
01-15-2013, 12:22 AM
Sounds to me like checkmate.

If we raise taxes, jobs will suffer, and the economy won't grow.
And the economy can't grow unless we cut taxes so that everyone can spend more.
I don't think taxing the rich will have any effect, one way or the other.

Checkmate.

It is the same thing that happened in Japan. They used to be on top of the world, but spent too much borrowed money and outran their ability to pay it back when their economy stopped growing about 20 years ago.

Only this time, I think, it's going to effect the entire world; there is not a growing economy left. We are all checkmated.

What now?

Rockntractor
01-15-2013, 12:35 AM
Sounds to me like checkmate.

If we raise taxes, jobs will suffer, and the economy won't grow.
And the economy can't grow unless we cut taxes so that everyone can spend more.
I don't think taxing the rich will have any effect, one way or the other.

Checkmate.

It is the same thing that happened in Japan. They used to be on top of the world, but spent too much borrowed money and outran their ability to pay it back when their economy stopped growing about 20 years ago.

Only this time, I think, it's going to effect the entire world; there is not a growing economy left. We are all checkmated.

What now?

You do what individuals used to do only at the government level. You only spend on bare essentials, I can't take a government seriously that pays 425.00 per gal. for diesel made from algae when the going rate for diesel is only 3.50 per gallon, Obama is not even trying to cut back.


In October 2010 the Navy purchased 20,055 gallons of algae biofuel at an eye-watering cost of $424/gallon.
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/U.S.-Military-Biofuels-Survives-Republican-Congressional-Euthanasia-Attempt.html

RobJohnson
01-15-2013, 03:14 AM
You do what individuals used to do only at the government level. You only spend on bare essentials, I can't take a government seriously that pays 425.00 per gal. for diesel made from algae when the going rate for diesel is only 3.50 per gallon, Obama is not even trying to cut back.


In October 2010 the Navy purchased 20,055 gallons of algae biofuel at an eye-watering cost of $424/gallon.
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/U.S.-Military-Biofuels-Survives-Republican-Congressional-Euthanasia-Attempt.html

The green spending is out of control.

If they want to waste some money, why don't they try and get the price of diesel down?

Starbuck
01-15-2013, 02:24 PM
The green spending is out of control.

If they want to waste some money, why don't they try and get the price of diesel down?

Dunno about the price of diesel, but I really don't think it's going down.

Fact is, it costs an average of 80$ to get a barrel of oil out of the ground. That's 44 gal to the barrel, and in that 44 gallon barrel is about 20 gallons of gas, and 10 of diesel. Than, a lot of other things.

But I do believe that diesel trucks will some day run on liquified natural gas, and that day is not far off. The refueling stations are being built in the truck stops by Clean Air (CLNE) and natural gas powered big engines are being outfitted by Westport (WPRT), and both companies are well along on the project. So it's no longer just a dream.

Good news is, the free market is doing this on its own. The government will be along later to screw with it.

Retread
01-15-2013, 09:44 PM
What I haven't seen yet is a road tax on LNG. If there is, it will go up. If there isn't, it won't be long until there is.

Couple of farm kids from home converted their '57 Chevy to LPG. LPG was only used on the farms for the tractors and such so there was no highway tax. Kids drove virtually free compared to us gasoline users.

RobJohnson
01-19-2013, 04:36 AM
What I haven't seen yet is a road tax on LNG. If there is, it will go up. If there isn't, it won't be long until there is.

Couple of farm kids from home converted their '57 Chevy to LPG. LPG was only used on the farms for the tractors and such so there was no highway tax. Kids drove virtually free compared to us gasoline users.

My grandparents did this years ago on a full size van they owned. My grandfather was a WWII vet and it was a very long haul from rural IL to Iowa City, IA for his montly appointments. LPG burns very clean inside the engine. Several taxi companies were doing this and so were the Schwans delivery trucks.

My grandparents had a tank and a pump so they could fuel up at home. No one close to where they lived sold LPG for vehicles

Starbuck
01-19-2013, 11:11 AM
.............My grandparents had a tank and a pump so they could fuel up at home. No one close to where they lived sold LPG for vehicles....
Honda Civic Natural Gas can be fueled by a device they are calling the Phill, which takes natural gas from your home supply and fuels the car overnight. It takes overnight to fuel up because gas pressure inside the home is only around 1/4 PSI.
http://http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2011/03/brc-fuelmaker-again-selling-phill-home-cng-fuel-station.html

RobJohnson
01-19-2013, 05:25 PM
Honda Civic Natural Gas can be fueled by a device they are calling the Phill, which takes natural gas from your home supply and fuels the car overnight. It takes overnight to fuel up because gas pressure inside the home is only around 1/4 PSI.
http://http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2011/03/brc-fuelmaker-again-selling-phill-home-cng-fuel-station.html

I remember a few years ago car makers trying ideas like this. If you can only fuel up at home, I just don't see those types of vehicles catching on. The exception would be fleet vehicles that have a scheduled amount of daily downtime.


"Sorry son, I can't take you to practice right now, the Honda won't be full until morning."

Starbuck
01-19-2013, 10:12 PM
I remember a few years ago car makers trying ideas like this. If you can only fuel up at home, I just don't see those types of vehicles catching on. The exception would be fleet vehicles that have a scheduled amount of daily downtime.


"Sorry son, I can't take you to practice right now, the Honda won't be full until morning."

Yeah. I remember seeing it years ago, and it just never caught on. It's going slow now, too, but Honda has their car out, California has some 150 refueling sites, and nationwide there are about 1000.

And the savings for car owners isn't there today, either; the price for a Gas Gallon Equivalent is 2.89, so it's not worth paying extra what with the inconvenience, and all. But that's just TODAY. Start another war; price of oil goes up; all bets are off.

Fleet vehicles are catching on, big time. Clean Air, who refuels most of them, will report about 340 million in sales this year.
And cars may never catch on. They may run on gas forever.
Big trucks, will, though. There is 1.50 a gallon difference in price between diesel and LNG (Liquified Natural Gas), and since 18 wheelers use 20,000 of fuel/year and run for 1,000,000 miles (7 years) or more the difference is attractive.

I am hoping Obama and Co. will stay out of it. A far stretch, I know, but I am hopeful. We sure as hell don't want him in there "creating jobs".:biggrin-new:

Rockntractor
01-19-2013, 10:20 PM
Yeah. I remember seeing it years ago, and it just never caught on. It's going slow now, too, but Honda has their car out, California has some 150 refueling sites, and nationwide there are about 1000.

And the savings for car owners isn't there today, either; the price for a Gas Gallon Equivalent is 2.89, so it's not worth paying extra what with the inconvenience, and all. But that's just TODAY. Start another war; price of oil goes up; all bets are off.

Fleet vehicles are catching on, big time. Clean Air, who refuels most of them, will report about 340 million in sales this year.
And cars may never catch on. They may run on gas forever.
Big trucks, will, though. There is 1.50 a gallon difference in price between diesel and LNG (Liquified Natural Gas), and since 18 wheelers use 20,000 of fuel/year and run for 1,000,000 miles (7 years) or more the difference is attractive.

I am hoping Obama and Co. will stay out of it. A far stretch, I know, but I am hopeful. We sure as hell don't want him in there "creating jobs".:biggrin-new:

There is not as much energy in a gallon of LNG as a gallon of diesel, unless you have your own gas well it will cost you more to operate.
I have a propane powered truck and all i would need is a different tank to use LNG instead of propane, there is even less power in LNG than the propane so I would not save a dime. As it is the propane truck stays parked almost all the time, I get less than half the miles per dollar of operating cost with it.

Starbuck
01-20-2013, 12:17 PM
There is not as much energy in a gallon of LNG as a gallon of diesel, unless you have your own gas well it will cost you more to operate.
True. That's why LNG is sold in Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) units.


I have a propane powered truck and all i would need is a different tank to use LNG instead of propane,
True again. Sort of. The tanks are being manufactured by Westport Manufacturing, as are the engine controls.
http://www.westport.com/news/2012/westport-announces-advanced-lng-tank-system-for-natural-gas-trucks
But to compete with heavy duty applications, the truck would have to act and feel just like a diesel fuel powered truck. It would have to go 700 miles between fill-ups and have all the power I had in my DD-15. To meet that requirement, there is a 15 liter High Pressure Direct Injection (HPDI) based on the Cummins ISX. Shipment of the fully developed LNG trucks will start in 2013.

If you go to Clean Air, you will see where they have partnered with Flying J and Pilot to establish refueling facilities. They built 70 of them in 2012 (on standby, since the trucks are not out yet), and will build another 70 in 2013. T/A truckstops has a different partner, but they are doing the same thing.

I think as soon as the trucks prove themselves to be more profitable than the diesel fuel trucks the industry will make a huge shift. Maybe, 2015 (?) After all, we're talking a 15-20 cent per mile advantage.

Here's another CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/us/trucking-gas-future/index.html

And all without Obama's help.:smile-new:

DumbAss Tanker
01-20-2013, 12:28 PM
Hey Lanie - even a prize moonbat like The Masturbating Nematode sees the holes in that BS and then futilely tries to spin it to save face for his The Deified One:


TheMastersNemesis (1,862 posts)

In Reality The Job Market Is Shrinking And So Are Wages



Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:40 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

You really cannot blame Obama for it but the job market is shrinking as it grows. And the brutal truth that the MSM is deliberately ignoring is that FULL TIME jobs are disappearing and being replaced by PART TIME, TEMPORARY and CONTRACT JOBS. The end of the full time job more most American workers is approaching. And it is a creation of big business and corporate CEOs to feather their nests at the expense of worker who create their wealth for them.

When the business community talks about multiple careers that are not just talking about 7 0r 8 careers in a lifetime they are talking about 3 or 4 careers at that same time. That is they are talking about 3 or 4 different part time jobs that might be totally different careers. The dirt is in the details.

Welcome to the new Reagan economy when all this mayhem was hatched. If old way of employing people are NOT coming back as the business mantra goes our youth are screwed and so are we.

It is the fault of the worker who continues to accept the business rhetorical tripe. By staying anti labor and anti union for so long and refusing to vote for more progressive agendas, the working class is dooming itself. Conservative attitudes toward labor policy is what has allowed business and industry to create the "RAW DEAL" that has replaced the original "SOCIAL CONTRACT" where workers got a fairer share of the wealth they create through full time secure and long term employment.

That is the only way that workers have chance to build a decent life for themselves and their families.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022222382

:biggrin-new::biggrin-new::biggrin-new: